# Sexual Misconduct Allegations in The CAF



## SupersonicMax

Given the number of allegations of misconduct amongst the General Officer population, I figured it warranted its own thread.  Here’s one more, this time, CMP.



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-commander-haydn-edmundson-past-allegations-no-charges-laid-1.5941384?fbclid=IwAR060-2o6gTyvr0Xshxhxs6LGyLs_fgWA910v0wa5wQ5Tfva5fZUGJVGPP8


----------



## Navy_Pete

For ref, quick Google search shows we have about 136 GOFOs according to the CAF (which seems like a lot) if anyone is curious about the incident rate for the population.

https://www.canada.ca/en/department...taff-as-part-of-the-2020-canadian-armed-.html

Nice to see Mr. Drapeau got his talking head points in there though. I'm assuming he has a monthly quota of news reports to comment on.


----------



## Edward Campbell

And here's another: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mi...allegations-no-charges-laid-1.5941384?cmp=rss VAdm Edmundson is facing allegations of inappropriate conduct, including suggestive comments, unwanted sexual advances, predatory behaviour and relationships with female subordinates in the late 1990s.


----------



## medicineman

Edward Campbell said:


> And here's another: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mi...allegations-no-charges-laid-1.5941384?cmp=rss VAdm Edmundson is facing allegations of inappropriate conduct, including suggestive comments, unwanted sexual advances, predatory behaviour and relationships with female subordinates in the late 1990s.


He was CO REG when my wife was posted there...not surprised given some of the stuff she told me and I'd actually seen.   Maybe she should give the investigator a call... 🍿


----------



## Weinie

medicineman said:


> He was CO REG when my wife was posted there...not surprised given some of the stuff she told me and I'd actually seen.   Maybe she should give the investigator a call... 🍿


Line up. This is one of the allegations that is going to have legs


----------



## OldSolduer

Weinie said:


> Line up. This is one of the allegations that is going to have legs


I'm a bit disturbed (not surprised) by the tomfoolery in the GOFO ranks - and those that indulge in this sort of behavior actually ruin it for the good ones. I think there are stormy seas ahead.


----------



## medicineman

OldSolduer said:


> I'm a bit disturbed (not surprised) by the tomfoolery in the GOFO ranks - and those that indulge in this sort of behavior actually ruin it for the good ones. I think there are stormy seas ahead.


The issue at hand here with this guy is stuff he did as a LCdr...and then likely continued as he went forward as he got let off those complaints - they tend to keep up with the nonsense because they got away with it and or they're protected.  The other issue is the attitudes of a Commander reflect in their command...I can discuss offline if you like.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Commanding officers interfered in sexual assault investigations, retired military police officer says​Link


> A former military police officer says he faced commanding officers who interfered in his sexual assault cases and prosecutors who were reluctant to move forward with charges within the Canadian Armed Forces' justice system.


----------



## MilEME09

Jarnhamar said:


> Commanding officers interfered in sexual assault investigations, retired military police officer says​Link


Well there goes any faith the public had in the military justice system, these allegations put into question if allegations were investigated properly.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

MilEME09 said:


> Well there goes any faith the public had in the military justice system, these allegations put into question if allegations were investigated properly.


Notwithstanding CO’s who do boneheaded things like attempt to interfere in an MP investigation (which could be a service offence all of it’s own, so why does the MP Group not lay charges against those people?)  every time it is suggested by various interests that we do away with the NDA and send all criminal investigations and charges downtown to the civilian system, people to be reminded that then there would be no way to handle cases that happen overseas on deployment- which is the whole point of the NDA. It gives the CAF a world wide system of discipline and justice.

Alleged sexual assualt in, say Afghanistan? the Criminal Code doesn’t apply outside Canada. So then you have two choices- ignore the assault or let the crime be investigated and charged by local forces. Let that sink in.

War Crimes? Well, I guess we have send that trial to the Hague to the International War Crimes Tribunal...

Even in Canada- two soldiers get into a scrap in the shacks. Do you really want to send then downtown to provincial court onto already overloaded docket?

There are possible reforms without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We need to maintain the ability to conduct trials and dispense justice on a worldwide basis, which means the system still has to be exercised in Canada. Here is what I would do:

-Create a military trials division of Federal Court. Once a military judge is appointed, they would get seconded to the Federal Court and operate under the supervision of the Chief Justice there. They would still be members of the CAF, but only nominally. That should take care of any suggestion that they are not independent.

-the MP Group should be blown up and rebuilt. Rather than trying to be the second best federal police force in Canada, I would have them focus on what should be their core functions: security, traffic control in the field and garrison, Regimental and unit policing for NDA (non-CCC) offences and POW handling. I would bring in the RCMP establish a Det on each base to replace CFNIS to handle all investigations of Criminal Code offences. That way, there is again no suggestion that the Chain of Command could possibly have any influence on them.


----------



## daftandbarmy

SeaKingTacco said:


> Notwithstanding CO’s who do boneheaded things like attempt to interfere in an MP investigation (which could be a service offence all of it’s own, so why does the MP Group not lay charges against those people?)  every time it is suggested by various interests that we do away with the NDA and send all criminal investigations and charges downtown to the civilian system, people to be reminded that then there would be no way to handle cases that happen overseas on deployment- which is the whole point of the NDA. It gives the CAF a world wide system of discipline and justice.
> 
> Alleged sexual assualt in, say Afghanistan? the Criminal Code doesn’t apply outside Canada. So then you have two choices- ignore the assault or let the crime be investigated and charged by local forces. Let that sink in.
> 
> War Crimes? Well, I guess we have send that trial to the Hague to the International War Crimes Tribunal...
> 
> Even in Canada- two soldiers get into a scrap in the shacks. Do you really want to send then downtown to provincial court onto already overloaded docket?
> 
> There are possible reforms without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We need to maintain the ability to conduct trials and dispense justice on a worldwide basis, which means the system still has to be exercised in Canada. Here is what I would do:
> 
> -Create a military trials division of Federal Court. Once a military judge is appointed, they would get seconded to the Federal Court and operate under the supervision of the Chief Justice there. They would still be members of the CAF, but only nominally. That should take care of any suggestion that they are not independent.
> 
> -the MP Group should be blown up and rebuilt. Rather than trying to be the second best federal police force in Canada, I would have them focus on what should be their core functions: security, traffic control in the field and garrison, Regimental and unit policing for NDA (non-CCC) offences and POW handling. I would bring in the RCMP establish a Det on each base to replace CFNIS to handle all investigations of Criminal Code offences. That way, there is again no suggestion that the Chain of Command could possibly have any influence on them.



Or you could just have a convenient, local, Hill in every garrison


----------



## brihard

SeaKingTacco said:


> War Crimes? Well, I guess we have send that trial to the Hague to the International War Crimes Tribunal...



War crimes are an offense under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. It essentially patriates and codifies the Rome Statute, and various customary international law such as the Geneva and Hague conventions, and other agreements Canada has ratified. Any war crime or crime against humanity may be prosecuted domestically if the perpetrator was a Canadian citizen, or if the perpetrator enters Canada, or if there’s a Canadian victim. In a hypothetical case of a CAF member committing a war crime, it could be investigated by the RCMP’s Sensitive and International Investigations unit - they have a team that handles any war crimes files - and prosecuted by PPSC under the CAHWCA. The investigation and prosecution of this class of offense, at least, could survive a lack of applicable military law.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

brihard said:


> War crimes are an offense under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. It essentially patriates and codifies the Rome Statute, and various customary international law such as the Geneva and Hague conventions, and other agreements Canada has ratified. Any war crime or crime against humanity may be prosecuted domestically if the perpetrator was a Canadian citizen, or if the perpetrator enters Canada, or if there’s a Canadian victim. In a hypothetical case of a CAF member committing a war crime, it could be investigated by the RCMP’s Sensitive and International Investigations unit - they have a team that handles any war crimes files - and prosecuted by PPSC under the CAHWCA. The investigation and prosecution of this class of offense, at least, could survive a lack of applicable military law.


Thanks for the clarification and correction, Brihard. I appreciate your expertise.

any other corrections that you would make to my suggestions?


----------



## blacktriangle

Jarnhamar said:


> Commanding officers interfered in sexual assault investigations, retired military police officer says​Link


I believe him 100%. He actually alluded to this before the current round of media scrutiny. Good on him for standing up, and speaking out.


----------



## Good2Golf

Jarnhamar said:


> Commanding officers interfered in sexual assault investigations, retired military police officer says​Link


Such COs should have been prosecuted for interfering in such investigations. To not hold them to account just reinforce unacceptable behaviour by leaders.  Frankly, they should still hold them to account as the NdA still applies, even if those COs are no longer serving. THAT would help change the culture.


----------



## YZT580

SeaKingTacco said:


> -the MP Group should be blown up and rebuilt. Rather than trying to be the second best federal police force in Canada, I would have them focus on what should be their core functions: security, traffic control in the field and garrison, Regimental and unit policing for NDA (non-CCC) offences and POW handling. I would bring in the RCMP establish a Det on each base to replace CFNIS to handle all investigations of Criminal Code offences. That way, there is again no suggestion that the Chain of Command could possibly have any influence on them.


With all the politics and scandal associated with RCMP right now do you really want to just add to your problems?


----------



## QV

This problem can be boiled down to one systemic issue:  Within the military, there is too much overlap between service offences and offences under the Criminal Code.  This includes how S. 130 NDA has been applied over the years.  S. 130 (1)(a) should be repealed.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Good2Golf said:


> Such COs should have been prosecuted for interfering in such investigations. To not *hold them to account *just reinforce unacceptable behaviour by leaders.  Frankly, they should still hold them to account as the NdA still applies, even if those COs are no longer serving. THAT would help change the culture.



It seems to me that, from LCol on up, there is a distinct lack of oversight/ accountability/ coaching/ mentoring/ ass kicking/ back patting of any kind. Bde HQ fires a few rockets your way every once in awhile, then you bob and weave in response, but that's about it.

But that's just me from my puny little underling POV


----------



## MilEME09

Now in regards to who can be a judge against a CDS, if the charges end up applicable in civilian court would a judge from the Supreme Court be appropriate?


----------



## Weinie

MilEME09 said:


> Now in regards to who can be a judge against a CDS, if the charges end up applicable in civilian court would a judge from the Supreme Court be appropriate?


FJAG will be the best source for confirmation, but if they are civilian charges, any judge so empowered to hear that level of charge would be appropriate.  Then, there is perception.


----------



## MilEME09

Sajjan’s excuses highlight his failure on sexual harassment in the military
					

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says the government will create an independent mechanism to handle allegations of sexual misconduct in the military after years when Sajjan ignored calls to do just that




					www.theglobeandmail.com
				




This situation doesn't even need the opposition to jump in on.


----------



## brihard

SeaKingTacco said:


> Thanks for the clarification and correction, Brihard. I appreciate your expertise.
> 
> any other corrections that you would make to my suggestions?


Nope. I don’t have great familiarity with the inner workings of military justice, that was the only bit I felt qualified to weigh in on, sorry I needed out a bit. On the rest of it I think you’re probably on track. 




QV said:


> This problem can be boiled down to one systemic issue:  Within the military, there is too much overlap between service offences and offences under the Criminal Code.  This includes how S. 130 NDA has been applied over the years.  S. 130 (1)(a) should be repealed.



My understanding is that S.130 has been litigated quite heavily in the past five or six years. I think, ultimately, SCC upheld the military prosecution of civil offences under S.130. But at this point I’m gonna shut up and wait for FJAG.


----------



## FJAG

I've read the MP article and while I don't disbelieve his story, I think that there are probably just a few anecdotal incidents being blown into a wide spread generality. 

Are there COs that intend to interfere and pervert the course of justice? I doubt that this is true. I don't doubt that there are numerous units that make inquiries of the MPs when investigations drag on interminably and they are not being advised of the progress. Remember that the Chain of Command, for better or worse, has a vested interest in the discipline system. Will such inquiries be perceived by the MPs as interference? I don't doubt that it will by some especially those that have an inflated view of their roles or who aren't too confident in their own capabilities. Like any police force, we have absolutely great folks and some who are lacking. We need a system that can roll with both.

Are there prosecutors who don't know their jobs? You betcha. I've long contended that we have far too many prosecutors and too few prosecutions. Not that I want to see more prosecutions per se, but the number of prosecutions an individual prosecutor gets to handle during their career has a direct impact on the individuals competence. The fifty to fifty five courts martial per year spread over what I expect are some three dozen Reg F and Res F prosecutors (I'm not sure of the actual numbers these days but the establishment was well over two dozen in my days and I don't expect it decreased since then) doesn't leave much experience even though there would be additional investigations involved that never get to a CM. Prosecutors are supposed to remain in their job for five years rather than the more normal three year cycle, but still. There are some very experienced Res F legal officers who are also prosecutors on the civilian side but the degree of their involvement varies (especially when Reg F Leg Os need all the experience, and therefore CsM that they can get). There is now a Deputy Director of Military Prosecutions SMART (Sexual Misconduct Action Response Team) who is a Res F Leg O in the rank of LCol experienced in these matters who is there to "mentor" prosecutors in their duties to prosecute "serious sexual misconduct prosecutions". I'm pretty sure that's not enough. Mentoring, for example, will not give you the insight to sensitively conduct interviews and to properly evaluate credibility. That's a function of experience and spur of the moment actions and reactions to witnesses. (I look at myself with twenty years experience in court and interviewing witnesses but clearly realize that I'd be entirely out of my depth in dealing with a sexual assault/misconduct case until I've had quite a few of those under my belt as second counsel working hand in hand with an experienced lead) As with prosecutions in general, there is a balance to be struck in having enough trained prosecutors to handle such cases with each of them having enough experience to be proficient at it. The small size of the CF and such makes it difficult finding that balance.

As with prosecutors, there are problems in having sufficient trained and experienced MPs to deal with such investigations. One of our problems is simply career progression. In order to progress in rank, a wide level of experience is preferred. This works against developing individuals who obtain both the training and experience to handle such very sensitive and specialized investigations competently. The low volume of cases and the wide dispersion of our personnel makes it equally hard to develop that talent within the CFNIS.

I won't even begin to make suggestions on how to improve things. The deliverable ought to be a solid core of trained and experienced investigators across the CAF but how to strike the balance of getting those with career progression and manning as it is obviously leads to a number of choices. But even there, there are still many civilian police forces and prosecutors offices that fall short of the needed standard of competence.

Should we throw the chain of command out of the discipline process? I really don't think so. At its base is the long standing, and still valid, requirement of having a system of discipline which will facilitate ordering people into situations where their death is a possibility. Such a system needs a leadership that will be obeyed, willingly or otherwise, and you can't develop that type of leadership if you strip it of such simple powers as sitting in judgement of their subordinates when they are involved in minor and moderate disciplinary infarctions.

While I think we could definitely do better in shoring up the overall justice system, I don't think we need radical reform. We are far short of the point where the system, as a whole, is failing. We do have individual anecdotal incidents which are creating a crisis of confidence which need to be addressed but doing so might very well be a zero sum game unless all sides of the anecdotal incidents are "properly" investigated. I emphasize "properly" because all too often these types of inquiries merely bring unsubstantiated grievances to the fore but fail to examine the real cause of failure (if there actually was one - sometimes perception is not supported by reality) and this really helps no one.

🍻


----------



## ModlrMike

Therein lies the question. Are we talking about asking "how's it going", versus "tell me everything"? If a CO sends a CCIR up the chain, at some point the chain is going to want an update. Simply asking for a progress report should not be seen as interfering. Sending a case to the MPs should not result in it forming a black hole.

 When a member makes a complaint to the CO, the CO has an obligation to ensure the member understands that their issues are taken seriously, and are being dealt with in the appropriate manner. If the CO cannot periodically feed information back to the complainant, it leaves the impression that nothing is being done.

FWIW, I think that's a lazy headline for the article. I think they're using commanding officer in a much more general than specific sense.


----------



## Blackadder1916

FJAG said:


> . . .
> Are there prosecutors who don't know their jobs? You betcha. I've long contended that we have far too many prosecutors and too few prosecutions. Not that I want to see more prosecutions per se, but the number of prosecutions an individual prosecutor gets to handle during their career has a direct impact on the individuals competence. The fifty to fifty five courts martial per year spread over what I expect are some three dozen Reg F and Res F prosecutors (I'm not sure of the actual numbers these days but the establishment was well over two dozen in my days and I don't expect it decreased since then) doesn't leave much experience even though there would be additional investigations involved that never get to a CM. Prosecutors are supposed to remain in their job for five years rather than the more normal three year cycle, but still. There are some very experienced Res F legal officers who are also prosecutors on the civilian side but the degree of their involvement varies (especially when Reg F Leg Os need all the experience, and therefore CsM that they can get). There is now a Deputy Director of Military Prosecutions SMART (Sexual Misconduct Action Response Team) who is a Res F Leg O in the rank of LCol experienced in these matters who is there to "mentor" prosecutors in their duties to prosecute "serious sexual misconduct prosecutions". I'm pretty sure that's not enough. Mentoring, for example, will not give you the insight to sensitively conduct interviews and to properly evaluate credibility. That's a function of experience and spur of the moment actions and reactions to witnesses. (I look at myself with twenty years experience in court and interviewing witnesses but clearly realize that I'd be entirely out of my depth in dealing with a sexual assault/misconduct case until I've had quite a few of those under my belt as second counsel working hand in hand with an experienced lead) As with prosecutions in general, there is a balance to be struck in having enough trained prosecutors to handle such cases with each of them having enough experience to be proficient at it. The small size of the CF and such makes it difficult finding that balance.
> 
> . . .



Would a scheme similar to that used to maintain the competency of CF medical specialists (_they practice in civilian hospitals_) be possible for the legal branch?  Could military prosecutors be seconded to provincial/federal prosecution services and thus have a wider and more intensive experience?  Or would that make the powers that be realize there are more lawyers in uniform than are actually needed?


----------



## daftandbarmy

MilEME09 said:


> Now in regards to who can be a judge against a CDS, if the charges end up applicable in civilian court would a judge from the Supreme Court be appropriate?



The court is already in session, unfortunately


----------



## Jarnhamar

It's truly unfortunate if our good officers are getting dragged through the mud along with the dipshit ones. Regular NCO razzing aside, there's some wicked wicked officers in the CAF who are honourable, inspiring, and enjoyable to be around and lead by. Proud to say my Pl Comd is one of them.

The truth is some NCOs are just as horrible as these (bad) officers are.  When you consider the old boys club, maybe worse. NCOs get away with all kinds of harassment, intimidation, and misconduct.

There's 4 young women in my contact list who all left the CAF recently after very short careers. 3 year engagement or 3+4. All of them had NCOs act like pigs to them and their chain of command either didn't support them or punished them. This isn't 2nd hand info either, I've seen email and text convos. It's very sad.
At this point, aside from the obvious, being a soldier or police officer is the last job I would want my daughters doing.


----------



## Weinie

Jarnhamar said:


> It's truly unfortunate if our good officers are getting dragged through the mud along with the dipshit ones. Regular NCO razzing aside, there's some wicked wicked officers in the CAF who are honourable, inspiring, and enjoyable to be around and lead by. Proud to say my Pl Comd is one of them.
> 
> The truth is some NCOs are just as horrible as these (bad) officers are.  When you consider the old boys club, maybe worse. NCOs get away with all kinds of harassment, intimidation, and misconduct.
> 
> There's 4 young women in my contact list who all left the CAF recently after very short careers. 3 year engagement or 3+4. All of them had NCOs act like pigs to them and their chain of command either didn't support them or punished them. This isn't 2nd hand info either, I've seen email and text convos. It's very sad.
> At this point, aside from the obvious, being a soldier or police officer is the last job I would want my daughters doing.


Jarn,

Sad indictment from a credible perspective. I have served for 38 years, and have never seen what you described, but I have no doubt on its' veracity. I would like to think that my daughter could have a positive experience in the CAF; I am, begrudgingly, re-thinking that position


----------



## MJP

Jarnhamar said:


> The truth is some NCOs are just as horrible as these (bad) officers are.  When you consider the old boys club, maybe worse. NCOs get away with all kinds of harassment, intimidation, and misconduct.


I agree with this assertion and it matches my experience.


----------



## blacktriangle

I've definitely seen some predatory behaviour displayed by NCMs, and heard what I consider to be reliable accounts of even more from others. 

Some of the earliest, and most disturbing, were during my time as a reservist. I'm not sure what enrollment age is now, but at the time, it was possible to have 16 and 17 year old young women going through BMQ & parading...I'll just leave it at that.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Jarnhamar said:


> It's truly unfortunate if our good officers are getting dragged through the mud along with the dipshit ones. Regular NCO razzing aside, there's some wicked wicked officers in the CAF who are honourable, inspiring, and enjoyable to be around and lead by. Proud to say my Pl Comd is one of them.
> 
> The truth is some NCOs are just as horrible as these (bad) officers are.  When you consider the old boys club, maybe worse. NCOs get away with all kinds of harassment, intimidation, and misconduct.
> 
> There's 4 young women in my contact list who all left the CAF recently after very short careers. 3 year engagement or 3+4. All of them had NCOs act like pigs to them and their chain of command either didn't support them or punished them. This isn't 2nd hand info either, I've seen email and text convos. It's very sad.
> At this point, aside from the obvious, being a soldier or police officer is the last job I would want my daughters doing.


I both overheard and witnessed the Sgt mafia plotting to destroy a young troop commander for no other reason than he didn't "look like he belonged in the regiment" in the mid 90s. No shit. And it wasn't an uncommon occurrence. Young officers came to the regiment with an unhealthy dislike for NCOs after four years of beasting in the Rupert Rookery. These guys did nothing to disuade them of that opinion.


----------



## lenaitch

SeaKingTacco said:


> Notwithstanding CO’s who do boneheaded things like attempt to interfere in an MP investigation (which could be a service offence all of it’s own, so why does the MP Group not lay charges against those people?)  every time it is suggested by various interests that we do away with the NDA and send all criminal investigations and charges downtown to the civilian system, people to be reminded that then there would be no way to handle cases that happen overseas on deployment- which is the whole point of the NDA. It gives the CAF a world wide system of discipline and justice.
> 
> -the MP Group should be blown up and rebuilt. Rather than trying to be the second best federal police force in Canada, I would have them focus on what should be their core functions: security, traffic control in the field and garrison, Regimental and unit policing for NDA (non-CCC) offences and POW handling. I would bring in the RCMP establish a Det on each base to replace CFNIS to handle all investigations of Criminal Code offences. That way, there is again no suggestion that the Chain of Command could possibly have any influence on them.



One problem with that would be further fragmentation.  Unless the RCMP set up a unit dedicated to each base as part of their federal policing mandate, which seems a waste of both money and trained investigators, criminal investigations would fall to the police service of jurisdiction  (Halifax Regional for Halifax/Shearwater, Ottawa PS for NDHQ, OPP for Borden, Pet, etc.) Even at that on-base allegations would just form part of the caseload unless there is an expectation that a bunch of trained members are idling in the closet waiting for a case.



MilEME09 said:


> Now in regards to who can be a judge against a CDS, if the charges end up applicable in civilian court would a judge from the Supreme Court be appropriate?


It  would the appropriate court of competent jurisdiction.  'Kings and paupers' . . .


----------



## blacktriangle

Forgot to ask this earlier - has the option of replacing the NIS with a civilian DND investigative service ever been looked at?


----------



## brihard

reveng said:


> Forgot to ask this earlier - has the option of replacing the NIS with a civilian DND investigative service ever been looked at?


Only if we can make at least four crappy TV shows about them.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Kat Stevens said:


> I both overheard and witnessed the Sgt mafia plotting to destroy a young troop commander for no other reason than he didn't "look like he belonged in the regiment" in the mid 90s. . . .



Reminds me of a conversation I overheard between two WOs in Gagetown back in the 80s - they weren't aware that I (then an OCdt) was there.  They had been looking at the list of those coming in for the phase 4 that was starting the next day and the particular comment that struck me was about one candidate who they remembered from Ph 3 the summer before.  They both seemed a little chuffed that regardless of the attitude or the performance of the newly commissioned officer, they would never be able to fail him on any EO/PO even if he deserved it because his father was a general officer.  That young officer went on to a very successful career, though he seems to be the subject of disturbing allegations following his recent retirement.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Blackadder1916 said:


> Reminds me of a conversation I overheard between two WOs in Gagetown back in the 80s - they weren't aware that I (then an OCdt) was there.  They had been looking at the list of those coming in for the phase 4 that was starting the next day and the particular comment that struck me was about one candidate who they remembered from Ph 3 the summer before.  They both seemed a little chuffed that regardless of the attitude or the performance of the newly commissioned officer, they would never be able to fail him on any EO/PO even if he deserved it because his father was a general officer *and he was Mil Coll*.  That young officer went on to a very successful career, though he seems to be the subject of disturbing allegations following his recent retirement.



I'm only guessing based on personal experience at CTC, of course, but thought I'd FTFY just in case I was right


----------



## dapaterson

RRMC, perhaps?


----------



## Haggis

Weinie said:


> Jarn,
> 
> Sad indictment from a credible perspective. I have served for 38 years, and have never seen what you described, but I have no doubt on its' veracity. I would like to think that my daughter could have a positive experience in the CAF; I am, begrudgingly, re-thinking that position


I have had two experiences with such individuals while I was a sr NCM.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Jarnhamar said:


> It's truly unfortunate if our good officers are getting dragged through the mud along with the dipshit ones. Regular NCO razzing aside, there's some wicked wicked officers in the CAF who are honourable, inspiring, and enjoyable to be around and lead by. Proud to say my Pl Comd is one of them.
> 
> The truth is some NCOs are just as horrible as these (bad) officers are.  When you consider the old boys club, maybe worse. NCOs get away with all kinds of harassment, intimidation, and misconduct.
> 
> There's 4 young women in my contact list who all left the CAF recently after very short careers. 3 year engagement or 3+4. All of them had NCOs act like pigs to them and their chain of command either didn't support them or punished them. *This isn't 2nd hand info either, I've seen email and text convos. *It's very sad.
> At this point, aside from the obvious, being a soldier or police officer is the last job I would want my daughters doing.



If you have the evidence handy there's no statute of limitations on misbehaviour like that, to my knowledge.

Just sayin'


----------



## MilEME09

brihard said:


> Only if we can make at least four crappy TV shows about them.


You mean NCIS Toronto wouldn't be a hit?


----------



## OldSolduer

daftandbarmy said:


> If you have the evidence handy there's no statute of limitations on misbehaviour like that, to my knowledge.
> 
> Just sayin'


There are dicks at all levels aren't there?


----------



## Loachman

I was asked to be an Assisting Officer by a female Corporal MSEOp in a certain Log unit in a certain base between Ottawa and North Bay in the early 1990s. We'd been on a short local French course together, and, although there was no time for any socialization during that, I'd formed a very positive opinion of her. I'd not seen her since it ended a couple of months prior to meeting her in passing one pleasant day. After exchanging polite hellos, she bluntly let it be known that she needed an AO. My immediate thought was "what's she done", partially because she didn't seem the type to do anything requiring an AO.

When I asked why, she said "Watch the news tonight". "Holy crap", I thought. "What's she done?"

There was no cable out where I was living, and there was nothing on the news on the 2.4 channels that I could suck in from a not-too-distant television antenna, but she'd left me her phone number so I called that evening and we arranged a meeting.

I did see the video of her interview on whatever channel it was, later, and she'd done an excellent job - very professional and very careful to explain that it was one specific individual and not the CF as a whole. She'd only gone to the media as a last resort, because nobody else was listening to her and she was getting desperate.

She had been the victim of some absolutely horrifying ongoing but non-sexual harassment, as had every other woman in her section, by an old dinosaur Sergeant or Warrant Officer who didn't want no women in _his_ Army. He was, however, quite highly regarded by his peers and superiors.

A number of the other women had managed to get posted out, a few released, and one had a miscarriage. Only three were willing to provide written statements. My "client" had received written death threats, which she'd turned over to the MPs - who promptly lost them. She'd documented everything that had happened, though, which was invaluable.

She'd initiated a grievance some time prior to engaging me, but was passed off to the New Second Lieutenant as a training opportunity for him. The lack of concern by her chain-of-command implicated them, so he was likely not too keen on putting in too much effort and making them look bad.

I was walking into the HQ one morning, and encountered one of the Log Staff, a female Captain, who asked me if it was true that I was acting as this Corporal's AO. "Yes", I said. "You should drop it", she responded. "She's just a trouble-maker".

That I did not believe, as I'd formed an even more positive impression of her as we worked on her grievance over several evenings, but I was a little shocked to hear that from another woman.

I was posted that summer and there was insufficient time to finish this off, but I managed to find a replacement who I knew would do at least as good a job as I could, and possibly better, and I've always viewed that as my biggest success in the matter.

I also had to brief the notorious newly-arrived Base Commander, who I only knew by reputation. I was warned that I would only have a very short time to get him on side so I'd better not blow it, and not to, under any circumstances, react to his stutter.

While I've heard many more stories of him over the years since then, he acted properly in that case.

I heard, much later, that she was successful, but I've no idea about the details or what was done to correct the problem.

This was a huge eye-opener for me. I would never had believed that crap like that could happen in the CF.

Things like this should not happen.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Weinie said:


> Jarn,
> 
> Sad indictment from a credible perspective. I have served for 38 years, and have never seen what you described, but I have no doubt on its' veracity. I would like to think that my daughter could have a positive experience in the CAF; I am, begrudgingly, re-thinking that position


I appreciate that thank you. I'm not trying to come across as a doom and gloom type. I'm in the same boat but with racist remarks, I don't think I've ever heard them in uniform.



daftandbarmy said:


> If you have the evidence handy there's no statute of limitations on misbehaviour like that, to my knowledge.
> 
> Just sayin'


 When this hit the news I immediately reached out to check on them and offer to help them if they wanted to come forward (3/4 identified on that tracker but didn't trust they wouldn't be penalized if they make an official complaint).


----------



## MilEME09

Jarnhamar said:


> When this hit the news I immediately reached out to check on them and offer to help them if they wanted to come forward (3/4 identified on that tracker but didn't trust they wouldn't be penalized if they make an official complaint).


And there lies part of the problem, no trust in the system,  we know the system is broken now, but who's going to fix it? Unfortunately reaching out to friends across the CAF the mass opinion seems to be that the problem is the older generations. Not saying it is, but perception is every thing in a PR war.


----------



## FJAG

Blackadder1916 said:


> Would a scheme similar to that used to maintain the competency of CF medical specialists (_they practice in civilian hospitals_) be possible for the legal branch?  Could military prosecutors be seconded to provincial/federal prosecution services and thus have a wider and more intensive experience?  Or would that make the powers that be realize there are more lawyers in uniform than are actually needed?


I think that it would especially for very specialized prosecutions. Like most bureaucracies, however, I expect that "there isn't enough time to do so because we're already very busy". Just think on this. In last year's JAG report, the average time from the preferral of charge to commencement of court martial has increased by 34 days to 278 days. Note that this "from preferral ..."; the average time from incident to trial is 650 days. IMHO, and everyone else's, this is outrageous. What's really outrageous is that when I joined the branch in 1985 we recognized court martial delay as a problem and the branch has worked ever since trying to resolve it. It hasn't succeeded and the comprehensive review started by the previous JAG in 2016 which presented an internal report in 2017, still hasn't provided any deliverables which will cure the problem and get us to the target range of six months from incident to trial. We are hidebound in administrative processes that cripple the system. Simply put, the way that the internal processes work now means that we need all hands on deck full time just to tread water - so no long term secondments to the experienced crowns. To me, that's unacceptable.

Rant ends.

🍻


----------



## Weinie

FJAG said:


> I think that it would especially for very specialized prosecutions. Like most bureaucracies, however, I expect that "there isn't enough time to do so because we're already very busy". Just think on this. In last year's JAG report, the average time from the preferral of charge to commencement of court martial has increased by 34 days to 278 days. Note that this "from preferral ..."; the average time from incident to trial is 650 days. IMHO, and everyone else's, this is outrageous. What's really outrageous is that when I joined the branch in 1985 we recognized court martial delay as a problem and the branch has worked ever since trying to resolve it. It hasn't succeeded and the comprehensive review started by the previous JAG in 2016 which presented an internal report in 2017, still hasn't provided any deliverables which will cure the problem and get us to the target range of six months from incident to trial. We are hidebound in administrative processes that cripple the system. Simply put, the way that the internal processes work now means that we need all hands on deck full time just to tread water - so no long term secondments to the experienced crowns. To me, that's unacceptable.
> 
> Rant ends.
> 
> 🍻


And I would blame "Defence" lawyers. The objections that they have raised (successfully) over disclosure and procedure have pushed jurisprudence from the sublime to the ridiculous. And the CAF is notoriously slow to adjudicate.

Having said that, they have been successful in their own right. Good on them


----------



## Jarnhamar

MilEME09 said:


> And there lies part of the problem, no trust in the system,  we know the system is broken now, but who's going to fix it? Unfortunately reaching out to friends across the CAF the mass opinion seems to be that the problem is the older generations. Not saying it is, but perception is every thing in a PR war.



The next member getting a court martial for something sexual related is a private charged with sexual assault and behaving in a disgraceful manner.
Next is a corporal charged with sexual assault.  Next sexual related item after that is a corporal, then master seamen (child luring) then private then leading seaman. Then an LT,  then sgt. 

Those ranks aren't screaming older generation.


----------



## FJAG

Weinie said:


> And I would blame "Defence" lawyers. The objections that they have raised (successfully) over disclosure and procedure have pushed jurisprudence from the sublime to the ridiculous. And the CAF is notoriously slow to adjudicate.
> 
> Having said that, they have been successful in their own right. Good on them


I have known the various directors of defence counsel services going back to the mid eighties and I respect them all as very strong advocates for their clients as well as their expertise in criminal law. That's not to say that there weren't occasions where I said to myself "where's he going with this crap, there's no way it will succeed."

That said, remember that it is not their job to make the prosecution's job easy nor to even ease the process of the administration of justice. To quote from the Code of Conduct:



> In adversarial proceedings, the lawyer has a duty to the client to raise fearlessly every issue, advance every argument, and ask every question, however distasteful, that the lawyer thinks will help the client’s case and to endeavour to obtain for the client the benefit of every remedy and defence authorized by law.



Let's face it, if their objections ended up being successful then they've done their job.

While there may be some cases where a certain pre-trial motion might delay things, I really think that the main issue with delay is systemic; i.e. we have a system of processes both within the prosecution (and by this I mean the government side from investigation to trial) and the judges that simply take entirely too much time to work through. That's not to say that civilian police and prosecutors aren't subject to delay as well. However, much of that is due to the sheer volume of cases that swamp civilian courts.

🍻


----------



## Weinie

FJAG said:


> I have known the various directors of defence counsel services going back to the mid eighties and I respect them all as very strong advocates for their clients as well as their expertise in criminal law. That's not to say that there weren't occasions where I said to myself "where's he going with this crap, there's no way it will succeed."
> 
> That said, remember that it is not their job to make the prosecution's job easy nor to even ease the process of the administration of justice. To quote from the Code of Conduct:
> 
> 
> 
> *Let's face it, if their objections ended up being successful then they've done their job.*
> 
> While there may be some cases where a certain pre-trial motion might delay things, I really think that the main issue with delay is systemic; i.e. we have a system of processes both within the prosecution (and by this I mean the government side from investigation to trial) and the judges that simply take entirely too much time to work through. That's not to say that civilian police and prosecutors aren't subject to delay as well. However, much of that is due to the sheer volume of cases that swamp civilian courts.
> 
> 🍻


As I stated above, that is their job. If our body of jurisprudence is not sound enough that a Defence lawyer feels confident in challenging it, then our fault, not the defence.


----------



## SupersonicMax

FJAG said:


> I have known the various directors of defence counsel services going back to the mid eighties and I respect them all as very strong advocates for their clients as well as their expertise in criminal law. That's not to say that there weren't occasions where I said to myself "where's he going with this crap, there's no way it will succeed."
> 
> That said, remember that it is not their job to make the prosecution's job easy nor to even ease the process of the administration of justice. To quote from the Code of Conduct:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's face it, if their objections ended up being successful then they've done their job.
> 
> While there may be some cases where a certain pre-trial motion might delay things, I really think that the main issue with delay is systemic; i.e. we have a system of processes both within the prosecution (and by this I mean the government side from investigation to trial) and the judges that simply take entirely too much time to work through. That's not to say that civilian police and prosecutors aren't subject to delay as well. However, much of that is due to the sheer volume of cases that swamp civilian courts.
> 
> 🍻



Is the Jordan ruling applicable to court martial cases?


----------



## MilEME09

Jarnhamar said:


> The next member getting a court martial for something sexual related is a private charged with sexual assault and behaving in a disgraceful manner.
> Next is a corporal charged with sexual assault.  Next sexual related item after that is a corporal, then master seamen (child luring) then private then leading seaman. Then an LT,  then sgt.
> 
> Those ranks aren't screaming older generation.


Yes, but as I said perception, it's high profile senior officers that make the news, namely cause the media doesn't really care about Pte Blogging. This is a systematic issue, however to the topic at hand, if the most senior levels of the CAF are perpetuating the negative culture, the organization as a whole cannot change the culture as that negative culture will eventually trickle down.


----------



## OldSolduer

Its all about leading by example - that Principle of Leadership that seems to be forgotten at some levels and totally absent in some cases. "If the "boss" can hit on soldiers subordinate to him/her and get away with it then I can too."


----------



## ModlrMike

SupersonicMax said:


> Is the Jordan ruling applicable to court martial cases?


Yes.


----------



## medicineman

OldSolduer said:


> There are dicks at all levels aren't there?


Yup...


----------



## brihard

SupersonicMax said:


> Is the Jordan ruling applicable to court martial cases?


You beat me to it. Most courts martial seem to deal with offences that in the civil system would probably be akin to provincial court on the 16 month _Jordan_ timeline. A lot of really solid criminal stuff is getting thrown out due to that ruling. That’s not congruent with the time frames FJAG describes...


----------



## MilEME09

Ottawa to create military watchdog after allegations against top officials
					

The independent body, expected to be unveiled within weeks, will deal with sexual misconduct, racism and discrimination complaints




					www.theglobeandmail.com
				




Looks like change is happening, if true merging the ombudsman, and NIS into an agency that reports directly to parliament may work. Devil will be in the details.


----------



## dangerboy

I can't access the article but I am just wondering how this will be different from the Ombudsman?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

dangerboy said:


> I can't access the article but I am just wondering how this will be different from the Ombudsman?


And what happens if the MND chooses not to hear what they have to say?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Just in case you needed to her it again from someone else 

Sexual harassment in the Canadian Armed Forces​
Queens’ University Postdoctoral Fellow Linna Tam-Seto on the military’s move to address sexual harassment within its ranks and the need for cultural change for the armed forces.


----------



## Journeyman

SeaKingTacco said:


> And what happens if the MND chooses not to hear what they have to say?


If what he is currently saying at CDAI's Ottawa Conference is any indication (everything is rosy; nothing to see here), I imagine that would be reasonably common, especially if it can be interpreted as not praising the government.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Civilian employee alleges sexual misconduct within Dept. of Nat’l Defence​








						Civilian employee alleges sexual misconduct within Dept. of Nat’l Defence | Watch News Videos Online
					

Watch Civilian employee alleges sexual misconduct within Dept. of Nat’l Defence Video Online, on GlobalNews.ca




					globalnews.ca


----------



## Good2Golf

Jarnhamar said:


> Civilian employee alleges sexual misconduct within Dept. of Nat’l Defence​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Civilian employee alleges sexual misconduct within Dept. of Nat’l Defence | Watch News Videos Online
> 
> 
> Watch Civilian employee alleges sexual misconduct within Dept. of Nat’l Defence Video Online, on GlobalNews.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> globalnews.ca


Even though some of her (alleged, so far) attackers are executive civilians now, their conduct would still fall under the NDA, and they should be investigated as such for the harassment/assault while she was still serving.


----------



## MilEME09

In committee testimony Lt. Cmdr. Trotter said this: " Senior officers appear to get special treatment when there are sexual misconduct allegations,” “I think that maybe the people who are responsible for sexual misconduct allegations are senior officers and they may have some connections with respondent officers. I’ve heard in terms of an ‘old boys network’ amongst the senior ranks.”

Honestly at this point, bad apple senior officers at NDHQ using connections to save their butts isn't totally farfetched.


----------



## Kat Stevens

I'm surprised anyone would doubt that there's a buddy network of upper management school chums and ring knockers.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

No one does, but the first rule of....


----------



## OldSolduer

Good2Golf said:


> Even though some of her (alleged, so far) attackers are executive civilians now, their conduct would still fall under the NDA, and they should be investigated as such for the harassment/assault while she was still serving.


This keeps getting worse. Jesus wept.


----------



## daftandbarmy

OldSolduer said:


> This keeps getting worse. Jesus wept.



If I were a betting man, I'd take a wager on this being the leading edge of a tsunami of claims against DND/CAF.

Whoever does the long range budget planning might have a peek at the Residential School compensation budget as an example....


----------



## dapaterson

There's an extant class action, currently in claims registration phase, for "sexual harassment, sexual assault or discrimination based on sex, gender, gender identity or sexual orientation (“Sexual Misconduct”) in connection with their military service and/or employment with the Department of National Defence (“DND”) and/or Staff of the Non-Public Funds, Canadian Forces (“SNPF”)"



			CAF-DND Sexual Misconduct
		


Per the Final Settlement Agreement at https://www.caf-dndsexualmisconduct...ion Settlement_Final Settlement Agreement.pdf, there is up to $800M for CAF members, and up to $100M for DND/NPF staff.


----------



## FJAG

Good2Golf said:


> Even though some of her (alleged, so far) attackers are executive civilians now, their conduct would still fall under the NDA, and they should be investigated as such for the harassment/assault while she was still serving.


There is a difference between falling under the NDA and falling under the CSD. 

S. 60(1) of the NDA designates who is subject to the CSD and ordinary civilian employees of DND in Canada are not covered. Entirely different laws and provisions for the civil service are at play there.

🍻


----------



## dapaterson

We begin to stray into more esoteric bits of the law here: If Colonel Bloggins retires from the Regular Force but component transfers into the Supplemental Reserve, arguably any conduct contrary to the CSD committed while present at any Defence establishment constitutes an offence triable by court martial, per NDA 60(1)(c)(viii).


----------



## Good2Golf

FJAG said:


> There is a difference between falling under the NDA and falling under the CSD.
> 
> S. 60(1) of the NDA designates who is subject to the CSD and ordinary civilian employees of DND in Canada are not covered. Entirely different laws and provisions for the civil service are at play there.
> 
> 🍻


FJAG, I was, unless I’m mistaken, referring to the executors (now) whom she referred to as having been some of the members present when she was being harassed at CTC Gagetown.  No?


----------



## FJAG

Good2Golf said:


> FJAG, I was, unless I’m mistaken, referring to the executors (now) whom she referred to as having been some of the members present when she was being harassed at CTC Gagetown.  No?


I get your point. 

When I listened to it the first time I considered the incidents separate; that while some of the military folks that caused her grief before were at the table with her now, but not the ones harassing her now. I understood it as the new incidents of assault and harassment were from civilian executives. The prior incidents would clearly fall under the CSD. The latter ones wouldn't.

Having listened a second time I'm now not so sure that there aren't new incidents from the old harassers who are still serving.

All that said, this one has my Spidey senses tingling. I'd need to know more from all sides.

🍻


----------



## Ostrozac

dapaterson said:


> We begin to stray into more esoteric bits of the law here: If Colonel Bloggins retires from the Regular Force but component transfers into the Supplemental Reserve, arguably any conduct contrary to the CSD committed while present at any Defence establishment constitutes an offence triable by court martial, per NDA 60(1)(c)(viii).


Some of the more esoteric aspects of the NDA are very much not talked about or used. This is one -- that Supp (and Primary) Reservists working as civil servants on defence establishments are indeed subject to the Code of Service Discipline, as you point out. This isn't usually enforced -- but it is on the books. I'm not sure what the Clerk of the PCO, the DM and the unions would think about the CDS enforcing discipline onto civil servants, but you're right, it is written into the National Defence Act. 

Is a mess, a military gym or a PMQ a "Defence Establishment", under the NDA? Or do NPF and CFHA managed facilities fit into some other category?


----------



## Haggis

dapaterson said:


> We begin to stray into more esoteric bits of the law here: If Colonel Bloggins retires from the Regular Force but component transfers into the Supplemental Reserve, arguably any conduct contrary to the CSD committed while present at any Defence establishment constitutes an offence triable by court martial, per NDA 60(1)(c)(viii).


Firstly, *Col* Bloggins would not be able to collect his generous CAF pension if s/he CT's to a Res F component.  The Colonel would have to release entirely, then re-apply to a Res F component.  However, Res F *Sgt *Bloggins (_the Colonel's lovechild from a previous posting, and now working at NDHQ as an AS-03 for the Colonel_) might find themselves in such a situation.


----------



## dapaterson

You are incorrect.  Release is required for Res F personnel to collect a CFSA part I pension; a Reg F member can CT and collect.


----------



## Haggis

dapaterson said:


> You are incorrect.  Release is required for Res F personnel to collect a CFSA part I pension; a Reg F member can CT and collect.


On that part alone, I stand corrected.


----------



## MilEME09

Now this may be cynical,  but no wonder our bureaucracy is so bloated, everyone is busy being harrased or is harrassing to get work done.

Serious question though for civilian DND employees do they have a separate HR structure to take these complaints? Or is it the same stream as military members essentially?


----------



## daftandbarmy

MilEME09 said:


> Now this may be cynical,  but no wonder our bureaucracy is so bloated, everyone is busy being harrased or is harrassing to get work done.
> 
> Serious question though for civilian DND employees do they have a separate HR structure to take these complaints? Or is it the same stream as military members essentially?



It's not just the military:

Workplace Sexual Harassment is Rampant Even Among Business Elite, Survey of Global MBA Students and Alumni Finds​
Results find strong business case for workplaces to deal assertively with sexual harassment; a reputation for harassment hurts recruitment.
​Forty-two percent of women polled in a new survey and 15% of men experienced some form of sexual harassment or gender discrimination in the past year, according to a report from the Global Network for Advanced Management. Among them, fewer than one in ten formally reported the incident(s) inside or outside the workplace. And two-thirds of total respondents agree that “the existence of a culture of sexual harassment at a workplace is a factor when you look for a job.”

The survey about desirable workplace conditions was distributed to students and alumni at 30 Global Network business schools. The 2,729 respondents had workplace experience in 84 countries. Member schools include the Haas School of Business, University of California Berkeley; Saïd Business School, University of Oxford; Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Business School; HEC Paris; IMD Business School; and the Indian Institute of Management Bangalore, among others.

Says survey co-designer and co-author Frances Rosenbluth, Damon Wells Professor of Political Science at Yale University: “New evidence suggests that establishing a reputation for a workplace free of sexual harassment is likely to be one of the most effective ways employers can compete for talent in a global workforce. Recognizing the problem, and dealing with it effectively, offers employers a winning strategy for recruiting and retaining valuable human capital.”

*Sexual harassment remains prevalent in the global business community, even among the business elite.*
Among the 2,642 respondents who have held a job in the last 12 months, 42% of women and 15% of men self-reported some form of sexual harassment or gender discrimination in the past twelve months. Even if we exclude complaints about sexism or misogyny, over a third of the women reported sexual harassment from a workplace manager or colleague in the past twelve months.

*Most agree that victims should be trusted, but victims still fail to report.*
Among the Global Network respondents who said they experienced sexual harassment or gender discrimination in the last 12 months, fewer than one in ten victims formally reported the incident(s) inside or outside their workplaces. Of our respondents who said they experienced misconduct, only 5%, consulted their boss, their human resources department, or other units specializing in sexual harassment issues inside the firm. Reporting to outside entities was even rarer.

*Tolerance of sexual harassment hurts recruitment.*
About two-thirds of the survey respondents agreed that “the existence of a culture of sexual harassment at a workplace is a factor when you look for a job.” The frequency of this response was slightly higher among full-time students (67%) than among currently employed students and alumni (62%), and higher among women (78%) than among men (55%).






						Workplace Sexual Harassment is Rampant Even Among Business Elite, Survey of Global MBA Students and Alumni Finds
					

Forty-two percent of women polled in a new survey and 15% of men experienced some form of sexual harassment or gender discrimination in the past year, according to a report from the Global Network for Advanced Management. Among them, fewer than one in ten formally reported the incident(s) inside...




					globalnetwork.io


----------



## dapaterson

Treasury Board, per the FAA, is responsible for the personnel management function for the public service; there's the PSLRA and other legislation as well which provides further constraints.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Putting this here to avoid 900 different threads.
Reading this was one of the cases that helped touch off Op Honour.

Former soldier expected to plead guilty in high-profile sexual assault involving subordinate - 2021​





						Former soldier expected to plead guilty in high-profile sexual assault involving subordinate |  National Newswatch
					

National Newswatch: Canada's most comprehensive site for political news and views. Make it a daily habit.




					www.nationalnewswatch.com
				





Seems like a 180o from the initial verdict.


Canadian soldier acquitted on charge of sexually assaulting female subordinate - 2014​








						Canadian soldier acquitted on charge of sexually assaulting female subordinate
					

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




					www.cp24.com
				






This case seems like a good example of how murky this can (and likely will) be for the CAF. I wonder we'll see a lot of old cases re-examined.


And 7 years for one case, the CAF will be putting a lot of lawyers kids through colleges that's for sure.


----------



## dapaterson

Interestingly, on appeal the case was sent downtown instead of court martial.


----------



## FJAG

dapaterson said:


> Interestingly, on appeal the case was sent downtown instead of court martial.


I found that interesting too. Apparently the DMPS gave here the option and she "didn't hesitate" to take it downtown. I would have liked to be a fly on the wall when giving her the option was discussed.

🍻


----------



## Haggis

dapaterson said:


> Interestingly, on appeal the case was sent downtown instead of court martial.


How often does this occur?  I have only heard of one other circumstance where this occurred and it was a long, long time ago.


----------



## The Bread Guy

In a related vein, time for a different way of doing things?


> Military ombudsman Greg Lick is calling on the federal government to make his office truly independent, saying the current structure is undercutting confidence in its ability to fight for aggrieved Canadian Armed Forces members and others.
> 
> In an exclusive interview with The Canadian Press, Lick says he initially believed when he took the ombudsman’s job in November 2018 that he could work with the current structure, in which senior defence officials are responsible for approving his budget and staffing.
> 
> But Lick says he has since changed his mind because the situation sets up real and perceived conflicts of interest, and he now fully endorses the calls of his predecessor Gary Walbourne to have the ombudsman’s office report to Parliament instead of the defence minister ...


----------



## MilEME09

Kelly McParland: Accepting responsibility is not in Harjit Sajjan's vocabulary
					

Sajjan did nothing. He didn’t follow up, because, gosh, that might look like interference




					nationalpost.com
				




National post holding nothing back against the minister


----------



## daftandbarmy

And the Toronto Sun.... both barrels

BONOKOSKI: Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan scores a failing grade​
Face it, the top brass of the Canadian military is entangled in a rat’s nest of alleged sexual improprieties that is far from being unravelled.

That’s because no one is in charge.

Harjit Sajjan, a defence minister who was once a lieutenant-colonel in the Canadian army, doesn’t seem to know what a defence minister does.

He’s getting a lot of grief for it, and he’s also getting thin-skinned.

He pitifully pulled out his own race card in dismissing the idea of anyone “knowing” about his years in an army uniform, as the_ Toronto Sun’s_ Lorrie Goldstein reported Sunday.

In Sajjan’s military, senior ranking officers who spent years climbing the ladder have no idea how to handle a sexual-based complaint when it’s caught in the zipper of one of their own.

The former chief of defence staff, Jonathan Vance, once commander of all military branches, is up to his goolies in sexual insubordination allegations supposedly committed during his latter years in uniform — all of which he denies.









						BONOKOSKI: Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan scores a failing grade
					

Face it, the top brass of the Canadian military is entangled in a rat’s nest of alleged sexual improprieties that is far from being unravelled.




					torontosun.com


----------



## dapaterson

And a well-known, vocal proponent for women in the Army submits a blistering release request:



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/eleanor-taylor-canadian-forces-sexual-misconduct-1.5952618


----------



## Edward Campbell

More o that from the National Post:  Link removed as per site guidelines.   Bruce


----------



## Pieman

This thread is enormous so perhaps I missed it, but could someone please define what "sexual misconduct" is exactly?

It seems to be a blanket statement that could be applied to anything the victim decides is inappropriate and "sexual". The word "sexual' itself can be applied to anything the victim decides. For example the person blew a kiss at the victim as a joke. That's "sexual" and should be punished by public shaming, and career destruction. 

Worse, if the victim makes a public accusation the person is treated like a rapist or murderer because they did something that may be inappropriate but far from being illegal. You are guilty because the accusation is made, and your career and reputation is destroyed. 


With that in mind when someone who is accused of "sexual misconduct" leaves me wondering if he asked the victim on a date, or finger blasted the victim consensually behind the water cooler, but he was the victims superior. Both situations are treated the same.

There is obviously a difference between "Sexual Misconduct" and "sexual violence". One is illegal, one is not but you might as well have killed someone given the punishment.


----------



## dangerboy

Pieman said:


> This thread is enormous so perhaps I missed it, but could someone please define what "sexual misconduct" is exactly?
> 
> It seems to be a blanket statement that could be applied to anything the victim decides is inappropriate and "sexual". The word "sexual' itself can be applied to anything the victim decides. For example the person blew a kiss at the victim as a joke. That's "sexual" and should be punished by public shaming, and career destruction.
> 
> Worse, if the victim makes a public accusation the person is treated like a rapist or murderer because they did something that may be inappropriate but far from being illegal. You are guilty because the accusation is made, and your career and reputation is destroyed.
> 
> 
> With that in mind when someone who is accused of "sexual misconduct" leaves me wondering if he asked the victim on a date, or finger blasted the victim consensually behind the water cooler, but he was the victims superior. Both situations are treated the same.
> 
> There is obviously a difference between "Sexual Misconduct" and "sexual violence". One is illegal, one is not but you might as well have killed someone given the punishment.


Here is what DAOD's define it as:


*sexual misconduct* (_inconduite sexuelle_)

Conduct of a sexual nature that causes or could cause harm to others, and that the person knew or ought reasonably to have known could cause harm, including:


actions or words that devalue others on the basis of their sex, sexuality, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression;
jokes of a sexual nature, sexual remarks, advances of a sexual nature or verbal abuse of a sexual nature in the workplace;
harassment of a sexual nature, including initiation rites of a sexual nature;
viewing, accessing, distributing or displaying sexually explicit material in the workplace; and
any _Criminal Code_offence of a sexual nature, including:
section 162 (voyeurism, i.e. surreptitiously observing or recording a person in a place where the person exposes or could expose his or her genital organs or anal region or her breasts or could be engaged in explicit sexual activity, or distributing such a recording);
section 162.1 (publication, etc., of an intimate image without consent, i.e. publishing, distributing, transmitting, selling or making available an intimate image of another person without their consent, such as a visual recording in which the person depicted is nude, exposing his or her genital organs or anal region or her breasts, or is engaged in explicit sexual activity); and
section 271 (sexual assault, i.e. engaging in any kind of sexual activity with another person without their consent). (Defence Terminology Bank record number 43247)


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Pieman said:


> With that in mind when someone who is accused of "sexual misconduct" leaves me wondering if he asked the victim on a date, or finger blasted the victim consensually behind the water cooler,




Really??  Those are your choice of words on a thread that is trying to delve into an extremely sensitive subject for many??   How about a little couth please?


----------



## hattrick72

Pieman said:


> This thread is enormous so perhaps I missed it, but could someone please define what "sexual misconduct" is exactly?
> 
> It seems to be a blanket statement that could be applied to anything the victim decides is inappropriate and "sexual". The word "sexual' itself can be applied to anything the victim decides. For example the person blew a kiss at the victim as a joke. That's "sexual" and should be punished by public shaming, and career destruction.
> 
> Worse, if the victim makes a public accusation the person is treated like a rapist or murderer because they did something that may be inappropriate but far from being illegal. You are guilty because the accusation is made, and your career and reputation is destroyed.
> 
> 
> With that in mind when someone who is accused of "sexual misconduct" leaves me wondering if he asked the victim on a date, or finger blasted the victim consensually behind the water cooler, but he was the victims superior. Both situations are treated the same.
> 
> There is obviously a difference between "Sexual Misconduct" and "sexual violence". One is illegal, one is not but you might as well have killed someone given the punishment.


Looks like 1 CER built a bridge in the forest and let some of their members live under it in 2014.


----------



## Brash

Pieman said:


> With that in mind when someone who is accused of "sexual misconduct" leaves me wondering if he asked the victim on a date, or finger blasted the victim consensually behind the water cooler, but he was the victims superior. Both situations are treated the same.
> 
> There is obviously a difference between "Sexual Misconduct" and "sexual violence". One is illegal, one is not but you might as well have killed someone given the punishment.


Attitudes like this are part of the problem. I hope you realize that.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Pieman said:


> This thread is enormous so perhaps I missed it, but could someone please define what "sexual misconduct" is exactly?


Would you feel comfortable telling your wife, sister, mother or daughter about it?  Your priest?  Your son?  That is a good starting point.


----------



## FormerHorseGuard

Just a quick opinion. If you feel that  you cannot take your date to the mess, or take her home to meet mom, there is something wrong with that. Cannot take her or him  to the mess because it is public and your admitting you are  breaking the rules. Too ashamed to introduce her or him to mom because you are breaking some rule in dating her or him. Cannot take your date to a family event ( in this case Regimental event) there is something wrong with the relationship. I know officers who dated enlisted persons, they were open and not in the same chain of command. Some officers were enlisted persons before becoming an officer, but that happens. But if you are running around and hiding your relationship that is the problem. But when an officer or snr enlisted person uses their rank to get dates that  is a bigger misconduct.


----------



## Mediman14

The CAF has some great officers and some great NCO's, with that there is the complete opposite serving. I am not surprised there is misconduct in the senior ranks. I am also not surprised that some CoC interfered with investigations or tried to hide things, either to help someone they like or to prevent further embarrassments to prevent them from getting promoted, prevent them from getting their next command position. It has been ongoing for many years, many had just turned their head and pretend nothing happen. For anyone to say, "I don't believe it" are kidding themselves. IMO I think we all have skeletons in our closet, the government will be hard pressed to find the next clean slated CDS. I recently seen a interview with Ret Lt Gen Whitecross (the one who was appointed to find out about sexual misconducts), she had admitted that she seen some stuff and turned her head pretending she never seen it. Look at that female LCol, who just retired, she was grossed out to learn about the amount of it that took place and admitted she seen it and probably took part in some misconduct just never got caught. 
  IMO it doesn't matter who gets called out on it, charged/ release or whatever, it's going to continue. There needs to be a independent investigations on these allegations. Someone who is not military, someone who is not politically charged but yet have the authority to make changes. It's probably not going to happen.


----------



## CBH99

Jarnhamar said:


> It's truly unfortunate if our good officers are getting dragged through the mud along with the dipshit ones. Regular NCO razzing aside, there's some wicked wicked officers in the CAF who are honourable, inspiring, and enjoyable to be around and lead by. Proud to say my Pl Comd is one of them.
> 
> The truth is some NCOs are just as horrible as these (bad) officers are.  When you consider the old boys club, maybe worse. NCOs get away with all kinds of harassment, intimidation, and misconduct.
> 
> There's 4 young women in my contact list who all left the CAF recently after very short careers. 3 year engagement or 3+4. All of them had NCOs act like pigs to them and their chain of command either didn't support them or punished them. This isn't 2nd hand info either, I've seen email and text convos. It's very sad.
> At this point, aside from the obvious, being a soldier or police officer is the last job I would want my daughters doing.


I'll admit, my eyes and mind have been opened lately as to what actually happens even if not noticed/observed by some members.  As I get older, I'm always surprised at how naïve I was when I was younger.

I can honestly say, with 100% confidence, that in my approximately 10 years in the military, I did not observe, hear, or see any behaviour like that.  While NCO's - especially in a smaller unit - would joke around and raz each other, I never once observed or witnessed any sort of inappropriate sexual behaviour or comments towards any of our female members.  (We had quite a few, and they were very much part of the 'crew')

It doesn't surprise me to learn that there are pigs and dirtbags about.  I AM surprised to hear about these stories on this board (and others I've heard offline) and how this kind of crap was allowed / is allowed to happen still.  I thought with all the focus on OP HONOUR that these kinds of allegations and behaviours would be stomped out quickly and without holding back.  (I've heard positive stories of CO's taking immediate and decisive action against members when this kind of nonsense happens - I just assumed it was the case across the board.)


----------



## MilEME09

CBH99 said:


> I'll admit, my eyes and mind have been opened lately as to what actually happens even if not noticed/observed by some members.  As I get older, I'm always surprised at how naïve I was when I was younger.
> 
> I can honestly say, with 100% confidence, that in my approximately 10 years in the military, I did not observe, hear, or see any behaviour like that.  While NCO's - especially in a smaller unit - would joke around and raz each other, I never once observed or witnessed any sort of inappropriate sexual behaviour or comments towards any of our female members.  (We had quite a few, and they were very much part of the 'crew')
> 
> It doesn't surprise me to learn that there are pigs and dirtbags about.  I AM surprised to hear about these stories on this board (and others I've heard offline) and how this kind of crap was allowed / is allowed to happen still.  I thought with all the focus on OP HONOUR that these kinds of allegations and behaviours would be stomped out quickly and without holding back.  (I've heard positive stories of CO's taking immediate and decisive action against members when this kind of nonsense happens - I just assumed it was the case across the board.)


Remember when Vance said an OP honor violation would mean release? Doesnt seem to always be the case I guess.


----------



## Mediman14

CBH99 said:


> I'll admit, my eyes and mind have been opened lately as to what actually happens even if not noticed/observed by some members.  As I get older, I'm always surprised at how naïve I was when I was younger.
> 
> I can honestly say, with 100% confidence, that in my approximately 10 years in the military, I did not observe, hear, or see any behaviour like that.  While NCO's - especially in a smaller unit - would joke around and raz each other, I never once observed or witnessed any sort of inappropriate sexual behaviour or comments towards any of our female members.  (We had quite a few, and they were very much part of the 'crew')
> 
> It doesn't surprise me to learn that there are pigs and dirtbags about.  I AM surprised to hear about these stories on this board (and others I've heard offline) and how this kind of crap was allowed / is allowed to happen still.  I thought with all the focus on OP HONOUR that these kinds of allegations and behaviours would be stomped out quickly and without holding back.  (I've heard positive stories of CO's taking immediate and decisive action against members when this kind of nonsense happens - I just assumed it was the case across the board.)


Most of my 20 years, I never really payed attention to much. I went to the unit, did what I had to do for the day, then went home with my family Never went to the party's, nor did I care. As I think back about things, I know realize some things. Some Snr NCO's slept with their juniors, some officers slept with juniors, some people came to work drunk, mishandling of NPF funds etc. All of these was reported, nothing ever happen. Instead, most of them got promoted, got awards etc. For the honest hard worker, it is a kick in the junk.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

I am of the opinion that everyone has something they're not proud of in their history. I will fully admit that through ignorance or indifference I have made numerous errors in judgement in my time in uniform. I. too, am cognizant that by nature of my gender and privilege that I have not seen these situations of sexism, sexual misconduct, or sexual harassment; my eyes weren't open to them.

Much like when I got sober, when I knew better I did better. I also am a firm believer in making amends where they can be made. There is no amends that can be made in these situations, however, transparency and accountability are a small measure in reconciliation. I think that the CAF Leadership needs to emulate and exemplify that mentality.


----------



## Lumber

Pieman said:


> This thread is enormous so perhaps I missed it, but could someone please define what "sexual misconduct" is exactly?
> 
> It seems to be a blanket statement that could be applied to anything the victim decides is inappropriate and "sexual". The word "sexual' itself can be applied to anything the victim decides. For example the person blew a kiss at the victim as a joke. That's "sexual" and should be punished by public shaming, and career destruction.
> 
> Worse, if the victim makes a public accusation the person is treated like a rapist or murderer because they did something that may be inappropriate but far from being illegal. You are guilty because the accusation is made, and your career and reputation is destroyed.
> 
> 
> With that in mind when someone who is accused of "sexual misconduct" leaves me wondering if he asked the victim on a date, or finger blasted the victim consensually behind the water cooler, but he was the victims superior. Both situations are treated the same.
> 
> There is obviously a difference between "Sexual Misconduct" and "sexual violence". One is illegal, one is not but you might as well have killed someone given the punishment.


You're either not paying attention, or are listening to people who have no actual experience with these matters. Operation Honour incidents are absolutely handled proportionate to the severity of the incident. The reprecussions for a lewd joke are less than those for having relations with a subordinate which are in turn less than those for sexual assault. There is a spectrum. The only difference with op honour is that the width of the spectrum of punishments is smaller (informal resolution between the parties doesn't exist for example), and the speedwith which you can get to the far end (release) if appropriate is quicker.


----------



## CBH99

To be fair, I think Pieman was approaching the question from a different angle & simply asking if there was a clearly defined difference between 'sexual misconduct' and 'sexual assault' -- as per this thread, and some of the very vague media reports.

Lumber is right, obviously, about it being a spectrum and dealt with accordingly.  Pieman is also accurate in that there is a spectrum too -- and reputations & careers shouldn't necessarily be destroyed by lumping everything together, or painting it all with the same brush.


Pieman, I am no legal expert here by any means.  But, as far as it pertains to this thread -- sexual misconduct could be verbal or physical intimidation, jokes, making passes, inappropriate relationships between members, etc etc.  Sexual assault being a criminal matter indeed.

One of the issues that I know has been a challenge in the past, is the broad spectrum of behaviours that are all lumped in together as 'sexual assault' -- albeit perhaps things have changed on the legal end.  (Brihard, FJAG??)


----------



## Jarnhamar

A major in Kuwait was removed from the "Commanding Officer’s billet" and escorted by military police back to Canada. 

Unable to link source.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Jarnhamar said:


> A major in Kuwait was removed from the "Commanding Officer’s billet" and escorted by military police back to Canada.
> 
> Unable to link source.


The article I read said it was not related to sexual misconduct.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Halifax Tar said:


> The article I read said it was not related to sexual misconduct.


That was one of the only pieces of information they put out. Guess that's the bar now. 

Still some significant misconduct to get an escort back to Canada, figured it deserves a mention.


----------



## OldSolduer

Jarnhamar said:


> That was one of the only pieces of information they put out. Guess that's the bar now.
> 
> Still some significant misconduct to get an escort back to Canada, figured it deserves a mention.


It does and I'd very interested to see what got him an escorted trip home. That's serious sh!t.


----------



## FJAG

CBH99 said:


> To be fair, I think Pieman was approaching the question from a different angle & simply asking if there was a clearly defined difference between 'sexual misconduct' and 'sexual assault' -- as per this thread, and some of the very vague media reports.
> 
> Lumber is right, obviously, about it being a spectrum and dealt with accordingly.  Pieman is also accurate in that there is a spectrum too -- and reputations & careers shouldn't necessarily be destroyed by lumping everything together, or painting it all with the same brush.
> 
> 
> Pieman, I am no legal expert here by any means.  But, as far as it pertains to this thread -- sexual misconduct could be verbal or physical intimidation, jokes, making passes, inappropriate relationships between members, etc etc.  Sexual assault being a criminal matter indeed.
> 
> One of the issues that I know has been a challenge in the past, is the broad spectrum of behaviours that are all lumped in together as 'sexual assault' -- albeit perhaps things have changed on the legal end.  (Brihard, FJAG??)


Can't help you much because I only dabbled in criminal law. I know there were a number of years after rape was changed to sexual assault and then a number of other sexual exploitation etc laws were grafted on but I think in general the law is fairly stable now with the odd press fueled outrage when some judge makes either a right (but unpopular) or wrong (and even more unpopular) finding on whether there was consent or not or mens rea or not.

🍻


----------



## CBH99

I know there was some frustration, at least a few years ago, amongst some lawyers I was having lunch with inside a courthouse lunchroom, that were chatting about the 'vagueness' of some of their cases.  For example, a 'poke in the boob' had the same 'sexual assault' label as a rape.

I'm not a lawyer, and don't follow case law anything beyond being an interested reader on this forum, so wasn't sure.


----------



## FJAG

CBH99 said:


> I know there was some frustration, at least a few years ago, amongst some lawyers I was having lunch with inside a courthouse lunchroom, that were chatting about the 'vagueness' of some of their cases.  For example, a 'poke in the boob' had the same 'sexual assault' label as a rape.
> 
> I'm not a lawyer, and don't follow case law anything beyond being an interested reader on this forum, so wasn't sure.


There was a time in the eighties when breasts were considered secondary sexual characteristics and didn't quite attract the same level of "sexual assault" connotation as touching the primary genitalia (hell I won one of the very few CMs I ever defended on that argument - the case was dialed down from sexual assault to simple assault) Not long after that in 1987 the SCC in R v Chase said touching breasts in the right circumstances was an assault of a sexual nature (The Court of Appeal of NB had previously ruled otherwise in that  case - and if memory still serves me I cited the NBCA decision in support of my argument). There's been really no doubt since that far back that "poking" or whatever a breast could definitely qualify for sexual assault. Sentencing obviously varies greatly.

🍻


----------



## OldSolduer

FJAG said:


> There was a time in the eighties when breasts were considered secondary sexual characteristics and didn't quite attract the same level of "sexual assault" connotation as touching the primary genitalia (hell I won one of the very few CMs I ever defended on that argument - the case was dialed down from sexual assault to simple assault) Not long after that in 1987 the SCC in R v Chase said touching breasts in the right circumstances was an assault of a sexual nature (The Court of Appeal of NB had previously ruled otherwise in that  case - and if memory still serves me I cited the NBCA decision in support of my argument). There's been really no doubt since that far back that "poking" or whatever a breast could definitely qualify for sexual assault. Sentencing obviously varies greatly.
> 
> 🍻


So when my attractive female co worker poked me in the chest....oh never mind...….


----------



## MilEME09

Another post yesterday by RCEME Corp, haven't seen the allegations but the domino's are falling.


----------



## Brad Sallows

"X will not be tolerated" might make an impression the first time.  After X is seen to have been tolerated, further repetitions are likely to be interpreted as mere political posturing.

"We are troubled".  Words.  Just words.  Better to have simply stated a fact: that allegations of "X" have been raised, without making claims to some particular emotional state.

"There is no place for any type of misconduct".  Well, sure.  Pretty well everyone already knew that was supposed to be the way things are.  There's a criminal code and QR&Os and all sorts of other stuff spelling out what is regarded as misconduct, and how it should be dealt with.  Don't talk, just do.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Like my favorite comic news reporter says "retweeting Greenpeace does not lower your carbon footprint."


----------



## Journeyman

OldSolduer said:


> So when my attractive female co worker poked me in the chest....oh never mind...….


Whenever something like that happens to me, the alarm clock tends to wake me up....


----------



## OldSolduer

Journeyman said:


> Whenever something like that happens to me, the alarm clock tends to wake me up....


Generally me too but this actually happened. I did not feel victimized


----------



## Jarnhamar

MilEME09 said:


> Another post yesterday by RCEME Corp, haven't seen the allegations but the domino's are falling.


That FB post is a perfect example of how serious the CAF continues to take this issue. The only thing it's missing is a promise to _do better_.


----------



## Mediman14

MilEME09 said:


> Another post yesterday by RCEME Corp, haven't seen the allegations but the domino's are falling.


This reminds me of a cartoon that I seen. The Cartoon Cop said to the crook “Stop, or I will say stop again “! 
  Typical response, “we are troubled by this, it is wrong”. Behind the scenes they are saying, who cares.


----------



## OldSolduer

Jarnhamar said:


> That FB post is a perfect example of how serious the CAF continues to take this issue. The only thing it's missing is a promise to _do better_.


Promises mean nothing. Action is needed.


----------



## Mediman14

I should of added this in my last post, but I just thought of it.
   This is something to think about. I am not doubting of saying the allegations are not true or didn’t happen. This is why there should be a proper investigation by an outside source for a honest conclusion. 
     What if, some if it was not true, what if it was made up by someone, what if someone said things to get back at someone for something they didn’t like? It happens more often than what we think. I say this because it happened to me once. A female MCpl took my words and added more. It just so happen that, this unit was famous for some people to twist things. To combat this, some of us recorded conversations or always made sure we had witnesses to make sure we never got blame for something that didn’t happen . I presented the conversation to my OIC, and proved I didn’t say what I was accused of. Needless to say, the female MCpl got off with it.
  Recording conversations to protect yourself was the norm. Whenever we had to counsel someone, it was recorded or a witness was there. You couldn’t trust anyone to twist things or say things that just didn’t happen.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Mediman14 said:


> I should of added this in my last post, but I just thought of it.
> This is something to think about. I am not doubting of saying the allegations are not true or didn’t happen. This is why there should be a proper investigation by an outside source for a honest conclusion.
> What if, some if it was not true, what if it was made up by someone, what if someone said things to get back at someone for something they didn’t like? It happens more often than what we think. I say this because it happened to me once. A female MCpl took my words and added more. It just so happen that, this unit was famous for some people to twist things. To combat this, some of us recorded conversations or always made sure we had witnesses to make sure we never got blame for something that didn’t happen . I presented the conversation to my OIC, and proved I didn’t say what I was accused of. Needless to say, the female MCpl got off with it.
> Recording conversations to protect yourself was the norm. Whenever we had to counsel someone, it was recorded or a witness was there. You couldn’t trust anyone to twist things or say things that just didn’t happen.



Happens all the time, sadly. And not just the ‘girl on boy’ style interactions.

I was Adjt of a unit at one time when two of my Officers were falsely accused of ‘gang assaulting’ a female officer from another unit.

Against all my pleas for ‘due process’ they were punished, confined to their rooms actually, for a month before any formal proceedings were scheduled. She then admitted to lying and they were released as if nothing had happened. No apology, nothing.

She received no admonishment for lying, and my two (excellent) Officers subsequently left the Army in disgust.

Glass half full: they are both doing much better now than any of the Generals who dumped on them during this ridiculous incident.


----------



## Mediman14

daftandbarmy said:


> Happens all the time, sadly. And not just the ‘girl on boy’ style interactions.
> 
> I was Adjt of a unit at one time when two of my Officers were falsely accused of ‘gang assaulting’ a female officer from another unit.
> 
> Against all my pleas for ‘due process’ they were punished, confined to their rooms actually, for a month before any formal proceedings were scheduled. She then admitted to lying and they were released as if nothing had happened. No apology, nothing.
> 
> She received no admonishment for lying, and my two (excellent) Officers subsequently left the Army in disgust.
> 
> Glass half full: they are both doing much better now than any of the Generals who dumped on them during this ridiculous incident.


I don’t understand why someone would want to that to people. The lying party should be punished heavily . It says a lot about those who automatically assume people are guilty without a proper unbiased investigation. Because if there actions, they should be remove from command and let it be made publicly. That way they get a sense for others felt . 
  If it is true about the general officers, it will be extremely hard to gain back trust.


----------



## lenaitch

Because if it's any like the civilian legal world, there is enormous pressure to treat all allegations as true, and that to call out false allegations will be seen as stifling victims from coming forward.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Things are getting hotter:


----------



## dapaterson

And in completely unrelated news, the Deputy Minister's brother-in-law announces his retirement.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1374019118697959425


----------



## daftandbarmy

Mediman14 said:


> I don’t understand why someone would want to that to people. The lying party should be punished heavily . It says a lot about those who automatically assume people are guilty without a proper unbiased investigation. Because if there actions, they should be remove from command and let it be made publicly. That way they get a sense for others felt .
> If it is true about the general officers, it will be extremely hard to gain back trust.



Criminal behaviour should not be brushed under the carpet, but there's a key role for due process amidst the hysteria:

The Dark Side Of #MeToo: What Happens When Men Are Falsely Accused​
*The reality is that false accusations happen*. *And we need to talk about them*.

Famed lawyer Alan Dershowitz is no stranger to controversy. In fact, he often invites it with open arms. But being accused of rape and being lumped in with Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein is a rare type of controversy that he finds himself uncomfortable with: “I welcome controversy about my ideas. I love having debates and controversy about my ideas. But having controversy about whether or not I’m a sex offender? That’s not what I bargained for in my life.”

Dershowitz recounts his side of the story in the book _Guilt By Accusation: The Challenge of Proving Innocence in the Age of #metoo__. _His case is particularly interesting because it started before the #metoo movement and continues today. When asked if he noticed a difference between perception before and after, he said it was very noticeable. “There’s no question. Before the #metoo movement, I had won. It had gone away. I had the submission, I had the tapes, the recording, the emails, I had a full investigation by the former head of the FBI who said it was false, I had a judge who struck it [down], the lawyers had withdrawn it...it was over! It was completely over. And then the #metoo movement came, and suddenly it was resurrected.”









						The Dark Side Of #MeToo: What Happens When Men Are Falsely Accused
					

We must all remember that the harm that has been inflicted on those who have experienced harassment and assault will not diminish when people who have done nothing wrong suffer the consequences of false accusations.




					www.forbes.com


----------



## Mediman14

daftandbarmy said:


> Criminal behaviour should not be brushed under the carpet, but there's a key role for due process amidst the hysteria:
> 
> The Dark Side Of #MeToo: What Happens When Men Are Falsely Accused​
> *The reality is that false accusations happen*. *And we need to talk about them*.
> 
> Famed lawyer Alan Dershowitz is no stranger to controversy. In fact, he often invites it with open arms. But being accused of rape and being lumped in with Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein is a rare type of controversy that he finds himself uncomfortable with: “I welcome controversy about my ideas. I love having debates and controversy about my ideas. But having controversy about whether or not I’m a sex offender? That’s not what I bargained for in my life.”
> 
> Dershowitz recounts his side of the story in the book _Guilt By Accusation: The Challenge of Proving Innocence in the Age of #metoo__. _His case is particularly interesting because it started before the #metoo movement and continues today. When asked if he noticed a difference between perception before and after, he said it was very noticeable. “There’s no question. Before the #metoo movement, I had won. It had gone away. I had the submission, I had the tapes, the recording, the emails, I had a full investigation by the former head of the FBI who said it was false, I had a judge who struck it [down], the lawyers had withdrawn it...it was over! It was completely over. And then the #metoo movement came, and suddenly it was resurrected.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Dark Side Of #MeToo: What Happens When Men Are Falsely Accused
> 
> 
> We must all remember that the harm that has been inflicted on those who have experienced harassment and assault will not diminish when people who have done nothing wrong suffer the consequences of false accusations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.forbes.com


Like I said previously, I am not doubting any allegations at all, and I agree things shouldn’t be sweep under the rug. What I do think is that all personal involved should not be thrown to the wolves without a fair and unbiased investigation.


----------



## YZT580

Mediman14 said:


> Like I said previously, I am not doubting any allegations at all, and I agree things shouldn’t be sweep under the rug. What I do think is that all personal involved should not be thrown to the wolves without a fair and unbiased investigation.


the only way to do that is to keep it out of the news and that is an impossibility between traditional and twitter having at you


----------



## OldSolduer

A percentage of the population will consider you guilty despite all evidence to the contrary.


----------



## Jarnhamar

There doesn't seem to be a large appetite in the militarily to go after people who make false allegations. It seems like the response by the CoC is that the falsely accused should just count themselves lucky and move on.

Children's Aid is like that. It can easily be weaponized and people are falsely accused all the time. They won't go after people who make false allegations because they "don't have the resources to do so and as long as kids are safe it's all good".

Because the CAF likes to go full send I'm sure NCOs and Officers won't be able to have conversations with subordinates without 6 witnesses in the room, a body cam and JAG officer on the phone.


----------



## FJAG

Jarnhamar said:


> There doesn't seem to be a large appetite in the militarily to go after people who make false allegations. It seems like the response by the CoC is that the falsely accused should just count themselves lucky and move on.
> 
> Children's Aid is like that. It can easily be weaponized and people are falsely accused all the time. They won't go after people who make false allegations because they "don't have the resources to do so and as long as kids are safe it's all good".
> 
> Because the CAF likes to go full send I'm sure NCOs and Officers won't be able to have conversations with subordinates without 6 witnesses in the room, a body cam and JAG officer on the phone.


Probably true.

The problem with going after false allegations is that quite often it is not possible to prove that it was clearly false. More often than not some poor prosecutor had to make a call that there was insufficient evidence for a reasonable likelihood of conviction on the initial complaint. Usually that also leaves him with a situation that there is probably no reasonable likelihood that the initial allegation was false or fraudulent. There's a lot of wishy washy middle ground between the two.

🍻


----------



## dapaterson

Or, in some instances, institutional pressure was exerted to persuade someone to abandon their claim.  "He's a good guy, do you want to ruin his career?"  "It's your word against his, if you withdraw the claim you won't have to go through the wringer."


----------



## Haggis

Jarnhamar said:


> There doesn't seem to be a large appetite in the militarily to go after people who make false allegations. It seems like the response by the CoC is that the falsely accused should just count themselves lucky and move on.


Like this guy?


----------



## FJAG

dapaterson said:


> Or, in some instances, institutional pressure was exerted to persuade someone to abandon their claim.  "He's a good guy, do you want to ruin his career?"  "It's your word against his, if you withdraw the claim you won't have to go through the wringer."


You know, I can't even remember a situation I was in where I would have even considered using a line like that or for that matter if I had been confronted by such a situation that I would ever have used it. And that's from long before all these mandated programs even existed.

It involves making a value judgement that has a preconceived notion of which individual is worth protecting and which can be thrown under the bus.

I do not doubt that this goes on but I can't for the life of me conceive of why it does.

🍻


----------



## QV

FJAG said:


> Probably true.
> 
> The problem with going after false allegations is that quite often it is not possible to prove that it was clearly false. More often than not some poor prosecutor had to make a call that there was insufficient evidence for a reasonable likelihood of conviction on the initial complaint. Usually that also leaves him with a situation that there is probably no reasonable likelihood that the initial allegation was false or fraudulent. There's a lot of wishy washy middle ground between the two.
> 
> 🍻


That’s a copout.  There are many cases with false allegations where the evidence is available, yet they still get a pass.  This reminds me of the no discretion domestic violence policy some years ago that resulted in police frequently charging both parties and “letting the courts sort it out” ... just abandon any investigation to determine who the aggressor was.  Both parties arrested, charged.  Case gets peace bonded out, no justice or protection for the victim, cycle of violence continues.  In fact the victim was further victimized by the legal system.


----------



## OldSolduer

FJAG said:


> You know, I can't even remember a situation I was in where I would have even considered using a line like that or for that matter if I had been confronted by such a situation that I would ever have used it. And that's from long before all these mandated programs even existed.
> 
> It involves making a value judgement that has a preconceived notion of which individual is worth protecting and which can be thrown under the bus.
> 
> I do not doubt that this goes on but I can't for the life of me conceive of why it does.
> 
> 🍻


For quite a few years wives of service members who had been assaulted or abused by their spouse service member (wife beaters) would not come forward and out the guy. All because they didn't want to ruin his career.


----------



## dapaterson

FJAG said:


> You know, I can't even remember a situation I was in where I would have even considered using a line like that or for that matter if I had been confronted by such a situation that I would ever have used it. And that's from long before all these mandated programs even existed.
> 
> It involves making a value judgement that has a preconceived notion of which individual is worth protecting and which can be thrown under the bus.
> 
> I do not doubt that this goes on but I can't for the life of me conceive of why it does.
> 
> 🍻


Such undue influence is rarely on the legal side, but rather on the command side.


----------



## FJAG

QV said:


> That’s a copout.  There are many cases with false allegations where the evidence is available, yet they still get a pass.  This reminds me of the no discretion domestic violence policy some years ago that resulted in police frequently charging both parties and “letting the courts sort it out” ... just abandon any investigation to determine who the aggressor was.  Both parties arrested, charged.  Case gets peace bonded out, no justice or protection for the victim, cycle of violence continues.  In fact the victim was further victimized by the legal system.


I was quite precise using the term "quite often". I don't doubt that there are cases where the evidence is "available" or even "clear" and in those cases there should definitely be prosecutions. My point is that "quite often" in these situations the evidence is a lot muddier and and contradictory (I hate to use the term "he said/she said" but that's often all that's available) than you would like it to be.



dapaterson said:


> Such undue influence is rarely on the legal side, but rather on the command side.


There was a time when I was on the "command side" before the "legal side". I have troubles understanding why either side would take that approach.

🍻


----------



## Kilted

Jarnhamar said:


> There doesn't seem to be a large appetite in the militarily to go after people who make false allegations. It seems like the response by the CoC is that the falsely accused should just count themselves lucky and move on.
> 
> Children's Aid is like that. It can easily be weaponized and people are falsely accused all the time. They won't go after people who make false allegations because they "don't have the resources to do so and as long as kids are safe it's all good".
> 
> Because the CAF likes to go full send I'm sure NCOs and Officers won't be able to have conversations with subordinates without 6 witnesses in the room, a body cam and JAG officer on the phone.


I'm surprised that there aren't more cameras on DND establishments.  It wouldn't surprise me if this became more common in the future.  The real question is will they eventually put them in the mess?  I could see a few people being upset over that.  Does the military have any regulations against recording conversations, especially those with a superior?


----------



## MilEME09

Edward Campbell said:


> View attachment 64756Things are getting hotter:











						Gen. Vance 'was not truthful' in 2015 about sexual misconduct allegations, ex-Harper aide tells MPs
					

Ray Novak said he was 'confident' Harper would have cancelled Vance's appointment as defence chief if the misconduct claims were verified




					nationalpost.com
				




Full text


----------



## Kat Stevens

MilEME09 said:


> Gen. Vance 'was not truthful' in 2015 about sexual misconduct allegations, ex-Harper aide tells MPs
> 
> 
> Ray Novak said he was 'confident' Harper would have cancelled Vance's appointment as defence chief if the misconduct claims were verified
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nationalpost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Full text


Generals are “not truthful”. Corporals are lying pricks.


----------



## dapaterson

Kat Stevens said:


> Generals are “not truthful”. Corporals are lying pricks.



#NotAllCorporals


----------



## Kilted

dapaterson said:


> #NotAllCorporals


#Corporalswithonearetrustworthy


----------



## FSTO

dapaterson said:


> And in completely unrelated news, the Deputy Minister's brother-in-law announces his retirement.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1374019118697959425


It would be refreshing if our GOFO's would quit thinking they are extra's in a Mad Men episode.


----------



## Navy_Pete

FSTO said:


> It would be refreshing if our GOFO's would quit thinking they are extra's in a Mad Men episode.


I get GOFOs are people that have needs and wants like everyone else, but Jesus H; how difficult is it to keep your junk to yourself? And if you don't, find someone outside of work. Pretty simples.

Especially knowing how nuts the US military is about adultery; crazy poor judgement. That probably lost the other party their job on top of everything else.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Navy_Pete said:


> I get GOFOs are people that have needs and wants like everyone else, but Jesus H; how difficult is it to keep your junk to yourself? And if you don't, find someone outside of work. Pretty simples.
> 
> Especially knowing how nuts the US military is about adultery; crazy poor judgement. That probably lost the other party their job on top of everything else.



Some people are attracted to power.  On a very minor level I experienced this as an instructor at CFLTC (CFSAL).  As a new MS I went to the H Club some Thursday nights to have a few wets like lots of other JRs.  I was continually approached by students at the school who had seen me, I had a girl out right proposition me (to which I declined); another drove her hands down my pants while I was with a group of guys talking about baseball and; I had another come up falling over drunk try to drive her tongue down my throat.  I brought her back to her friends and told them to take her home, I have personal rules about not sleeping with drunk/intoxicated women.

I stopped going to the mess after that one.

Humans are humans and temptation will break anyone given enough time and the right set of circumstances.  This is not trying to defend sexual violence, but put women and men together and a certain amount will get frisky.


----------



## Weinie

Kat Stevens said:


> Generals are “not truthful”. Corporals are lying pricks.


Some Generals and some Corporals are lying pricks.


----------



## OldSolduer

Just add alcohol to the mix...


----------



## Halifax Tar

OldSolduer said:


> Just add alcohol to the mix...



You know I like a good piss up as much as the next guy,  Im a tight head prop for gods sakes, but with amount of trouble booze causes and has caused us I cannot fathom why we still entertain its use on DND/CAF premises and functions.


----------



## OldSolduer

Halifax Tar said:


> You know I like a good piss up as much as the next guy,  Im a tight head prop for gods sakes, but with amount of trouble booze causes and has caused us I cannot fathom why we still entertain its use on DND/CAF premises and functions.


The issue is you’re punishing the vast majority who are responsible adults while letting miscreants off the hook.
Hold those who have alcohol issues accountable- which the CAF is not good at.


----------



## MilEME09

OldSolduer said:


> The issue is you’re punishing the vast majority who are responsible adults while letting miscreants off the hook.
> Hold those who have alcohol issues accountable- which the CAF is not good at.


Or they don't want to pay to fix it. Knew a guy ordered to go to anger management, but the only one was in Edmonton he could be sent To. So they didn't want to pay the cost and lost time for the member to go and wrote it off. Proper follow through would likely stop some things, and maybe bartenders who cut people off. I have seen too many times at messes people who clearly should not be continued to serve alcohol just go up and buy more drinks.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

As a recovering alcoholic, I totally agree with your take on this. Zero tolerance is the policy of the lazy; you somehow manage to fix everything by doing nothing.  When I was drinking, I was a loose cannon and I did stupid things on a weekly basis; me being a shithead when I drink shouldn't be the reason Bloggins and Jones can't have a couple beers in the mess.

Much like the current Sexual Misconduct fiasco we find ourselves in, its not the battalion of Bloggins and Jones' that need reminding that SM is bad go do your DLN course; its creating an environment where victims can feel that they will come forward and be heard and that perpetrators will fear the swift hammer of administrative and disciplinary action that comes with it. At the moment, we are starting to see the beginnings of people being held to account and that is a step in the right direction.


----------



## Haggis

OldSolduer said:


> The issue is you’re punishing the vast majority who are responsible adults while letting miscreants off the hook.


That's the Canadian - and specifically Liberal - way of doing things.  Legislate/regulate the problem away without having any real results.  "We took strong action.  We did "something"!"  Welcome to the world of lawful gun ownership, for example.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Haggis said:


> That's the Canadian - and specifically Liberal - way of doing things.  Legislate/regulate the problem away without having any real results.  "We took strong action.  We did "something"!"  Welcome to the world of lawful gun ownership, for example.



Interestingly enough, they might not to be able to do anything, legally, in these cases. Glass half full: we get to be global leaders in something! 


Key allies watching closely to see how Canada handles sexual misconduct claims against Vance, McDonald​​Could Canada's current and former top commanders face courts martial? How would that work?​It's a uniquely Canadian conundrum.

The political, institutional and social meltdown in the Canadian Forces over misconduct allegations involving the country's most senior military commanders has piqued the interest of experts in allied nations — particularly legal scholars.

And they're all wondering the same things. How would you try a current or former chief of the defence staff? What happens if charges are recommended against Gen. Jonathan Vance or Admiral Art McDonald?

Both Vance and McDonald are facing allegations of sexual misconduct. The top military commander is usually the ultimate disciplinary authority for those in uniform. Serving members of the military at that level tend not to face charges themselves — in fact, experts in military law told CBC News they can't recall it happening anywhere else.

"I'm not aware of any country that's had this senior of a leader facing these potential charges," said retired U.S. Army lieutenant-colonel Victor Hansen, a professor of law at the New England School of Law, in Boston.

"So you guys are going to be the leaders, I guess, in charting the path for what to do or what not to do."



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/vance-mcdonald-canadian-armed-forces-sexual-misconduct-1.5959563?ref=mobilerss&cmp=newsletter_CBC%20News%20Top%20Headlines%20%20%E2%80%93%20Morning_1613_252871


----------



## dapaterson

The underlying issue is leadership / lack thereof. Right now, there's been zero "seek and accept responsibility" in the public sphere. And historically, leadership appears to have weaponized personnel administration and military justice tools through inconsistent application.

For example, Colonel (retired) Dan Menard was constructively dismissed from the CAF, then, after he released, demoted to Colonel and fined in a court martial for having an affair while deployed. (His lawyers, at least, must be salivating at the prospect of multiple billable hours to redress his treatment and get a settlement in the low seven figures.) It would appear that administrative measure weres not applied in cases involving Col (ret'd) Menard's peers, nor were disciplinary actions taken despite knowledge of misconduct.

Bland "We need to do better" paeans from alleged leadership are not what's needed - open, frank acknowledgement of individual as well as institutional failings are the minimum required to regain trust, both internally and externally.


----------



## Haggis

dapaterson said:


> It would appear that administrative measure were not applied in cases involving Col (ret'd) Menard's peers, nor were disciplinary actions taken despite knowledge of misconduct.


I believe Col (ret'd) Menard's co-accused was dealt with via summary trial and then posted to NAVRES HQ.


----------



## dapaterson

His co-accused was not a peer.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Haggis said:


> I believe Col (ret'd) Menard's co-accused was dealt with via summary trial and then posted to NAVRES HQ.



Ah yes, the Reserves... what 'Coventry' used to be in the good old (Elizabethan) days


----------



## Haggis

dapaterson said:


> His co-accused was not a peer.


In the commission of the offence she was.

Did any of their peers take them aside to suggest this wasn't a good idea? According to the CM transcript, Col Hetherington, Menard's EA, was tasked with determining if there was anything contrary to TFSOs going on.  Did he say something to Menard or to Langlois? If so, clearly the advice wasn't heeded.

Since this affair began in Canada, was there pressure/influence exerted to coordinate their deployments to Afghanistan?  If so, was that dealt with?

The same could be said for the peers of Gen Vance throughout the years who knew of the ongoing relationship with Maj Brennan which spanned over two decades.

It will be interesting to see what spin the Liberals put on the "Vance misled Harper but he appointed him anyways" story in contrast to the hiring and resignation of Julie Payette, with far less oversight and vetting than the former CDS.


----------



## QV

FJAG said:


> I was quite precise using the term "quite often". I don't doubt that there are cases where the evidence is "available" or even "clear" and in those cases there should definitely be prosecutions. My point is that "quite often" in these situations the evidence is a lot muddier and and contradictory (I hate to use the term "he said/she said" but that's often all that's available) than you would like it to be.


And my point is even when there is available or clear evidence of false allegations it is not even investigated.


----------



## dapaterson

A MCpl is not a peer to a BGen.  A BGen is a peer to other GOFOs.  And the only other GOFO court martial at the CMJ site is for LGen Rouleau, setting an example that a later artillery officer charged with a similar offence failed to follow.


----------



## FJAG

QV said:


> And my point is even when there is available or clear evidence of false allegations it is not even investigated.



That's entirely too broad a conclusion. Here's one example to prove that it does happen.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/unfounded-norfolk-county-opp-1.4971649

And one that went to jail:

Woman Sentenced to 60 Days in Jail After Falsely Accusing Ex-Husband of Attempted Rape and Domestic Violence - Gelman & Associates

🍻


----------



## QV

FJAG said:


> That's entirely too broad a conclusion. Here's one example to prove that it does happen.
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/unfounded-norfolk-county-opp-1.4971649
> 
> And one that went to jail:
> 
> Woman Sentenced to 60 Days in Jail After Falsely Accusing Ex-Husband of Attempted Rape and Domestic Violence - Gelman & Associates
> 
> 🍻



I'll concede I made a (too) broad statement with that.  But even with your two examples to the contrary everyone in the game knows a false allegation is not pursued as fervently as the allegation itself.  When both are evenly investigated we'll have reached something closer to a justice system. As long as that is ignored we'll continue to have only a legal system.


----------



## CBH99

QV said:


> I'll concede I made a (too) broad statement with that.  But even with your two examples to the contrary everyone in the game knows a false allegation is not pursued as fervently as the allegation itself.  When both are evenly investigated we'll have reached something closer to a justice system. As long as that is ignored we'll continue to have only a legal system.


I always enjoy watching these conversations between two members who are polite, knowledgeable, and both make valid points.  Especially with the really knowledgeable folks who post articles and case law I wouldn't even know to look for 

I imagine it varies from police service to police service, but I do tend to agree 'generally' with QV on this one.  (Agreeing with both of you, that it can't be painted with too wide a brush.)



I'm currently assisting a fellow member in an investigation that touches on this very thing.


A female gave a landlord $500 damage deposit.  Didn't pay rent for 3 months while she lived in the apartment, and was subsequently evicted.
Landlord returned her $500 after some time of her asking & nagging for it, which he had initially kept in lieu of unpaid rent.


Long story short (and believe me on this, it's a long and twisted story) -- the landlord was charged with fraud, and the renter said in her statement to police that she had not received the $500 back.  Her sister was her room mate, and made similar claims.

Turns out, the renter HAD INDEED been paid back her damage deposit, as the landlord felt pity on her due to her being a young, broke student.  This was confirmed with text messages, and confirmation of the E-Transfer.  It also turns out that the complainant was living in another province at the time she complained (after she had been evicted) - both her and the officer stated in court that the complainant filled out her own statement.  (This also turned out to be false, as the statement was clearly in the officer's handwriting, and the complainant later stated that she indeed did NOT fill out any statement, but she just briefly described the situation over the phone to the officer.)

This is just a very very small part of an extremely large and complex investigation.




Point is -- that young man has had his entire life ripped apart.  The police did a media release about him being charged, he was forced to stop attending school because the complainant said that she was working at the college (she wasn't, she just applied for a job there), he had to stop volunteering with the Boys & Girls Club because she said she worked there also (again, she just applied for a job.  Was never actually employed.)  His entire social circle & employment situation changed drastically...

While he was EVENTUALLY able to tell his side of the story and prove that all of this nonsense was essentially about nothing, he's had to move to a new city and start fresh.  (He's actually a really good kid, and ironically enough he was in school to get a Masters in Forensic Science.)

The charges were dropped.  But what happened to the person who filed the false allegation?  Nothing...



So while I obviously agree with both of you, and you both make very valid and equally important points - a big part of my position right now is investigating situations similar to this.  We all seem to be in agreement that we currently have a legal system - but until false claims are pursued with more fervor & the consequence for filing one is a risk someone isn't willing to take... it makes our collective goal of a 'justice system' that much more out of reach.

0.02


<My apologies.  I've actually been grinding on this file since about 1pm yesterday - I haven't left the office.  If the above post is rittled with nonsense that isn't readable, spelling mistakes, or just sheer gibberish - I'll edit once I'm home.)


----------



## MilEME09

CBH99 said:


> I always enjoy watching these conversations between two members who are polite, knowledgeable, and both make valid points.  Especially with the really knowledgeable folks who post articles and case law I wouldn't even know to look for
> 
> I imagine it varies from police service to police service, but I do tend to agree 'generally' with QV on this one.  (Agreeing with both of you, that it can't be painted with too wide a brush.)
> 
> 
> 
> I'm currently assisting a fellow member in an investigation that touches on this very thing.
> 
> 
> A female gave a landlord $500 damage deposit.  Didn't pay rent for 3 months while she lived in the apartment, and was subsequently evicted.
> Landlord returned her $500 after some time of her asking & nagging for it, which he had initially kept in lieu of unpaid rent.
> 
> 
> Long story short (and believe me on this, it's a long and twisted story) -- the landlord was charged with fraud, and the renter said in her statement to police that she had not received the $500 back.  Her sister was her room mate, and made similar claims.
> 
> Turns out, the renter HAD INDEED been paid back her damage deposit, as the landlord felt pity on her due to her being a young, broke student.  This was confirmed with text messages, and confirmation of the E-Transfer.  It also turns out that the complainant was living in another province at the time she complained (after she had been evicted) - both her and the officer stated in court that the complainant filled out her own statement.  (This also turned out to be false, as the statement was clearly in the officer's handwriting, and the complainant later stated that she indeed did NOT fill out any statement, but she just briefly described the situation over the phone to the officer.)
> 
> This is just a very very small part of an extremely large and complex investigation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Point is -- that young man has had his entire life ripped apart.  The police did a media release about him being charged, he was forced to stop attending school because the complainant said that she was working at the college (she wasn't, she just applied for a job there), he had to stop volunteering with the Boys & Girls Club because she said she worked there also (again, she just applied for a job.  Was never actually employed.)  His entire social circle & employment situation changed drastically...
> 
> While he was EVENTUALLY able to tell his side of the story and prove that all of this nonsense was essentially about nothing, he's had to move to a new city and start fresh.  (He's actually a really good kid, and ironically enough he was in school to get a Masters in Forensic Science.)
> 
> The charges were dropped.  But what happened to the person who filed the false allegation?  Nothing...
> 
> 
> 
> So while I obviously agree with both of you, and you both make very valid and equally important points - a big part of my position right now is investigating situations similar to this.  We all seem to be in agreement that we currently have a legal system - but until false claims are pursued with more fervor & the consequence for filing one is a risk someone isn't willing to take... it makes our collective goal of a 'justice system' that much more out of reach.
> 
> 0.02
> 
> 
> <My apologies.  I've actually been grinding on this file since about 1pm yesterday - I haven't left the office.  If the above post is rittled with nonsense that isn't readable, spelling mistakes, or just sheer gibberish - I'll edit once I'm home.)


You would think there would be charges for filing a false police report in that situation at the least, if I were him I would file suit in civil court for damages.


----------



## YZT580

MilEME09 said:


> You would think there would be charges for filing a false police report in that situation at the least, if I were him I would file suit in civil court for damages.


and what about the officer who took the affidavit over the phone and then perjured himself by stating it was filed in person?


----------



## MilEME09

YZT580 said:


> and what about the officer who took the affidavit over the phone and then perjured himself by stating it was filed in person?


There should be consequences as well, let word is should


----------



## FJAG

CBH99 said:


> ...
> I'm currently assisting a fellow member in an investigation that touches on this very thing.
> 
> 
> A female gave a landlord $500 damage deposit.  Didn't pay rent for 3 months while she lived in the apartment, and was subsequently evicted.
> Landlord returned her $500 after some time of her asking & nagging for it, which he had initially kept in lieu of unpaid rent.
> ...


Based on those facts there's no doubt that charges ought to be pursued.

Just as an aside, security deposits vary by provincial legislation. In Ontario for example no damage deposits are allowed but a "last months rent" deposit is. In other you can have them but the regulations as to converting a damage deposit as a charge against unpaid rent vary. That might have been a factor here. That aside, claiming that a damage deposit is still owed when in fact it isn't is clearly fraud and not just mischief. Sounds like a complaint against the investigating constable should also be in order. This case, based on those facts, should have been stopped before it even got to the crown. If there had been evidence disclosed in the investigation that the sum had been transferred to her then I doubt that any crown would have pursued this or at the very least kicked it back to the cops for a further investigation.

🍻


----------



## Eaglelord17

The whole false allegations thing is part of the reason people don't bring forward sexual assault and misconduct issues in the first place. 

When someone says 'so and so punched me' we instantly believe them, yet when someone says 'so and so raped me' we don't. It is always 'you sure it was rape' 'maybe you consented and regretted it afterwards' 'They are a good person I don't believe they would do that' etc. There are plenty of people who don't come forward due to the way how the process is, and it isn't a fun process for the victim to begin with. Many interviews, many questions, all the way up to the stand where they are interrogated over and over again on what happened to them. And then at the end of it all, the person that the victim knows is guilty (as they lived it) can still get off scot free, coupled now with the stigma that they 'made it all up just to attack that person'. No wonder many people don't come forward or withdraw their complaints. 

Are there false complaints? Yes there are, there is always people who will lie to try and make things better for themselves. But 'this we must prosecute these people to the full extent of the law' mentality is partially what keeps the real victims silent and allows the criminals to remain in society. How do you determine who is who? If you end up going after a real victim who just refuses to come forward about what happened, your criminalizing them twice over.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Eaglelord17 said:


> The whole false allegations thing is part of the reason people don't bring forward sexual assault and misconduct issues in the first place.
> 
> When someone says 'so and so punched me' we instantly believe them, yet when someone says 'so and so raped me' we don't. It is always 'you sure it was rape' 'maybe you consented and regretted it afterwards' 'They are a good person I don't believe they would do that' etc. There are plenty of people who don't come forward due to the way how the process is, and it isn't a fun process for the victim to begin with. Many interviews, many questions, all the way up to the stand where they are interrogated over and over again on what happened to them. And then at the end of it all, the person that the victim knows is guilty (as they lived it) can still get off scot free, coupled now with the stigma that they 'made it all up just to attack that person'. No wonder many people don't come forward or withdraw their complaints.
> 
> Are there false complaints? Yes there are, there is always people who will lie to try and make things better for themselves. But 'this we must prosecute these people to the full extent of the law' mentality is partially what keeps the real victims silent and allows the criminals to remain in society. How do you determine who is who? If you end up going after a real victim who just refuses to come forward about what happened, your criminalizing them twice over.



I think your positions of severity of infractions is hyperbolic.  We also don't instantly assume guilt with murder either.  Due process is a core tenant of who we are as a society.  I can appreciate that taking the stand and having to relive traumatic events may be difficult but if one wants their assailant to be held accountable for their actions that is what's required.  And some times the law looses or fails.  That's a terrible thing but people are fallible.  

Not to sound pedantic but life is a difficult struggle for most.  Your personal happiness and station in life will greatly depend on your ability to overcome what ever adversity life throws you. 

I personally will not accept, and will consider it a failure, the ruining one innocent life for the sake of presumption and prosecution of guilt with out due process.


----------



## FJAG

Eaglelord17 said:


> The whole false allegations thing is part of the reason people don't bring forward sexual assault and misconduct issues in the first place.
> 
> When someone says 'so and so punched me' we instantly believe them, yet when someone says 'so and so raped me' we don't. It is always 'you sure it was rape' 'maybe you consented and regretted it afterwards' 'They are a good person I don't believe they would do that' etc. There are plenty of people who don't come forward due to the way how the process is, and it isn't a fun process for the victim to begin with. Many interviews, many questions, all the way up to the stand where they are interrogated over and over again on what happened to them. And then at the end of it all, the person that the victim knows is guilty (as they lived it) can still get off scot free, coupled now with the stigma that they 'made it all up just to attack that person'. No wonder many people don't come forward or withdraw their complaints.
> 
> Are there false complaints? Yes there are, there is always people who will lie to try and make things better for themselves. But 'this we must prosecute these people to the full extent of the law' mentality is partially what keeps the real victims silent and allows the criminals to remain in society. How do you determine who is who? If you end up going after a real victim who just refuses to come forward about what happened, your criminalizing them twice over.



The problem is, unfortunately, a very simple one.

When we are dealing with an physical assault, be it with a weapon or not, we are generally dealing with an act of clear violence which the recipient undoubtedly didn't want. Yes there might be questions of provocation or self defence but the essential act of violence can be seen clearly as one where violence was intended by the actor and the victim didn't want that particular act of violence.

On the other hand when it comes to a sexual act we are dealing with a situation which has a continuum from an act that was clearly neither intended to be violent nor unwelcome by the other party to one where the act was just as violent in the mind of the actor and just as unwanted by the recipient as a stabbing or shooting. Even more confusing is that the act can start in one part of the continuum and end up in the other.

As a result we have a harder time in understanding where on the continuum a particular sexual assault allegation fits in and we need to investigate it in detail as to whether or not a crime was committed. We have much less doubt about a stabbing or shooting.

While the problem is simple, the solution is anything but simple. To establish that a crime has in fact been committed, investigators need to delve into the facts of the event, what led up to it and what the individuals states of mind were. If the facts described are contradictory then they need to look at surrounding circumstances to determine which are the more likely. For a victim this process can be highly unpleasant and even traumatizing regardless of whether they are the victims of a sexual assault or a victim of a false allegation. For untrained investigators as well as employers or coworkers of the victim and perpetrator it can be confusing and challenging. Most of us are wired to want to believe our friends and to be suspicious of strangers which makes it all too easy to draw lines in the sand with inadequate evidence and leaves most of us confused about how to respond.

I doubt if we will ever reach a point where we'll be able to properly deal with these situations simply because of the equivocal nature of the act. In the same way, I doubt if any of us, the friends and supporters of an alleged assault victim or the friends and supporters of an alleged victim of a false accusation, will ever be satisfied with the state of the law and the way that it treats them. I expect we will always consider that the legal process is skewed against the viewpoint we're favouring. 

🍻


----------



## lenaitch

There's a huge chasm between a false complaint, which is a crime if provable and a victim refusing to come forward, which is not.  In a decent investigation, the complaint is the starting point.  Any case that goes to court solely on "so and so punched me" is likely doomed to failure.  There are many complicating factors in putting together and prosecuting a sexual assault, including the general lack of witnesses, the necessary disclosure of intimate details by the victim, etc.  There have been legislative and procedural changes to try and limit the impact on victims, but an accused still has to be able to mount a defence.   Any presumption of implied credibility of the complaint cannot override the presumption of innocence of the accused.


----------



## Altair

I do like how a conversation on the bad behavior of general officers quickly turned into one of false allegations of bad behavior.


----------



## MilEME09

CAF will ‘re-establish trust’ after sexual misconduct allegations: Eyre - National | Globalnews.ca
					

Lt.-Gen Wayne Eyre took on the role of CAF acting chief of defence staff last month after Adm. Art McDonald stepped aside over a military police investigation.




					globalnews.ca
				




The latest from committee and a new letter from the A/CDS, at this point though I'm done with talking point and I'll believe action and real change happening not check in the PER box change.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Re-establishing trust is a project requiring years of consistent behaviour and isn't something that can be imposed or declared.  Better to just focus on following existing rules.


----------



## OldSolduer

Altair said:


> I do like how a conversation on the bad behavior of general officers quickly turned into one of false allegations of bad behavior.


You’ve been around long enough to see how these things go.


----------



## Halifax Tar

At this point I, unfortunately, am not in a position where I am given direct leadership or interaction with JRs, I work a staff/ops/planning job at the moment.  So my exposure to junior members is limited. 

For those of you in leadership positions, or if you are a JR member, what is the sentiment from our JRs ?  What kind of damage have these events had that you can see or feel ?


----------



## MilEME09

Halifax Tar said:


> At this point I, unfortunately, am not in a position where I am given direct leadership or interaction with JRs, I work a staff/ops/planning job at the moment.  So my exposure to junior members is limited.
> 
> For those of you in leadership positions, or if you are a JR member, what is the sentiment from our JRs ?  What kind of damage have these events had that you can see or feel ?


Putting it gently Both the troops and even the Jr officers I work with have lost all faith in OP honor. That it was more a smoke and mirrors campaign to cover the old boys club in Ottawa.


----------



## Halifax Tar

MilEME09 said:


> Putting it gently Both the troops and even the Jr officers I work with have lost all faith in OP honor. That it was more a smoke and mirrors campaign to cover the old boys club in Ottawa.



That's disheartening.


----------



## MilEME09

Halifax Tar said:


> That's disheartening.


Let's put it another way, a troopie told me his date backed out in him and blocked his number after he said he was in the CAF, fearing he would sexually assault her. Some are comparing it to post Somalia where just wearing the uniform makes you a bad person.


----------



## Altair

Halifax Tar said:


> At this point I, unfortunately, am not in a position where I am given direct leadership or interaction with JRs, I work a staff/ops/planning job at the moment.  So my exposure to junior members is limited.
> 
> For those of you in leadership positions, or if you are a JR member, what is the sentiment from our JRs ?  What kind of damage have these events had that you can see or feel ?


From a junior member, and one who speaks to other junior members, everyone in a senior position is in the old boys club and the old boys club is a joke.

As for Op Honour, well, having a brief every year saying don't say the F word because then you will think about it and then you will do it to someone without their consent was beyond a joke. 

That two CDS in a row have been sidelined by what they preach is unacceptable is only the cherry on top of the shit cake.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MilEME09 said:


> Putting it gently Both the troops and even the Jr officers I work with have lost all faith in OP honor. That it was more a smoke and mirrors campaign to cover the old boys club in Ottawa.


Reminds me when Chretins government released a book on Ethics and corruption and made it required reading and workshop just as Adscam and the brown envelopes stuff was coming out. Our Regional Director General was hanging his head in shame as tried to say what was required of him to say.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil

MilEME09 said:


> Putting it gently Both the troops and even the Jr officers I work with have lost all faith in OP honor. That it was more a smoke and mirrors campaign to cover the old boys club in Ottawa.



Smoke and mirrors or just more "rules for thee, not for me"? Seems to be a trend lately -- certainly the civilian government has displayed such attitudes as well with our Prime Minister as the most glaring example, the guy who always talks about respect for women yet groped a reporter (and of course skated away from that with no consequences) and also talks about diversity and inclusion but wore blackface on numerous occasions (again skating away unscathed). Perhaps the media letting the Prime Minister (the _de facto_ head of state as far as the average Canadian is concerned) get away with such hypocrisy leads other people in power to think they can do that too.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil

Halifax Tar said:


> For those of you in leadership positions, or if you are a JR member, what is the sentiment from our JRs ?  What kind of damage have these events had that you can see or feel ?



For what it's worth, fortunately so far in my own personal experience, the Cadets programme seems to have escaped fallout from this. I guess we are a bit of our own little world, although among the CIC officers nothing has come up about this and we continue to get new recruits. The cadets are more just frustrated with everything being virtual.

Again, we're a bit isolated though despite the officers being CAF. Also I'm just with a small corps with a fairly tight-knit group of officers/staff and cadets.


----------



## Altair

LittleBlackDevil said:


> Smoke and mirrors or just more "rules for thee, not for me"? Seems to be a trend lately -- certainly the civilian government has displayed such attitudes as well with our Prime Minister as the most glaring example, the guy who always talks about respect for women yet groped a reporter (and of course skated away from that with no consequences) and also talks about diversity and inclusion but wore blackface on numerous occasions (again skating away unscathed). Perhaps the media letting the Prime Minister (the _de facto_ head of state as far as the average Canadian is concerned) get away with such hypocrisy leads other people in power to think they can do that too.


I think Vance's offense happened during the harper years.


----------



## Good2Golf

Altair said:


> I think Vance's offense happened during the harper years.


If you’re going to singularize Vance’s alleged offense in question, then you should perhaps refresh yourself on the more recent (2019-2020) alleged conduct:

Gen. Jonathan Vance will be investigated over allegations of inappropriate behaviour.


----------



## Eaglelord17

Halifax Tar said:


> I think your positions of severity of infractions is hyperbolic.  We also don't instantly assume guilt with murder either.  Due process is a core tenant of who we are as a society.  I can appreciate that taking the stand and having to relive traumatic events may be difficult but if one wants their assailant to be held accountable for their actions that is what's required.  And some times the law looses or fails.  That's a terrible thing but people are fallible.
> 
> Not to sound pedantic but life is a difficult struggle for most.  Your personal happiness and station in life will greatly depend on your ability to overcome what ever adversity life throws you.
> 
> I personally will not accept, and will consider it a failure, the ruining one innocent life for the sake of presumption and prosecution of guilt with out due process.



I am not saying to remove due process, what I am saying is the whole prosecute the victim for 'false allegations' is a terrible thing to do. Unless there is clear evidence that the whole thing was made up you end up creating the barriers that prevent victims from coming forward in the first place.



FJAG said:


> The problem is, unfortunately, a very simple one.
> 
> When we are dealing with an physical assault, be it with a weapon or not, we are generally dealing with an act of clear violence which the recipient undoubtedly didn't want. Yes there might be questions of provocation or self defence but the essential act of violence can be seen clearly as one where violence was intended by the actor and the victim didn't want that particular act of violence.
> 
> On the other hand when it comes to a sexual act we are dealing with a situation which has a continuum from an act that was clearly neither intended to be violent nor unwelcome by the other party to one where the act was just as violent in the mind of the actor and just as unwanted by the recipient as a stabbing or shooting. Even more confusing is that the act can start in one part of the continuum and end up in the other.
> 
> As a result we have a harder time in understanding where on the continuum a particular sexual assault allegation fits in and we need to investigate it in detail as to whether or not a crime was committed. We have much less doubt about a stabbing or shooting.
> 
> While the problem is simple, the solution is anything but simple. To establish that a crime has in fact been committed, investigators need to delve into the facts of the event, what led up to it and what the individuals states of mind were. If the facts described are contradictory then they need to look at surrounding circumstances to determine which are the more likely. For a victim this process can be highly unpleasant and even traumatizing regardless of whether they are the victims of a sexual assault or a victim of a false allegation. For untrained investigators as well as employers or coworkers of the victim and perpetrator it can be confusing and challenging. Most of us are wired to want to believe our friends and to be suspicious of strangers which makes it all too easy to draw lines in the sand with inadequate evidence and leaves most of us confused about how to respond.
> 
> I doubt if we will ever reach a point where we'll be able to properly deal with these situations simply because of the equivocal nature of the act. In the same way, I doubt if any of us, the friends and supporters of an alleged assault victim or the friends and supporters of an alleged victim of a false accusation, will ever be satisfied with the state of the law and the way that it treats them. I expect we will always consider that the legal process is skewed against the viewpoint we're favouring.
> 
> 🍻



1000% there is no perfect way forward. Humans aren't perfect, and neither is the law. My point was more towards the whole 'they lied punish them' crowd, when in many cases they aren't lying, they are just afraid. Do I believe there is a lot less false allegations than real ones though? Yes. Do I believe there is false allegations? Also yes.

There are cases like this which really scare me about when things get taken to the extreme. 





						2019 Cyprus rape allegation case - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## daftandbarmy

Altair said:


> I think Vance's offense happened during the harper years.



Did Harper cancel Christmas too? Just wondering


----------



## Altair

Good2Golf said:


> If you’re going to singularize Vance’s alleged offense in question, then you should perhaps refresh yourself on the more recent (2019-2020) alleged conduct:
> 
> Gen. Jonathan Vance will be investigated over allegations of inappropriate behaviour.


And the email (which would have gotten a junior member during Op Honour in a lot more hot water) happened in 2012, no?


----------



## Altair

daftandbarmy said:


> Did Harper cancel Christmas too? Just wondering


I'm more of a person who believes in holding individuals responsible for their actions, not blaming the political leadership at the time for influencing grown adults to make shit decisions.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil

Altair said:


> I'm more of a person who believes in holding individuals responsible for their actions, not blaming the political leadership at the time for influencing grown adults to make shit decisions.



Fair enough, and I agree individuals should be held responsible for their own actions. I did not intend to suggest otherwise. Just saying that lack of accountability can breed lack of accountability. Doesn't make the perpetrators any less guilty. But if the "rules" were applied equally there might be a bit more general deterrence.


----------



## FSTO

Altair said:


> I think Vance's offense happened during the harper years.


So you're saying all sexual assault in the CAF ended with the election of the Liberals? SMH!


----------



## Altair

LittleBlackDevil said:


> Fair enough, and I agree individuals should be held responsible for their own actions. I did not intend to suggest otherwise. Just saying that lack of accountability can breed lack of accountability. Doesn't make the perpetrators any less guilty. But if the "rules" were applied equally there might be a bit more general deterrence.


The old boys club in the higher ranks predates any modern prime minister and will likely outlive any prime minister in our lifetimes. 

And the old boys club doesn't care one lick what the PM or anyone else is doing, because so long as they cover for each other nothing bad is going to happen to them.


----------



## Altair

FSTO said:


> So you're saying all sexual assault in the CAF ended with the election of the Liberals? SMH!


I'm saying people who are doing the sexual assault don't care one lick who is in power, so long as they have their old boys club covering for them, they can bend the rules to cover their asses from now to kingdom come.


----------



## Good2Golf

Altair said:


> And the email (which would have gotten a junior member during Op Honour in a lot more hot water) happened in 2012, no?


That too, but why include Harper in that. Vance wasn’t CDS in 2012, Gens Natynczyk and Lawson were.  So what does Harper have to do with Vance then?


----------



## Altair

Good2Golf said:


> That too, but why include Harper in that. Vance wasn’t CDS in 2012, Gens Natynczyk and Lawson were.  So what does Harper have to do with Vance then?


Because general officers are completely non partisan, or bi partisan. They will commit their offenses regardless of which party is in power.


----------



## Good2Golf

Altair said:


> I'm more of a person who believes in holding individuals responsible for their actions, not blaming the political leadership at the time for influencing grown adults to make shit decisions.


Hypocrite: “1: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings.”


Unless, of course, you were using lower-case H ‘harper’ to represent the period 2005-2015 C.E.


----------



## Altair

Good2Golf said:


> Hypocrite: “1: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
> 2: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings.”
> 
> 
> Unless, of course, you were using lower-case H ‘harper’ to represent the period 2005-2015 C.E.


I'm sure if I went back to 1812 I would find the same old boys club doing whatever they wanted to do under George Prevost


----------



## Halifax Tar

What's the saying "absolute power corrupts absolutely" ?


----------



## Good2Golf

Altair said:


> I'm sure if I went back to 1812 I would find the same old boys club doing whatever they wanted to do under George Prevost


So again I ask, why did you feel it necessary to specifically refer to Harper when asking about Vance’s earlier conduct?




Altair said:


> I think Vance's offense happened during the harper years.



?


----------



## Altair

LittleBlackDevil said:


> Perhaps the media letting the Prime Minister (the _de facto_ head of state as far as the average Canadian is concerned) get away with such hypocrisy leads other people in power to think they can do that too.





Good2Golf said:


> So again I ask, why did you feel it necessary to specifically refer to Harper when asking about Vance’s earlier conduct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ?



This


----------



## Good2Golf

So you’re saying Harper had numerous ethical violations and treated women disrespectfully?


----------



## Altair

Good2Golf said:


> So you’re saying Harper had numerous ethical violations and treated women disrespectfully?


You know exactly what I'm saying. I've said it repeatedly. I cannot help it if you refuse to read what I have written here.

But just to do my due diligence,  I will say it one last time.

I believe that people who engage in sexual misconduct do it regardless of who is the sitting Prime Minister.


----------



## QV

Eaglelord17 said:


> I am not saying to remove due process, what I am saying is the whole prosecute the victim for 'false allegations' is a terrible thing to do. Unless there is clear evidence that the whole thing was made up you end up creating the barriers that prevent victims from coming forward in the first place.





Eaglelord17 said:


> I am not saying to remove due process, *what I am saying is the whole prosecute the victim for 'false allegations' is a terrible thing to do.* Unless there is clear evidence that the whole thing was made up you end up creating the barriers that prevent victims from coming forward in the first place.


If the allegation is false, then the victim isn't really a victim.  In fact they've done something quite terrible to another person and that needs to be dealt with.


----------



## ModlrMike

It's not what you're saying, it's what you're inferring. Your statement infers that Mr Harper was somehow responsible for the Gen Vance situation.


----------



## Altair

ModlrMike said:


> It's not what you're saying, it's what you're inferring. Your statement infers that Mr Harper was somehow responsible for the Gen Vance situation.


Incorrect. I was saying that Harper was as responsible for Gen Vance situation as Trudeau was.

As in, not at all.

People in the Olds boys club don't give a damn who is in power.


----------



## Good2Golf

Altair said:


> You know exactly what I'm saying. I've said it repeatedly. I cannot help it if you refuse to read what I have written here.
> 
> But just to do my due diligence,  I will say it one last time.
> 
> I believe that people who engage in sexual misconduct do it regardless of who is the sitting Prime Minister.


I do not. It appears you were trying to impugn Harper in the earlier conduct of Vance, as though Harper should have known how a MGen was conducting himself. 

The Difference between Harper and Trudeau is that Trudeau knew via his Minister and staff that there were serious concerns over Vance’s conduct, and the lack of action or acceptance of responsibility by any of Canada’s elected officials of the day is disappointing at best, and at worse represents acceptance and support of questionable, unethical conduct.


----------



## ModlrMike

Then that's what you should have said.


----------



## PMedMoe

LittleBlackDevil said:


> certainly the civilian government has displayed such attitudes as well with our Prime Minister as the most glaring example, the guy who always talks about respect for women yet groped a reporter (and of course skated away from that with no consequences) and also talks about diversity and inclusion but wore blackface on numerous occasions (again skating away unscathed).


Incidents which happened over 20 years ago.  Can't come up with something new?


----------



## Altair

Altair said:


> And the email (which would have gotten a junior member during Op Honour in a lot more hot water) happened in 2012, no?





Altair said:


> Because general officers are completely non partisan, or bi partisan. They will commit their offenses regardless of which party is in power.





Altair said:


> I'm sure if I went back to 1812 I would find the same old boys club doing whatever they wanted to do under George Prevost





Altair said:


> I'm saying people who are doing the sexual assault don't care one lick who is in power, so long as they have their old boys club covering for them, they can bend the rules to cover their asses from now to kingdom come.





Altair said:


> I'm more of a person who believes in holding individuals responsible for their actions, not blaming the political leadership at the time for influencing grown adults to make shit decisions.





ModlrMike said:


> Then that's what you should have said.


Sure.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

You still haven't answered .


----------



## Altair

Good2Golf said:


> I do not. It appears you were trying to impugn Harper in the earlier conduct of Vance, as though Harper should have known how a MGen was conducting himself.
> 
> The Difference between Harper and Trudeau is that Trudeau knew via his Minister and staff that there were serious concerns over Vance’s conduct, and the lack of action or acceptance of responsibility by any of Canada’s elected officials of the day is disappointing at best, and at worse represents acceptance and support of questionable, unethical conduct.


Sure.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

PMedMoe said:


> Incidents which happened over 20 years ago.  Can't come up with something new?


He didn't,  

.others sure did.


----------



## Mediman14

So now we have this red room incident that apparently happened and only 50 something people got interviewed out of the 132. Very shitty investigation to say the least.









						Navy closes probe into alleged ‘red room’ comments without speaking to all involved: sources - National | Globalnews.ca
					

The investigation has concluded with military leadership suggesting subordinate women officers should confront their superiors for inappropriate comments, angering members.




					globalnews.ca
				




  Then we have this part time CDS getting his staff to make up a policy on how to investigate/ deal with General Officers with Misconduct. This is why it will never be right. How can GO write policies on themselves in a fair manner? You just know there will be some loop hole or some other thing that will let them off the hook. 

If you are going to get serious about it, bring in a outside source . What are they scared off? Someone losing their job? Someone being charged? Some spin off investigations to unravel other issues? It looks like double standard. If it was a Jnr Nco, rest assured the book would be thrown at them. I am not speaking for all branches of the military but In my 20 years, besides my own charge, I have witnessed 20 plus trials, all Jnr NCO’s, not one officer. Instead they got posted to Ottawa in some meaningless position. In fact, to break it down again, it was all males that got charged. Honestly, in the medical branch, it is the females that got off with everything, such as harassment, stealing, false accusations, sleeping with subordinates . Instead the CoC was concern about one of male Cpl’s wearing the CF Uniform at a wedding without permission. Never mind stealing NPF funds by a female Sgt.


----------



## ModlrMike

There aren't enough facepalms for this thread.


----------



## Halifax Tar

I haven't heard of this Red Room thing... I read the article.  I haven't read 50 Shades of Grey or seen the movies either; and if I made a comment about someone's Red Room it would def be in relation to a physical structure as I know no other meaning for that term... until now I suppose. 

But if people dog piled with inappropriate comments about BDSM and Kinky Sex after that there is a problem as those topics have no place in the work place.


----------



## Kilted

MilEME09 said:


> Let's put it another way, a troopie told me his date backed out in him and blocked his number after he said he was in the CAF, fearing he would sexually assault her. Some are comparing it to post Somalia where just wearing the uniform makes you a bad person.


I don't think that we are at that point.  I've only spoken to a few people outside the military about this (mostly due to covid) and they have recognized that the recent positions shuffles have been because of the actions of two people.  We don't even know what one of those people has been accused of.  I don't think that there are too many people in Canada who actually think that every person they see in uniform is going to be a rapist or engage in other activities, but then again, we are at a pinnacle of wokeness, so who knows.  I realize using the word pinnacle may be premature, as I am sure that the next few years will see even more.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Mediman14 said:


> So now we have this red room incident that apparently happened and only 50 something people got interviewed out of the 132. Very shitty investigation to say the least.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Navy closes probe into alleged ‘red room’ comments without speaking to all involved: sources - National | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> The investigation has concluded with military leadership suggesting subordinate women officers should confront their superiors for inappropriate comments, angering members.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> globalnews.ca



They said they had 132 people invited; not usual at those big meetings to have a whack of people not show up (or have both forces and defence 365 emails on it for teams). One of the weekly calls I'm on has about 15 people involved but about 40 emails in the list because of that duplication.

Anyway, you always have the right to refuse to talk to the investigator, so I wouldn't read into that too much.

Ignoring a bunch of follow on comments is questionable at best though. I personally wouldn't have followed any connection to a 'red room' and some kind of BDSM thread, but holy crap, who thinks that is a good idea to make "jokes" like that in a meeting regardless? The initial comment could easily have been innocuous enough it was the follow on bits that were the problem.


----------



## Mills Bomb

This interesting thread actually made me join the site, there's not many places this issue is being fairly and openly discussed (That I'm aware of at least).

I wonder how many other CAF members are also silently lurking looking for answers?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Campaign to end sexual harassment in Canadian Armed Forces shut down​


			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/operation-honour-closed-down-1.5962978?fbclid=IwAR2vC7IC_DmvQqBkSMa4i05ycHI8Rl-zf61clJCCT5Il9YhZsJg0r1SniOs
		



The country's acting top military commander has formally ended Operation Honour, the high-profile campaign to stamp out sexual misconduct in the ranks.

In a message to members of the Canadian Armed Forces late Wednesday, Lt.-Gen. Wayne Eyre said the nearly six-year-old program is over, but the drive to find another way to end inappropriate behaviour and sexual violence will continue.

"Operation Honour has culminated, and thus we will close it out, harvest what has worked, learn from what hasn't, and develop a deliberate plan to go forward," he said.

On Tuesday, Eyre told a parliamentary committee that the program may have run its course and may need to be replaced. But his remarks to the four-party committee on the status of women stopped short of formally cancelling the operation.

Last week, in making public her resignation, one of the country's most decorated women combat veterans said the campaign had lost all credibility in light of the misconduct allegations against the military's two highest ranking commanders.

More on link above


----------



## Brad Sallows

Irrespective of whether they like it, or whether it's constitutionally incorrect, politicians do not have exactly zero influence on setting tones for conduct.  And there are several old boys' networks - for politicians in general, for parties, for sub-factions of parties, for very senior civil servants and for very senior uniformed people, for senior business executives, for units (eg. senates and associations), etc.  Not much point in getting too wound up over which one is responsible.

If "trust" is genuinely sought, and this is not just (as I expect) another round of harrumphing rhetoric, then everyone compromised has to step away or stay silent - people who "experience things differently", people who knew or should have known (duty required it) about ill conduct, people with histories of loose conduct*.  I don't mean they all necessarily have to resign - some might - but they can't be involved in the communications; they can't be among the people demanding fixes or giving assurances.  The PM and the MND, for example, can not effectively be included - they are done, finished, where matters of ethics and propriety are concerned.

*I suppose there will be many fewer excuses ("As long as they can do the job."  "He/she is an excellent soldier/officer.") offered in response to critical comments about those with adulterous or merely irresponsibly promiscuous proclivities.  Very few people can successfully create a wall between themselves and their working life.


----------



## Altair

Brad Sallows said:


> *I suppose there will be many fewer excuses ("As long as they can do the job."  "He/she is an excellent soldier/officer.") offered in response to critical comments about those with adulterous or merely irresponsibly promiscuous proclivities.  Very few people can successfully create a wall between themselves and their working life.


So long as that adulterous and promiscuous activities are done outside of work, not with coworkers, and is legal*, i don't think anyone needs to give a damn what someone is doing with another consenting adult. CAF member or not.

*So long as people are not sleeping with journalists, spies, or organized crime members and leaving sensitive information open to be exploited.


----------



## FJAG

Mediman14 said:


> So now we have this red room incident that apparently happened and only 50 something people got interviewed out of the 132. Very shitty investigation to say the least.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Navy closes probe into alleged ‘red room’ comments without speaking to all involved: sources - National | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> The investigation has concluded with military leadership suggesting subordinate women officers should confront their superiors for inappropriate comments, angering members.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then we have this part time CDS getting his staff to make up a policy on how to investigate/ deal with General Officers with Misconduct. This is why it will never be right. How can GO write policies on themselves in a fair manner? You just know there will be some loop hole or some other thing that will let them off the hook.
> 
> If you are going to get serious about it, bring in a outside source . What are they scared off? Someone losing their job? Someone being charged? Some spin off investigations to unravel other issues? It looks like double standard. If it was a Jnr Nco, rest assured the book would be thrown at them. I am not speaking for all branches of the military but In my 20 years, besides my own charge, I have witnessed 20 plus trials, all Jnr NCO’s, not one officer. Instead they got posted to Ottawa in some meaningless position. In fact, to break it down again, it was all males that got charged. Honestly, in the medical branch, it is the females that got off with everything, such as harassment, stealing, false accusations, sleeping with subordinates . Instead the CoC was concern about one of male Cpl’s wearing the CF Uniform at a wedding without permission. Never mind stealing NPF funds by a female Sgt.



This is the list of courts martial conducted in in 2019/20. If you add up the numbers you will find that officers and senior non commissioned officers outnumber the junior NCO and below 31 to 24.  Of those 31 Offrs and senior NCOs, 15 were officers. The establishment as of 2018 (last date I have accurate figures for) for reg f pers is 13,500 offrs, 13,100 senior NCOs and 34,403 others - a ratio of roughly 1:1:2.6. The ratio of persons sent to courts martial is roughly 1:1:1.6 which clearly shows that the ratio of officers and senior NCOs sent to CM is significantly greater than for the other ranks.

Are the ratios different for summary trials? Undoubtedly, but one has to keep a perspective on what summary trials are for and the generally minor issues dealt with there and the fact that generally junior ranks are the ones who commit the vast majority of the minor service infractions. If you want to take a look as to whether or not the military treats offrs, senior NCOs and other ranks equitably in the justice system then courts martials is what you need to look at.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear. The policies that apply across the CAF apply to everyone regardless of rank. There have been two anomalies arise recently, one respecting the Chief Military Judge and the other respecting the CDS, where the National Defence Act has been found to be inadequate in how the system can deal with those two specific very senior positions. Both are very specialized positions and they have previously been occupied by people who have never before attracted any legal proceedings. It's interesting that personal relationships are at the root of both. It is not a question about any policy having been created by GOs that are at issue but a fundamental in a law passed by parliament that is the failing. Both of these shortcomings will be corrected in time but the issue is a very major one and the question of how to resolve it will take time to work out. The trouble is that because of the high level of the problem, they have attracted wide negative attention and have undermined trust in the system. That's a perception though and is far from the reality of the system in general.

I think when we talk about an "old boys club" we tend to forget that personal relationships matter at all rank levels. When I was a young gunner I would certainly cover for any of the guys standing next to me in the ranks. The "duty to fink" provisions in QR&Os are routinely ignored by most of us because it's just not part of our makeup to turn on our peers for relatively minor matters. I use the term "relatively" here deliberately because for most of us defining what is minor varies considerably. There is, however, no vast conspiracy here amongst the GOs (or even amongst the officers in general). Yup. Just like everyone else, some of them have stepped into it and yup, some of their peers have looked the other way for various reasons and that happens at all levels. Have there been circumstances where some MCpl and above has told some aggrieved private or above that maybe they should forget about x incident and get on with life? I don't doubt it one bit. What I doubt is that there is some vast conspiracy within the chain of command to cover stuff up. I'll put my 44 years up against your 20 and can honestly say that yup, we've still got problems to solve and some folks still need a major tune-up but as a system, were not that bad and we're trying hard to be better. We're trying harder than most. If you really want to look into a screwed up system then have a gander at how universities administer themselves.

🍻


----------



## Brad Sallows

That's exactly the tone I always used to hear, with the usual idealistic caveats.  Then the character flaws (inevitably) escaped the confines of private life.  Or we found that a person weak in one way was often weak in others.  And then the institution suffered, because the guiding principle was to tolerate the risk until the bad thing happened.

A person's past is a clue to his future.  No need bothering to try to fix things unless we re-learn what we knew before: there is always a trade-off between security and freedom, privacy being a freedom.  Act on potential risks and warning signs, or accept occasional damage and don't get so wound up about it.


----------



## Kilted

So no more Op Honour.  Without using that name, is anything actually going to be different?


----------



## Mills Bomb

"If "trust" is genuinely sought, and this is not just (as I expect) another round of harrumphing rhetoric, then everyone compromised has to step away or stay silent - people who "experience things differently", people who knew or should have known (duty required it) about ill conduct, people with histories of loose conduct*. I don't mean they all necessarily have to resign - some might - but they can't be involved in the communications; they can't be among the people demanding fixes or giving assurances. The PM and the MND, for example, can not effectively be included - they are done, finished, where matters of ethics and propriety are concerned."

Joining this thread a bit late after much lurking, on this note; how will the average member regain trust in the MND or any Op Honour replacement that comes out under his watch after he openly admitted to saying "No!" when presented evidence of misconduct by an ombudsman? Maybe he is not the correct person to handle those allegations, I don't know because it's somewhat unclear to begin with, but you would think at very bare minimum his office would have followed up to ensure the evidence from the ombudsman was received by someone who could do something? For this reason, after the ball was dropped so publicly for all members to see on the news, I suspect it will be a hard sell for CAF members to regain trust -- I think even Op Honour stated that to be a "Sentinel" you are also wrong if you don't act when you're made aware of wrongdoing.

For those wondering how the JR's feel about this I think the answers are openly on display in social media for all to see; it appears the MND and CAF leadership are being roasted pretty openly even by current serving members (Not to mention those who are actively releasing such as LtCol Tailor).


----------



## Altair

Brad Sallows said:


> That's exactly the tone I always used to hear, with the usual idealistic caveats.  Then the character flaws (inevitably) escaped the confines of private life.  Or we found that a person weak in one way was often weak in others.  And then the institution suffered, because the guiding principle was to tolerate the risk until the bad thing happened.
> 
> A person's past is a clue to his future.  No need bothering to try to fix things unless we re-learn what we knew before: there is always a trade-off between security and freedom, privacy being a freedom.  Act on potential risks and warning signs, or accept occasional damage and don't get so wound up about it.


I think the general sentiment expressed by Martin O'Malley and popularized by Pierre Trudeau that the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation is just as relevant today as it was in 1967.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Sure, so COA B.  Sh!t will happen; deal with the offenders and accept the accompanying institutional reputational damage.


----------



## Altair

Brad Sallows said:


> Sure, so COA B.  Sh!t will happen; deal with the offenders and accept the accompanying institutional reputational damage.


Some people cheat on their spouses and show up at work and do amazing jobs day in and day out. 

Others are single and have relationships with those below or above them in the chain of command, or in a position of authority over another. 

What you are suggesting would target (how exactly? CSIS? A snitch line?) the former and ignore the latter. Meanwhile the former could have been a amazing soldier having issues in their personal relationship.  


How about we have a standard of what is acceptable work behavior and hammer those who violate it, regardless of rank. That makes more sense than the McCarthyism you appear to be suggesting.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Brad Sallows said:


> That's exactly the tone I always used to hear, with the usual idealistic caveats.  Then the character flaws (inevitably) escaped the confines of private life.  Or we found that a person weak in one way was often weak in others.  And then the institution suffered, because the guiding principle was to tolerate the risk until the bad thing happened.
> 
> A person's past is a clue to his future.  No need bothering to try to fix things unless we re-learn what we knew before: there is always a trade-off between security and freedom, privacy being a freedom.  Act on potential risks and warning signs, or accept occasional damage and don't get so wound up about it.



I've shared this before in different contexts. 

It helps to 'cull the herd', at the highest levels, for any big organization. Perhaps we should try and start doing that more often :



General Failure​
Since 9/11, the armed forces have played a central role in our national affairs, waging two long wars—each considerably longer than America’s involvement in World War II. Yet a major change in how our military operates has gone almost unnoticed. Relief of generals has become so rare that, as Lieutenant Colonel Paul Yingling noted during the Iraq War, a private who loses his rifle is now punished more than a general who loses his part of a war. In the wars of the past decade, hundreds of Army generals were deployed to the field, and the available evidence indicates that not one was relieved by the military brass for combat ineffectiveness. This change is arguably one of the most significant developments in our recent military history—and an important factor in the failure of our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.









						General Failure
					

Looking back on the troubled wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, many observers are content to lay blame on the Bush administration. But inept leadership by American generals was also responsible for the failure of those wars. A culture of mediocrity has taken hold within the Army’s leadership rank—if...




					www.theatlantic.com


----------



## Mediman14

As I read the post, I should of been more specific. I apologize for any confusion. Those trials came from one unit only. The amount of crap was unbelievable. I think at that time, I seen 5 CO changes in 7 years. Never did know why so many CO

Below is the link for this “playbook “ on GO behaving (hope it works!)


			https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5960826
		


my intent was not to relive the past, but to make known the amount of crap that gets let go/ or swept away. The policies, QR&O’s , laws might be for all in the CAF, they are not applied everyone in a evenly manner. 
Changing the CAF is extremely difficult task. But it starts from the top.


----------



## Mediman14

Navy_Pete said:


> They said they had 132 people invited; not usual at those big meetings to have a whack of people not show up (or have both forces and defence 365 emails on it for teams). One of the weekly calls I'm on has about 15 people involved but about 40 emails in the list because of that duplication.
> 
> Anyway, you always have the right to refuse to talk to the investigator, so I wouldn't read into that too much.
> 
> Ignoring a bunch of follow on comments is questionable at best though. I personally wouldn't have followed any connection to a 'red room' and some kind of BDSM thread, but holy crap, who thinks that is a good idea to make "jokes" like that in a meeting regardless? The initial comment could easily have been innocuous enough it was the follow on bits that were the problem.


Yes, you are right! It is a large call of 132 people. No mention on how many actually was there. However with the crap going on with inappropriate behaviour, you would think someone would be a bit more careful on what is being said. If this is actually true, this person(s) involved are either ignorant to what is happening around them, just don’t care, or perhaps even taking out of context. 
I say that because I had no idea about “red rooms “. For all I know, someone could of painted a room red!


----------



## Navy_Pete

Mediman14 said:


> Yes, you are right! It is a large call of 132 people. No mention on how many actually was there. However with the crap going on with inappropriate behaviour, you would think someone would be a bit more careful on what is being said. If this is actually true, this person(s) involved are either ignorant to what is happening around them, just don’t care, or perhaps even taking out of context.
> I say that because I had no idea about “red rooms “. For all I know, someone could of painted a room red!


I agree completely, was pretty stunned to read about it.  Mostly just meant that 132 addresses on an invite frequently translates to far less people than you would think on the call.

Had no idea about the red room thing, but from what I understand she had a wall painted red in the background which is what prompted the initial comment that spiralled off into BDSM and kink jokes.  That should have gotten someone verbally slapped on the call (even if the initial comment was in fact an innocent comment on the wall colour) but was somehow ignored in the investigation.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> Some people cheat on their spouses and show up at work and do amazing jobs day in and day out.



I'm sure some do.  I'm not advancing a black/white, true/false, 0/1 hypothesis.  I'll stick to: people who are weak in one way, are often weak in others and eventually it shows.  A man who will lie to or deceive his spouse or partner is untrustworthy.  Full stop.


----------



## Haggis

Altair said:


> I think Vance's offense happened during the harper years.


Vance's alleged indiscretions go all the way back to the Chretien era.


----------



## Altair

Brad Sallows said:


> I'm sure some do.  I'm not advancing a black/white, true/false, 0/1 hypothesis.  I'll stick to: people who are weak in one way, are often weak in others and eventually it shows.  A man who will lie to or deceive his spouse or partner is untrustworthy.  Full stop.


I would love to see you set up the unfaithful members tip line and watch as people trust absolutely nobody and false allegations fly rampant.

Like base gossip and rumour mill meets career manager, oh boy, I would love to see that.


----------



## Altair

Haggis said:


> Vance's alleged indiscretions go all the way back to the Chretien era.


Not surprised.


----------



## dapaterson

Haggis said:


> Vance's alleged indiscretions go all the way back to the Chretien era.


According to his bio at https://telfer.uottawa.ca/assets/cpl/documents/General-Vance.pdf he enrolled in 1982, so who knows, they could go as far back as the OG Trudeau...


----------



## Jarnhamar

_"We will re-establish trust"._
No one is taking this mission statement sounding stuff seriously.


_“Firstly, we must listen — to our own people at all levels, most importantly at the grassroots"_
Yea sure 🙄
The CAF is all about listening to advice from lower ranks.

The sense of entitlement and "rules for thee" in the CAF increases proportionally with rank. It's not always the case, but it's right up there.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Jarnhamar said:


> _"We will re-establish trust"._
> No one is taking this mission statement sounding stuff seriously.
> 
> 
> _“Firstly, we must listen — to our own people at all levels, most importantly at the grassroots"_
> Yea sure 🙄
> The CAF is all about listening to advice from lower ranks.
> 
> The sense of entitlement and "rules for thee" in the CAF increases proportionally with rank. It's not always the case, but it's right up there.


  Honestly, however unfair it is for good leaders and unfortunate for this country, I'm sure used car salesmen and late night lawyer advertisements rate more trustworthy then the present hierarchy in the CAF.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Jarnhamar said:


> The sense of entitlement and "rules for thee" in the CAF increases proportionally with rank. It's not always the case, but it's right up there.



I posted this on a closed RCN C&POs group but I think it fits here too.



> _You know. With all this going on I noticed something today. I watched a LCdr instruct a LT to break procurement policy which is set out by TTB Canada.
> 
> This crap happens all the time. My LogO was told if she enforced supply policy the CO would find someone who wouldnt by a Sea Training Officer.
> It struck me, if we can't enforce and follow simple orders that govern our logistical work how do we have the capability to be trusted to keep our hands to ourselves and stop with the sexual misconduct stuff.
> 
> The old saying "good drill instills good discipline". Discipline is exactly what we are missing._


----------



## daftandbarmy

Halifax Tar said:


> I posted this on a closed RCN C&POs group but I think it fits here too.



Did you squeal on him? Seriously....


----------



## Halifax Tar

daftandbarmy said:


> Did you squeal on him? Seriously....



I have had collisions with this individual a few times.  When you are fighting circled wagons, like the officer corps is, its best to watch observe and wait for an opportunity.  

I have voiced my thoughts on these subjects.  Unfortunately the people to correct these problems are the ones making them, like the one above.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Halifax Tar said:


> I have had collisions with this individual a few times.  When you are fighting circled wagons, like the officer corps is, its best to watch observe and wait for an opportunity.
> 
> I have voiced my thoughts on these subjects.  Unfortunately the people to correct these problems are the ones making them, like the one above.



I used to try and deal with assholes like this by just going direct to their bosses. 

Hopefully Karma will intervene...


----------



## AKa

Life is not often black and white and thus I don’t have opinions on other people’s marriages. For example, once a man introduced me to his wife so she could assure me that he was allowed “friends”. (Too weird for me.) But personal relationships are complicated and I think it’s best to reserve judgement as long as it remains in the personal realm.

So I don’t really care that Vance chases skirts. For all I know, his wives may have been completely aware. The second one, at least should have been cognisant of his proclivities.

What I care about is:

a. He was intimate with someone in his chain of command;
b. Apparently half the Army was aware he was sleeping with someone in his chain of command; and
c. His lover did not feel she had the agency to say no to him.

Some things are black and white. Relationships happen, but when they are in the CoC, it’s toxic and corrosive. The fact that Vance deliberately brought his lover in as a direct report and nobody said anything horrifies me. There are no grey areas here.

At work, I have broken the rules on occasion but have always tried to follow the spirit of the regulations and have been ready to justify my actions and demonstrate that I was fair, transparent, and looking for the best interests of the service. And it makes me sad that some COs require their pers to circumnavigate the regulations. (There should be a few more CMs.) Maybe I’ve been overly lucky, but I’ve worked for many amazing, trustworthy Cols and above. There have been some bad eggs and it has been disappointing to see them steadily climb the ranks, but narcissists and sociopaths tend to be successful in hierarchical organizations, military or otherwise.

The military has come a long way in the 36 years I’ve been in. This current situation is disappointing and hurtful, yet I still expect better days ahead as more people learn they can speak up and be heard. I believe the majority of people in the CAF are decent and ethical.  But there will always be rotten people, and they will occur at all ranks.

Cheers,

AK


----------



## Kilted

I wonder if we are actually going to finally see policies and regulations about service relationships.  I'm sure there are some already there, but they have been ignored for years.  This is an issue that occurs at every rank level.  Some people are professional about it, others aren't.  What would have been in till recently referred to as Op Honour issues are not the only problems that can arise.   I remember times when there were member's who were the same or lower rank who did particularly like me, who were in a relationship with someone of a higher rank then me, which resulted in a few headaches for me, as it mostly resulted in negative interactions with the member of a higher rank.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Kilted said:


> I wonder if we are actually going to finally see policies and regulations about service relationships.  I'm sure there are some already there, but they have been ignored for years.  This is an issue that occurs at every rank level.  Some people are professional about it, others aren't.  What would have been in till recently referred to as Op Honour issues are not the only problems that can arise.   I remember times when there were member's who were the same or lower rank who did particularly like me, who were in a relationship with someone of a higher rank then me, which resulted in a few headaches for me, as it mostly resulted in negative interactions with the member of a higher rank.



DAOD 5019-1 Personal Relationships is the current policy document. It specifies situations were personal relationships are prohibited - essentially someone in a personal relationship with another member of the CAF shall not have influence on the other person's performance assessments, duties, postings, training etc. It also provides guidance for actions when an adverse relationship occurs.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Red_Five said:


> DAOD 5019-1 Personal Relationships is the current policy document. It specifies situations were personal relationships are prohibited - essentially someone in a personal relationship with another member of the CAF shall not have influence on the other person's performance assessments, duties, postings, training etc. It also provides guidance for actions when an adverse relationship occurs.



Wow.

OK, just guesstimating here, but I haven't got enough fingers and toes to count how many times I've seen that DAOD violated.


----------



## Altair

daftandbarmy said:


> Wow.
> 
> OK, just guesstimating here, but I haven't got enough fingers and toes to count how many times I've seen that DAOD violated.


If someone breaks a rule but isn't punished for do so, is it really a rule?

Because, yes, I know of far to many of these relationships in the past, and the present, and if these individuals were in the running to be CDS they would be getting nailed with this as well.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> Like base gossip and rumour mill meets career manager, oh boy, I would love to see that.



As I wrote, COA B.  Be resigned to the risk of reputational and financial (compensation) damage and clean up after each incident if you can't conceive a solution to the problem.  Sexually-motivated behaviours tend to escalate.  Either confront human biology head-on, or don't.


----------



## Altair

Brad Sallows said:


> As I wrote, COA B.  Be resigned to the risk of reputational and financial (compensation) damage and clean up after each incident if you can't conceive a solution to the problem.  Sexually-motivated behaviours tend to escalate.  Either confront human biology head-on, or don't.


I wonder how many "my spouse is divorcing me, better call the my spouse cheated on me tipline and have have fired" incidents would need to occur before you would be convinced this is a terrible idea.


----------



## blacktriangle

Altair said:


> I wonder how many "my spouse is divorcing me, better call the my spouse cheated on me tipline and have have fired" incidents would need to occur before you would be convinced this is a terrible idea.


What if a former partner/spouse is now sleeping with or living with someone else you work with? Is that a double whammy?


----------



## Brad Sallows

You keep situating the estimate with the worst possible solution.  It is unlikely that is the only one.

The common denominator: "Everybody knew".  Ghomeshi, Weinstein, Epstein, Vance.  "Everybody knew", but nothing was done.  No-one could figure out a way to take cues from the rumour mill to find and apply constructive solutions.


----------



## Altair

Brad Sallows said:


> You keep situating the estimate with the worst possible solution.  It is unlikely that is the only one.
> 
> The common denominator: "Everybody knew".  Ghomeshi, Weinstein, Epstein, Vance.  "Everybody knew", but nothing was done.  No-one could figure out a way to take cues from the rumour mill to find and apply constructive solutions.


There is a difference between people having coercive, harmful relationships and everyone knowing about it and doing nothing, and others who are unfaithful to their partners. 

We don't need a whole new set of rules, we simply need to enforce the ones already on the books.


----------



## Altair

reveng said:


> What if a former partner/spouse is now sleeping with or living with someone else you work with? Is that a double whammy?


what if everyone is chill with it? Everyone still fired?


----------



## blacktriangle

Altair said:


> what if everyone is chill with it? Everyone still fired?


I'm just kidding with ya. If the CAF got rid of everyone that cheated (whether on, or with another service member, or not) it would turn an already short bench into a virtual ghost town, if we're being honest...


----------



## Altair

I will say though, if we make a sexual morality board, I want to proceedings to televised.

While it would still be nonsense, the revenues from people tuning in should be able to buy some nice kit for the few that remain.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Are we still pretending this is all just


Altair said:


> what if everyone is chill with it? Everyone still fired?


Yes.


----------



## Altair

Jarnhamar said:


> Are we still pretending this is all just
> 
> Yes.


Got one volunteer for the morality police.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Altair said:


> Got one volunteer for the morality police.


That's me. I won't even ask for meal claims when I work out of town.

Have you ever dealt with a subordinate or peer at work who was sexually assaulted or harassed? Or targeted for reprisals after reporting an incident?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Brad Sallows said:


> You keep situating the estimate with the worst possible solution.  It is unlikely that is the only one.



Were you ever in the CAF ?


----------



## Brad Sallows

> There is a difference between people having coercive, harmful relationships and everyone knowing about it and doing nothing, and others who are unfaithful to their partners.



Unless the partner's - and if applicable the family's - well-being is excluded from the calculation, such relationships always have the potential to be harmful (and, human emotions being what they are, in most cases will be).

Strain due to an infidelity which meets none of the objective no-go criteria can still cause harm.  I can make up worst-case scenarios, too.  Capt X is seeing Capt Y's spouse, and Capt Y knows and is not happy about it.  Capt Y deploys.  Because of the problem at home, Capt Y is inattentive at a critical time and people die.  If beforehand all the CoC had was rumour and Capt Y strongly desired the employment/opportunity for career advancement, what could have been the grounds for denying it to Capt Y?

I understand the privacy issue and am sympathetic.  Deterrents and enforcement must be strong if invasion of privacy is out of bounds.  Enforcers may not turn a blind eye even to unofficial or non-actionable information.  Once a possible issue is raised, it must be settled.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> Were you ever in the CAF ?



ResF.  Enough friends in RegF to have heard most of the stories.


----------



## Altair

Jarnhamar said:


> That's me. I won't even ask for meal claims when I work out of town.
> 
> Have you ever dealt with a subordinate or peer at work who was sexually assaulted or harassed? Or targeted for reprisals after reporting an incident?


Yes yes and yes.


----------



## Altair

Brad Sallows said:


> Unless the partner's - and if applicable the family's - well-being is excluded from the calculation, such relationships always have the potential to be harmful (and, human emotions being what they are, in most cases will be).
> 
> Strain due to an infidelity which meets none of the objective no-go criteria can still cause harm.  I can make up worst-case scenarios, too.  Capt X is seeing Capt Y's spouse, and Capt Y knows and is not happy about it.  Capt Y deploys.  Because of the problem at home, Capt Y is inattentive at a critical time and people die.  If beforehand all the CoC had was rumour and Capt Y strongly desired the employment/opportunity for career advancement, what could have been the grounds for denying it to Capt Y?
> 
> I understand the privacy issue and am sympathetic.  Deterrents and enforcement must be strong if invasion of privacy is out of bounds.  Enforcers may not turn a blind eye even to unofficial or non-actionable information.  Once a possible issue is raised, it must be settled.


It seems like dealing with individuals situations on a case per case basis is far better than a blanket policy that isn't applicable in every situation.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Altair said:


> It seems like dealing with individuals situations on a case per case basis is far better than a blanket policy that isn't applicable in every situation.


And how do we pick the person who heads that Star Chamber??  Oh wait, that's pretty close to what's been failing for a long time it appears....


----------



## Jarnhamar

Altair said:


> Yes yes and yes.


What did they think about the whole husbands and wives cheering on each other thing?


----------



## Altair

Jarnhamar said:


> What did they think about the whole husbands and wives cheering on each other thing?


cheering?


----------



## Jarnhamar

Typo, meant cheating.


----------



## Altair

Jarnhamar said:


> Typo, meant cheating.


I didn't ask the individual who was sexually assaulted by another service member their opinion on cheating spouses.

Next time I'll try to sneak it in.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Altair said:


> I didn't ask the individual who was sexually assaulted by another service member their opinion on cheating spouses.


I'm glad to hear, wouldn't want to mix the seriousness of the two up.


----------



## Mills Bomb

A bit confused about the comments on cheating.

The issue seems to be about superior officers including several CDS taking advantage of lower ranking female members and even the MND turning a blind eye to the evidence when presented right in front of him, I didn't see any news stories about the CAF or Feds going after relatively common cheaters (Unless I missed something?).

With all due respect, if we're having trouble ridding ourselves of high ranking sexual predators taking advantage of other employees in isolated places such as ships how would we possibly hold cheaters accountable?


----------



## Altair

Mills Bomb said:


> A bit confused about the comments on cheating.
> 
> *The issue seems to be about superior officers including several CDS taking advantage of lower ranking female members and even the MND turning a blind eye to the evidence when presented right in front of him, I didn't see any news stories about the CAF or Feds going after relatively common cheaters (Unless I missed something?).*
> 
> With all due respect, if we're having trouble ridding ourselves of high ranking sexual predators taking advantage of other employees in isolated places such as ships how would we possibly hold cheaters accountable?


I agree.

Someone is trying to equate the two.

As for your latter point, magic.


----------



## Brad Sallows

People with offensive sexual behaviours tend to escalate.  "Cheating" doesn't have to lead to abuse of authority, but a person looking for more options may eventually add it to the menu.  Most problems are easiest to solve while they are small.


----------



## PuckChaser

To be honest, the cheating part isn't something in itself we should really care about. Wanna fool around on your wife/husband/Significant Other? Go for it, they'll hold you more accountable than the CAF ever could. We definitely shouldn't be putting adultery rules on the books.

The issue for me is the fact that Coates did this with a US contractor while on an OUTCAN posting, embarrassing the government and the CAF. That should have been enough for at least a NDA129, and the CDS running an admin review to tell him his service has been completed and he should retire.


----------



## Jarnhamar

PuckChaser said:


> To be honest, the cheating part isn't something in itself we should really care about. Wanna fool around on your wife/husband/Significant Other? Go for it, they'll hold you more accountable than the CAF ever could. We definitely shouldn't be putting adultery rules on the books.
> 
> The issue for me is the fact that Coates did this with a US contractor while on an OUTCAN posting, embarrassing the government and the CAF. That should have been enough for at least a NDA129, and the CDS running an admin review to tell him his service has been completed and he should retire.



If someone is going to be deceitful with their legal partner I'm willing to bet they'll be deceitful with their chain of command. They've got a history of covering their tracks and looking out for themselves.

It also opens them up to blackmail and as you say being an embarrassment for Canada.

Lastly there is the balance of power. Even if someone isn't in anothers chain of command you know what happens if you discipline the colonel or generals side piece.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

PuckChaser said:


> To be honest, the cheating part isn't something in itself we should really care about. Wanna fool around on your wife/husband/Significant Other? Go for it, they'll hold you more accountable than the CAF ever could. We definitely shouldn't be putting adultery rules on the books.
> 
> The issue for me is the fact that Coates did this with a US contractor while on an OUTCAN posting, embarrassing the government and the CAF. That should have been enough for at least a NDA129, and the CDS running an admin review to tell him his service has been completed and he should retire.


I am of this thought:

If one cannot honour their marriage vows, what hope do we have that they will honour the words in their commissioning scroll?

I am reticent to let the government into people’s bedrooms (just about the only thing upon which Trudeau the Elder and I agree), but honestly, if you are too stupid  or dishonest to make to make a honest and clean break with a partner before you start up with some one else, what else are you going to lie about?

edit: Jarn beat me to it!


----------



## brihard

Jarnhamar said:


> It also opens them up to blackmail


I didn’t want this to pass unnoticed. Phenomenal point, and one that threat actors can and wild definitely exploit. Someone might do a lot to protect their marriage, child custody, and half their pension.


----------



## Altair

I just want everyone to close their eyes and picture in their minds eye a group of soldiers trying to come up with evidence that a soldier on their down time is messing around with a stripper behind their spouses back.


----------



## Staff Weenie

brihard said:


> I didn’t want this to pass unnoticed. Phenomenal point, and one that threat actors can and wild definitely exploit. Someone might do a lot to protect their marriage, child custody, and half their pension.


And the Soviets and Cubans were notorious for using 'Honey Pot' traps on Western Officers. I could see Russia and China doing it now.


----------



## Altair

I'm also curious as to how soldiers investigating cheating soldiers will have any more luck than the spouses. 🤣


----------



## Brad Sallows

> messing around with a stripper



Most people feed in their own ponds.  Friends/acquaintances, workplace, social hangouts (eg. messes).  Try to be realistic about human nature and where the problems happen.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Altair said:


> I just want everyone to close their eyes and picture in their minds eye a group of soldiers trying to come up with evidence that a soldier on their down time is messing around with a stripper behind their spouses back.





Altair said:


> I'm also curious as to how soldiers investigating cheating soldiers will have any more luck than the spouses. 🤣



Lots of tells going on here.


----------



## Altair

Jarnhamar said:


> Lots of tells going on here.


For sure, absolutely.

I've been married 10 years and have had a lot of couple friends in that time.

Most of the time, even if I suspected cheating was happening, there was no way to prove it. 

And in a few cases of breakups, I never suspected it at all.

Now I'm trying to imagine the forces trying to regulate it. What inherent advantage does the CAF have over spouses?

Nobody has yet offered a reasonable answer,  for all of the high and mighty finger wagging.


----------



## Altair

Brad Sallows said:


> Most people feed in their own ponds.  Friends/acquaintances, workplace, social hangouts (eg. messes).  Try to be realistic about human nature and where the problems happen.


Well, you seem to know a lot about the issue.


----------



## brihard

Altair said:


> I'm also curious as to how soldiers investigating cheating soldiers will have any more luck than the spouses. 🤣


Easy. A mix of locker room talk along with feigned (or real) alignment of ethical values. iPhone in the pocket on record, and there you go. A broken marriage. Or blackmail. Or both. Getting guys to brag about taking their dicks out is not outrageously difficult.


----------



## Altair

brihard said:


> Easy. A mix of locker room talk along with feigned (or real) alignment of ethical values. iPhone in the pocket on record, and there you go. A broken marriage. Or blackmail. Or both. Getting guys to brag about taking their dicks out is not outrageously difficult.


That will work 3 times.

Once people realize that their career is affected they will as sneaky with their coworkers as they are with their spouses.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Senior bureaucrat avoids naming names in PMO over Vance allegations​Link


> OTTAWA — A senior civil servant wouldn't disclose to a parliamentary committee Friday whom she communicated with in the Prime Minister's Office about a sexual-misconduct allegation against Canada's top military commander.


----------



## PuckChaser

Altair said:


> That will work 3 times.
> 
> Once people realize that their career is affected they will as sneaky with their coworkers as they are with their spouses.


To be honest, people thinking with the sexual organs instead of their brain are not typically making solid decisions enough to be clandestine for long. As someone pointed out, this could have serious security clearance implications although this wouldn't really apply in this case because Coates self-reported the affair to US authorities and his chain of command. Hard to be blackmailed about something you're willing to take a career hit on.

Delisle sold STONEGHOST secrets for 3 grand a month. What would someone sell to keep their marriage and career afloat after getting caught cheating by a nefarious actor?


----------



## Altair

PuckChaser said:


> To be honest, people thinking with the sexual organs instead of their brain are not typically making solid decisions enough to be clandestine for long. As someone pointed out, this could have serious security clearance implications although this wouldn't really apply in this case because Coates self-reported the affair to US authorities and his chain of command. Hard to be blackmailed about something you're willing to take a career hit on.
> 
> Delisle sold STONEGHOST secrets for 3 grand a month. What would someone sell to keep their marriage and career afloat after getting caught cheating by a nefarious actor?


So we have soldiers spying on other soldiers, soldiers trying to gather evidence of other soldiers having affairs, and a potential spouse tipline for cheating soldiers.

Moral will soar and this will never be abused or backfire or have potential privacy implications.


----------



## PuckChaser

Altair said:


> So we have soldiers spying on other soldiers, soldiers trying to gather evidence of other soldiers having affairs, and a potential spouse tipline for cheating soldiers.
> 
> Moral will soar and this will never be abused or backfire or have potential privacy implications.


You just love to take things to the extreme instead of actually debating the issue, don't you? Nobody wants a morality gestapo, but if Conduct Prejudice to Good Order and Discipline is discovered, it should be handled. There's also a big difference between random Corporal Bloggins screwing around on his/her spouse, and a LGen in an OUTCAN position as D/Comd NORAD. If you either can't see that difference, or are being deliberately obtuse/confrontational just to troll an argument then there's no point in anyone engaging you.

You've clearly never held above TS clearance. The questions they ask get pretty close to being a morality police (they're doing polygraphs now as well), and your employability hinges on the answers you give.


----------



## Altair

PuckChaser said:


> You just love to take things to the extreme instead of actually debating the issue, don't you? Nobody wants a morality gestapo, but if Conduct Prejudice to Good Order and Discipline is discovered, it should be handled. There's also a big difference between random Corporal Bloggins screwing around on his/her spouse, and a LGen in an OUTCAN position as D/Comd NORAD. If you either can't see that difference, or are being deliberately obtuse/confrontational just to troll an argument then there's no point in anyone engaging you.
> 
> You've clearly never held above TS clearance. The questions they ask get pretty close to being a morality police (they're doing polygraphs now as well), and your employability hinges on the answers you give.


And there it is,nuance.

Like I said earlier, a blanket policy on the matter would not work as well as something that should be considered on a case to case basis.


Brad Sallows said:


> People with offensive sexual behaviours tend to escalate.  "Cheating" doesn't have to lead to abuse of authority, but a person looking for more options may eventually add it to the menu.  Most problems are easiest to solve while they are small.


There is no nuance here.


----------



## SupersonicMax

PuckChaser said:


> they’re doing polygraphs now as well


Not for all SCI clearances.

FWIW, SCI is not above Top Secret.  It allows you to be indoctrinated into compartments which may be at the TS level but could be lower.

The issues should be uncovered during the interview with the questions.  If you are truthful about the answers, it speaks of your willingness to put country before self.  I see no issue if someone cheated/is cheating on their significant other if the significant other knows about it.  If you are hiding it, then there are issues.


----------



## brihard

SupersonicMax said:


> Not for all SCI clearances.
> 
> FWIW, SCI is not above Top Secret.  It allows you to be indoctrinated into compartments which may be at the TS level but could be lower.
> 
> The issues should be uncovered during the interview with the questions.  If you are truthful about the answers, it speaks of your willingness to put country before self.  I see no issue if someone cheated/is cheating on their significant other if the significant other knows about it.  If you are hiding it, then there are issues.


I was gonna chime in, but probably best if none of us delve any further into the gaining of clearances or SCI Indoc...


----------



## SupersonicMax

brihard said:


> I was gonna chime in, but probably best if none of us delve any further into the gaining of clearances or SCI Indoc...


Agreed but it is all published information by the Government.


----------



## MilEME09

Matt Gurney: How can Harjit Sajjan think he can do his job from this far down the rabbit hole?
					

By acting on the newest Navy scandal, he's showing that he was more than capable of doing the right thing with Vance




					nationalpost.com
				




Going to get harder to justify keeping the minister in his post


----------



## brihard

SupersonicMax said:


> Agreed but it is all published information by the Government.


Yeah, I meant going any farther with it.


----------



## Good2Golf

Altair said:


> So we have soldiers spying on other soldiers, soldiers trying to gather evidence of other soldiers having affairs, and a potential spouse tipline for cheating soldiers.
> 
> Moral will soar and this will never be abused or backfire or have potential privacy implications.


Congratulations on misdirecting the issue to one of infidelity, and not the original issue being superior officers conducting themselves inappropriately with and around subordinate members.

Enough of those who have seen the publicly reported issues regarding Gen Vance’s interactions with a number of subordinates, are mindful of the issue addressed by QR&O 19.14(2).b. 


> 19.14 - IMPROPER COMMENTS​(1) No officer or non-commissioned member shall make remarks or pass criticism tending to bring a superior into contempt, except as may be necessary for the proper presentation of a grievance under Chapter 7 (_Grievances_).
> 
> (2) No officer or non-commissioned member shall do or say anything that:
> 
> a. if seen or heard by any member of the public, might reflect discredit on the Canadian Forces or on any of its members; or
> 
> b. if seen by, heard by or reported to those under him, might discourage them or render them dissatisfied with their condition or the duties on which they are employed.


There is sufficient anecdotal information regarding the sentiment of subordinate CAF members to appreciate that there is extant discouragement resulting from the previous CDS’s conduct (and other senior officers), so, your personal acceptance of adultery by the most senior of CAF officers notwithstanding, their conduct has breached Her Majesty’s regulations and orders...


----------



## daftandbarmy

brihard said:


> Easy. A mix of locker room talk along with feigned (or real) alignment of ethical values. iPhone in the pocket on record, and there you go. A broken marriage. Or blackmail. Or both. Getting guys to brag about taking their dicks out is not outrageously difficult.



Or blackmail associated with homosexual orgies... it's OK though, apparently it's a Royal Signals/ RAF thing 

"The *Cyprus Seven Trial* (also known as the *Cyprus Eight Trial*) was a Cold War espionage affair uncovered at one of the military bases in Cyprus during 1983 and 1984. The allegations rested upon several servicemen, although seven were sent to trial at the Old Bailey in London. Two were from the Royal Signals Regiment, and five from the Royal Air Force, with all being accused of engaging in homosexual activities and passing state secrets "by the bagful" to the Soviet intelligence network. The Commander-in-Chief of 9 Signals Regiment was prosecuted for being involved in a smuggling and theft racket with the most senior non-commissioned officer in the same unit. They had traded with, among others, Turkish nationals whom they had been listening in on. All of the accused, who were from 9 Signals Unit on the base, were taken into custody in February 1984 and questioned. The case against them was built on the belief that they had suffered entrapment at the hands of the Soviets and were blackmailed into passing on secrets to the Russians after attending homosexual orgies. The accused alleged that they were subjected to torture and punishment beatings, including one who claimed that he had been questioned for 96 hours, though the official inquiry into the affair ruled that none of them had been "subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment." Formal charges were laid against seven of the men in April 1984 with an eighth being charged in June 1984."






						Cyprus Seven Trial - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Altair

Brad Sallows said:


> *I suppose there will be many fewer excuses ("As long as they can do the job."  "He/she is an excellent soldier/officer.") offered in response to critical comments about those with adulterous or merely irresponsibly promiscuous proclivities.  Very few people can successfully create a wall between themselves and their working life.





Good2Golf said:


> Congratulations on misdirecting the issue to one of infidelity, and not the original issue being superior officers conducting themselves inappropriately with and around subordinate members.
> 
> Enough of those who have seen the publicly reported issues regarding Gen Vance’s interactions with a number of subordinates, are mindful of the issue addressed by QR&O 19.14(2).b.
> 
> There is sufficient anecdotal information regarding the sentiment of subordinate CAF members to appreciate that there is extant discouragement resulting from the previous CDS’s conduct (and other senior officers), so, your personal acceptance of adultery by the most senior of CAF officers notwithstanding, their conduct has breached Her Majesty’s regulations and orders...


Of course, because it was I who brought up infidelity into this conversation. 

Of course.


----------



## Good2Golf

Altair said:


> Of course, because it was I who brought up infidelity into this conversation.
> 
> Of course.


You were chief proponent of adultery being acceptable.  Brad only mentioned adultery as one of many aspects that politicians themselves are not immune from responsibility to address.

To wit:



Altair said:


> So long as that adulterous and promiscuous activities are done outside of work, not with coworkers, and is legal*, i don't think anyone needs to give a damn what someone is doing with another consenting adult. CAF member or not.
> 
> *So long as people are not sleeping with journalists, spies, or organized crime members and leaving sensitive information open to be exploited.



Which clearly is not acceptable according to the QR&Os, although you seem to not have an issue with senior leaders contravening QR&Os when it ‘only’ involves adultery. The rest of the time they just be good and honourable, non-cheating people, in your world. You seem to have encapsulated the concept of ‘conditional ethics’ well, turning a blind personal eye when it suits your personal beliefs, regulations notwithstanding.


----------



## SupersonicMax

G2G,

I would argue that in today’s Canadian society, adultery is more morally accepted than before.  Without adultery being specifically stated in the QR&Os, you’d have a hard time proving it contravened them.  Seems like you may be applying your own moral standards in the discussion, the very thing you are accusing Altair of doing.

If adultery was indeed a contravention of QR&Os, should we charge anyone that is suspected of extra-marital activities?


----------



## FJAG

SupersonicMax said:


> G2G,
> 
> I would argue that in today’s Canadian society, adultery is more morally accepted than before.  Without adultery being specifically stated in the QR&Os, you’d have a hard time proving it contravened them.  Seems like you may be applying your own moral standards in the discussion, the very thing you are accusing Altair of doing.
> 
> If adultery was indeed a contravention of QR&Os, should we charge anyone that is suspected of extra-marital activities?



The answer to your question lies in the notes to s 129 which basically set out the essential elements of the crime that need to be proven for a conviction. These say amongst other things:



> (A) A service tribunal would not be warranted in convicting an accused of this offence laid under section 129 of the _National Defence Act_ unless of the opinion that the act, etc., proved was to the prejudice of both good order and discipline, having regard to its nature and to the circumstances in which it took place.


and


> (C) The words “good order” used in section 129 of the _National Defence Act_ are wide enough to include good order in the sense in which the words would be understood in civil life and applicable to civilians and in the sense in which they would be understood in military life as applicable to members of a military force. It is not sufficient to prove that the act, etc., is prejudicial to good order but it must also be proved that the act was prejudicial to discipline.



Accordingly, adultery, while not specifically set out as an offence, could form the basis of a conviction if the evidence establishes, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the adultery in the circumstances of the case was both prejudicial to good order and prejudicial to discipline. That is in fact how it works under the US Uniform Code of Military Justice. The offence is virtually identical to our s 129 but the notes in the US military's Manual for Courts Martial (which is much, much more comprehensive and detailed then our QR&Os) detail how adultery constitutes one of the ways that good order and discipline is broken.

I can recall one situation which was dealt with otherwise than a court martial but where a charge under what was then called s 119 could easily have been brought and successfully prosecuted because in the circumstances of that case there was absolutely no doubt that the circumstances were both a breach of good order and of discipline.

The matter is not one of morality. It's one of whether or not the particular circumstances meet the essential requirements of the offence.

🍻


----------



## Good2Golf

SSM, my case has been that Vance’s conduct contravened 19.14(2).b. Adulterous conduct is but one factor that has caused discouragement by subordinate members of the CAF.  I take no issue with others choosing adultery itself, although I feel entitled to judge them and their inability to uphold mutually-agreed vows of fidelity, but I do take issue with leaders who are dishonest to their spouses yet expect respect and assumption from subordinates of otherwise honest behaviour for their conduct as leaders in the CAF.  Selective morality gives issue to the validity or lack thereof of trust.  Untrustful leaders are not honourable principled leaders, and those under such leaders’ command have every right to be discouraged and betrayed.


----------



## Brad Sallows

More accepted, sure.  By very much, doubtful.  It is tolerated.  I don't know anyone wounded by it who learned to accept it.  Most of the people I know who observe it don't get wound up about it but I wouldn't describe them as "accepting".

I'll take the rap for repeatedly returning to the topic of infidelity.  It's worth discussing because it's usually the first step to the other problems.  Most senior people are married for years before they get around to being tempted by the junior staff at work.



> Well, you seem to know a lot about the issue.



Sure, it happens often enough.



> So we have soldiers spying on other soldiers, soldiers trying to gather evidence of other soldiers having affairs, and a potential spouse tipline for cheating soldiers.



We must live in two different realities.  "Who is banging who" is usually common knowledge among third parties long before it gets back to those with a direct interest for the simple reason that the offender makes the most effort to conceal it from the partner, with declining effort after that the further away everyone is from "partner".


----------



## Altair

Brad Sallows said:


> I'll take the rap for repeatedly returning to the topic of infidelity.  It's worth discussing because it's usually the first step to the other problems.  Most senior people are married for years before they get around to being tempted by the junior staff at work.


No no no,G2G has made it clear that it is all my fault.

Of course.


----------



## Weinie

Altair said:


> No no no,G2G has made it clear that it is all my fault.
> 
> Of course.


A friend,  who I trust implicitly, has advised me that LGen Coates' marriage was over in every sense but legally, long before he *committed* "adultery" as has been postulated on here, and perpetuated by the media. Why some folks keep going down this rabbit hole is deeply perplexing and disturbing; I would posit that most posters know at least one colleague who has been in a failed marriage and then started a new relationship, in many cases before the legal documents for dissolution of the previous marriage were signed.

That he was a senior officer, and got embroiled by proxy in the latest scandal, is understandable, given the current information environment, but not defensible, nor should he be answerable for his actions to any of you. Firing rockets from the safety of your compound with what appears to be flawed intelligence is a path rife with peril.


----------



## Altair

Weinie said:


> A friend,  who I trust implicitly, has advised me that LGen Coates' marriage was over in every sense but legally, long before he *committed* "adultery" as has been postulated on here, and perpetuated by the media. Why some folks keep going down this rabbit hole is deeply perplexing and disturbing; I would posit that most posters know at least one colleague who has been in a failed marriage and then started a new relationship, in many cases before the legal documents for dissolution of the previous marriage were signed.
> 
> That he was a senior officer, and got embroiled by proxy in the latest scandal, is understandable, given the current information environment, but not defensible, nor should he be answerable for his actions to any of you. Firing rockets from the safety of your compound with what appears to be flawed intelligence is a path rife with peril.


I agree very much with this, however some people are more judgemental than others it would appear.


----------



## FJAG

Those of you in this thread who are apologists for adultery seem to concentrate on a situation where the adultery is more morally acceptable in modern society seem to focus on scenarios where the marriage of one of the parties involved is practically but not legally over. I think that the vast majority of us who are not okay with adultery are not so naïve as to say that we don't recognize that there are situations where a marriage breaks down and, while waiting for the legal paperwork to settle, the parties move on to new relationships. For most of us that is morally acceptable.

How about a scenario where an officer, who remains "happily married" and has no intention of dissolving that marriage, sends one of his subordinates on one course and TD tasking after another so that he can have opportunities for recreational sex with the subordinate's wife. Would that offend your level of morality? Or good order and discipline?

The circumstances for sexual relations are close to infinite. Many have absolutely zero impact on good order and discipline. Like others, I can easily accept the scenario where the marriage has broken down and the parties move on to other relationships even before divorce is final. The key here is that each of the partners is aware of the fact that the marriage is over and are living separate and apart emotionally if not physically. On the other hand, I cannot accept someone who cheats on his wife or her husband in a clandestine fashion while pretending the marital relationship is ongoing. That is the breaking of an oath which would make me seriously question the honesty and reliability of the individual in other matters such as how fairly he/she treats subordinates or any of the many other ethical obligations of the job. Trust is everything in the military. Once people have cause to question whether they can trust you or not, the fabric of discipline is torn.

$0.02

🍻


----------



## Altair

FJAG said:


> Those of you in this thread who are apologists for adultery seem to concentrate on a situation where the adultery is more morally acceptable in modern society seem to focus on scenarios where the marriage of one of the parties involved is practically but not legally over. I think that the vast majority of us who are not okay with adultery are not so naïve as to say that we don't recognize that there are situations where a marriage breaks down and, while waiting for the legal paperwork to settle, the parties move on to new relationships. For most of us that is morally acceptable.
> 
> How about a scenario where an officer, who remains "happily married" and has no intention of dissolving that marriage, sends one of his subordinates on one course and TD tasking after another so that he can have opportunities for recreational sex with the subordinate's wife. Would that offend your level of morality? Or good order and discipline?
> 
> The circumstances for sexual relations are close to infinite. Many have absolutely zero impact on good order and discipline. Like others, I can easily accept the scenario where the marriage has broken down and the parties move on to other relationships even before divorce is final. The key here is that each of the partners is aware of the fact that the marriage is over and are living separate and apart emotionally if not physically. On the other hand, I cannot accept someone who cheats on his wife or her husband in a clandestine fashion while pretending the marital relationship is ongoing. That is the breaking of an oath which would make me seriously question the honesty and reliability of the individual in other matters such as how fairly he/she treats subordinates or any of the many other ethical obligations of the job. Trust is everything in the military. Once people have cause to question whether they can trust you or not, the fabric of discipline is torn.
> 
> $0.02
> 
> 🍻


Morally wrong? Yes.

Should it effect career? No.

Personally I have way more issues with soldiers who drink and drive.


----------



## Altair

Actually in terms of moral failings,  I have things that rate a lot higher than adultery. 

Domestic abuse.

Drug use.

Alcohol abuse.

Drinking and driving.

Work relationships(Hello Gen Vance)

Sexism 

Racism 

Then maybe I slot in adultery.


----------



## Good2Golf

Altair said:


> Morally wrong? Yes.
> 
> Should it effect career? No.


 
 Where is the dividing line when morally wrong behaviour should affect one’s career?



Altair said:


> Personally I have way more issues with soldiers who drink and drive.


Do you feel the CAF does not address this issue appropriately?


----------



## FJAG

Altair said:


> Morally wrong? Yes.
> 
> Should it effect career? No.
> 
> Personally I have way more issues with soldiers who drink and drive.



So the scenario I presented, which incidentally is not merely hypothetical, doesn't cause you any concern at all?

😮


----------



## Altair

FJAG said:


> So the scenario I presented, which incidentally is not merely hypothetical, doesn't cause you any concern at all?
> 
> 😮


As I have repeatedly said, so long as adultery does not effect work, and is legal I don't give a flying hoot.

The scenario you mentioned affects work.

And seeing as not all adultery is created equality,  it makes little sense to have a blanket rule on it. It is better to judge things on a case per case basis.

What is happening here is "all adultery bad, stop all adultery"


----------



## Altair

Good2Golf said:


> Where is the dividing line when morally wrong behaviour should affect one’s career?


If it effects work. As in with a coworker,  or coworkers spouse, or with questionable individuals (organized crime, reporters, spies).




Good2Golf said:


> Do you feel the CAF does not address this issue appropriately?


Lol, God no.

Caught drinking and driving, rehab. Seen it far too often.


----------



## Cronicbny

Weinie said:


> A friend,  who I trust implicitly, has advised me that LGen Coates' marriage was over in every sense but legally, long before he *committed* "adultery" as has been postulated on here, and perpetuated by the media. Why some folks keep going down this rabbit hole is deeply perplexing and disturbing; I would posit that most posters know at least one colleague who has been in a failed marriage and then started a new relationship, in many cases before the legal documents for dissolution of the previous marriage were signed.
> 
> That he was a senior officer, and got embroiled by proxy in the latest scandal, is understandable, given the current information environment, but not defensible, nor should he be answerable for his actions to any of you. Firing rockets from the safety of your compound with what appears to be flawed intelligence is a path rife with peril.


Actually, I agree with most of what you posted. Except, when things finally "officially" dissolved, some of us Canadians had to explain to our US counterparts what was happening when an Assessor suddenly couldnt perform his duties from home. So, for that joyous duty - which I performed - I find it unforgiveable. It was initially left to others to communicate the facts to the personnel responsible for "having the watch".

Edit to add: do you know how embarassing it was, as a Canadian on crew, to have to figure out at which tertiary location the NORAD deputy was at so we could call him for CCIRs?


----------



## Ostrozac

I for one couldn’t care less about whether someone is faithful to their spouse. (And for those who believe that adultery is a major offence, I have some bad news about the man next in the succession plan to become King of Canada). I do care about sexual relationships poisoning the workplace.

We pay our senior military leaders a decent wage, they have 30 days annual a year, so they have resources and time. If they are looking for partners for some extracurricular ‘horizontal jogging’ then why do some immediately start looking in the workplace? Can‘t they go to bars and the internet? Or are some simply so institutionalized that they lack the social skills to ‘meet and greet‘ strangers, and are stuck in a sort of ‘Sexual Shawshank’?


----------



## FJAG

Ostrozac said:


> I for one couldn’t care less about whether someone is faithful to their spouse. (And for those who believe that adultery is a major offence, I have some bad news about the man next in the succession plan to become King of Canada). I do care about sexual relationships poisoning the workplace.
> 
> We pay our senior military leaders a decent wage, they have 30 days annual a year, so they have resources and time. If they are looking for partners for some extracurricular ‘horizontal jogging’ then why do some immediately start looking in the workplace? Can‘t they go to bars and the internet? Or are some simply so institutionalized that they lack the social skills to ‘meet and greet‘ strangers, and are stuck in a sort of ‘Sexual Shawshank’?



And this is why I wouldn't trust the man to do the right thing when there is an issue that would pit his own self interest against that of the nation's. Luckily it probably doesn't matter what he does. I would think if he decides against this nation's interest we would quickly become a republic.

🍻


----------



## Mills Bomb

For those who want to go after adultery, what about the swingers?

I know many CAF members who are married and either openly or discretely swingers. They are happy. That has also been the basis of their relationship and marriage since day one, and it has benefitted both parties and even gotten some of them through long deployments. Some of these couples are even on tinder and other online dating sites. Some of them are also members of the gay community. I doubt many are on army.ca but I suspect most of you work with at least some of these types and may even have no idea.

By going after all CAF adultery, are you proposing the CAF goes into the bedroom and redefine the terms of their marriages? What if they don't want their co-workers knowing they are swingers, what if someone tries to rat them out?


----------



## OldSolduer

Altair said:


> Morally wrong? Yes.
> 
> Should it effect career? No.
> 
> Personally I have way more issues with soldiers who drink and drive.


I’ve seen this happen or it was rumoured. The gentleman in question read a statement to the effect it never happened


----------



## Altair

Mills Bomb said:


> For those who want to go after adultery, what about the swingers?
> 
> I know many CAF members who are married and either openly or discretely swingers. They are happy. That has also been the basis of their relationship and marriage since day one, and it has benefitted both parties and even gotten some of them through long deployments. Some of these couples are even on tinder and other online dating sites. Some of them are also members of the gay community. I doubt many are on army.ca but I suspect most of you work with at least some of these types and may even have no idea.
> 
> By going after all CAF adultery, are you proposing the CAF goes into the bedroom and redefine the terms of their marriages? What if they don't want their co-workers knowing they are swingers, what if someone tries to rat them out?


I'm sure the morality police would not like that one bit.

Fired.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Mills Bomb said:


> By going after all CAF adultery, are you proposing the CAF goes into the bedroom and redefine the terms of their marriages? What if they don't want their co-workers knowing they are swingers, what if someone tries to rat them out?


Yea buddy. That's exactly what's being suggested here. The CAF sends an attending officers to service members bedroom to do spot checks and ID people.


----------



## Altair

Sounds like the Spanish inquisition. 

And it is ridiculous. 

Here we have two CDS over the course of two months accused of inappropriate relationships and people are talking about adultery.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Jarnhamar said:


> Yea buddy. That's exactly what's being suggested here. The CAF sends an attending officers to service members bedroom to do spot checks and ID people.



Any job openings for retired guys?


----------



## Lumber

From Mercedes Stephenson of Global News via her Twitter, Adm McDonald now (apparently) under investigation for sexual assault:



> Global News has learned from multiple sources the sexual misconduct investigation into CDS Admiral Art McDonald is looking into an allegation of sexual assault.
> 
> Tomorrow on @TheWestBlock we sit down with the woman who came forward. Special preview on @GlobalNational  tonight




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1375923433838669834


----------



## MilEME09

Lumber said:


> From Mercedes Stephenson of Global News via her Twitter, Adm McDonald now (apparently) under investigation for sexual assault:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1375923433838669834


Unfortunately being so high profile, if proven true it will be hard to get a fair trial. If proven not true even the allegations alone will likely derail his career.


----------



## Weinie

MilEME09 said:


> Unfortunately being so high profile, if proven true it will be hard to get a fair trial. If proven not true even the allegations alone will likely derail his career.


He is done, regardless.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Altair said:


> Sounds like the Spanish inquisition.
> 
> And it is ridiculous.
> 
> Here we have two CDS over the course of two months accused of inappropriate relationships and people are talking about adultery.



Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition


----------



## OldSolduer

Altair said:


> Sounds like the Spanish inquisition.





daftandbarmy said:


> Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition


Yes you’re quite correct ...,oh bugger


----------



## Brad Sallows

> By going after all CAF adultery



Not sure who wants to go after "all" of it.  Consensual poly should be as protected as any other sexual expression; there is no deceit and lying.  The movement to broaden marriage stopped well short of where it should have ended (poly arrangements).  There are of course local customs to be considered and respected by anyone sent abroad.

Those choosing to focus on sexual expression and liberty keep missing  the important point - the character of deceitful and manipulative people.  Sexual appetite isn't the character flaw;  discreditable means used to satisfy appetites are the flaws.  The institution isn't in trouble because of horny guys, which are in abundance, but because of horny guys who could not govern themselves adequately.


----------



## PuckChaser

Lets be gender inclusive, there's horny women and other genders as well.


----------



## MilEME09

Military ombudsman rebukes Sajjan’s claim his predecessor failed to probe Vance complaint - National | Globalnews.ca
					

Gregory Lick, who replaced Gary Walbourne as the military ombudsman in November 2018, rejected the assertions made by Sajjan in recent weeks about what powers the office had.




					globalnews.ca
				




Minister keeps getting called out for trying to cover his own butt. It is clear to me, the minister did not conduct him self appropriately and should of heard the evidence, and ordered an investigation. Evidence is mounting in my opinion that he doesn't understand his department or the extent of his role as MND and should be replaced.


----------



## Jarnhamar

MilEME09 said:


> Unfortunately being so high profile, *if proven true* it will be hard to get a fair trial.


If he groped a woman at a party do you think people will suggest it's in the past and the victim just experienced things differently?




MilEME09 said:


> Military ombudsman rebukes Sajjan’s claim his predecessor failed to probe Vance complaint - National | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> Gregory Lick, who replaced Gary Walbourne as the military ombudsman in November 2018, rejected the assertions made by Sajjan in recent weeks about what powers the office had.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Minister keeps getting called out for trying to cover his own butt. It is clear to me, *the minister did not conduct him self appropriately* and should of heard the evidence, and ordered an investigation. Evidence is mounting in my opinion that he doesn't understand his department or the extent of his role as MND and should be replaced.


You're not trying to define his experience are you? He doesn't like that...


----------



## Brash

Altair said:


> If it effects work. As in with a coworker,  or coworkers spouse, or with questionable individuals (organized crime, reporters, spies).
> 
> Lol, God no.
> 
> Caught drinking and driving, rehab. Seen it far too often.


Adultery can and will absolutely impact one's security clearance, due to the potential for influence.
If one requires a specific security clearance to perform their job....as Generals do.

Adultery -> Clearance -> Job
(regardless of your (or anyone's) personal opinions)


----------



## Altair

Brash said:


> Adultery can and will absolutely impact one's security clearance, due to the potential for influence.
> If one requires a specific security clearance to perform their job....as Generals do.
> 
> Adultery -> Clearance -> Job
> (regardless of your (or anyone's) personal opinions)


I think I'm done talking about adultery when our previous two CDS have been accused of serious misconduct.


----------



## Mills Bomb

_"Minister keeps getting called out for trying to cover his own butt. It is clear to me, the minister did not conduct him self appropriately and should of heard the evidence, and ordered an investigation. Evidence is mounting in my opinion that he doesn't understand his department or the extent of his role as MND and should be replaced"_

I agree. If these stories are true, if the MND had done literally ANYTHING except saying "No!" to the evidence presented by the Ombudsman in 2018 this entire CAF wide embarassment would have been avoided. I mean, at bare minimum, he could have ensured someone looked into it. He failed to practice what he preached that when you know about misconduct you need to do something about it. He failed the CAF plane and simple and he's intent on keeping his job after ruining the reputation of ours. This MND has already lost a lot of credibility from when he said he was the architect of Op Medusa years ago, people don't forget. If he's the one to re-introduce a new program at this point, it would be like picking Justin Trudeau to try and tell the troops why they shouldn't be doing black face.


----------



## Brash

Altair said:


> I think I'm done talking about adultery when our previous two CDS have been accused of serious misconduct.


What kind of goalpost-shifting argument are you making?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Wait for it.....


----------



## Haggis

daftandbarmy said:


> Wait for it.....
> 
> View attachment 64795


That took a lot longer than expected.


----------



## ArmyRick

Still shocking to see this going on. It doesn't take much for the public to lose faith in the CAF. This is not helping


----------



## SupersonicMax

ArmyRick said:


> Still shocking to see this going on. It doesn't take much for the public to lose faith in the CAF. This is not helping


More importantly, CAF members, at all levels, are losing faith in senior leadership.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

SupersonicMax said:


> More importantly, CAF members, at all levels, are losing faith in senior leadership.


huh.  I think from reading your posts that you might be a leader as well.  What "senior leadership"?  And based on what?


----------



## SupersonicMax

PPCLI Guy said:


> huh.  I think from reading your posts that you might be a leader as well.  What "senior leadership"?  And based on what?


I was referring to senior as in Col/GOFOs (the definition typically used), not the one grouping the ranks of Maj/LCdr to Col/Capt(N).  But I believe the sentiment, at lower levels, may extend down to those ranks as well. Whether it includes my rank level or not is irrelevant: we need to do better as an institution (at all levels).


----------



## Mills Bomb

I think it's natural all ranks are losing faith, because when the issue is at the very top there's no escaping its effects on everyone. If the MND has lied to us, multiple times over multiple years starting with the "architect of Op Medusa", what's left to trust? It's not the average young professional soldiers who do their best that caused this, but the leadership that is literally openly failing them in front of the entire country and still sticking around after all this.

At this point, we've all heard the stories about the public believing the acts of those senior ranks somehow reflect young soldiers as well.

It's like the tac-vest fiasco, after 12+ years of telling the troops "a replacement is on the way" who actually still trusts decent kit will be procured anymore? Whenever we hear about replacement kit, I think most just assume it's just blatant lies or that general incompetence will just screw it up. The seldom time something actually ever shows up the "latest and greatest" boots or whatever else it is just falls apart because they are poorly designed and poorly manufactured. No combat arms soldier I've ever met in the CAF has ever said anything good about our procurement system in the 12+ years I served, and I seriously doubt anyone involved has ever been held accountable for those procurement failures. This problem is not going away either unless we get a new government committed to changing how we procure kit.

Unless there's NEW people more in touch with the junior ranks at the very top and we start from scratch Op Honour and sexual misconduct (Including turning a blind eye) will likely be in the same untrusted category as procurement. Our co-workers and new recruits deserve better and I can only hope those serving in the CAF during these times will remember them in hopes we get lucky and one of us or someone (anyone) ends up a in position where they can actually do something to modernize the CAF and develop a true outside de-politicized third party organization to look into ALL serious sexual misconduct allegations when they are brought forward.

Until then, I think we should just tell people the truth about what the state of the CAF is in regards to sexual misconduct and other shortfalls and let members and prospective members decide for themselves if it's still worth it and if the good outweighs the bad. If there's one thing that is completely clear here, lying and covering up the truth is not the solution and causes more damage, truth and transparency at all ranks is the only way that we can rebuild trust. My advice to any senior leadership if I could give it to them would be along the same lines; just try your best to fight to improve things for your employees and instead of just telling everyone "stay positive, and carry on!" show them how you're doing your job and actively fighting to improve things for them and tell them the truth about tough issues and give them reasonable and honest expectations of when / if the issues being discussed might be resolved. Even if it's not always what they want to hear, at least they will trust you and together move forward with improving things as a team. If you can't do that, it may be best to step aside and let someone who is an honest and a strong fighter for real improvement take over these very important senior positions.


----------



## OldSolduer

Another one accused this afternoon.


----------



## Jarnhamar

OldSolduer said:


> Another one accused this afternoon.



I bet the case of the major getting escorted back to Canada by MPs will be rearing it's head shortly.


----------



## OldSolduer

Jarnhamar said:


> I bet the case of the major getting escorted back to Canada by MPs will be rearing it's head shortly.


This should be interesting


----------



## dangerboy

Vice Admiral Edmundson is now on indefinite leave https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sexual-assault-allegations-vice-admiral-haydn-edmundson-1.5963430


----------



## trigger324

I don’t know, I think right now it’s much more important to be concerned about what the public thinks than what members think. The members will continue to stick together, the public is who supports(or doesn’t) them.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

To be honest I don't think it really weighs heavily on most people. Right now people are worried about the pandemic, how they are going to pay the bills, how to keep your kids and self sane. People are near the bottom bit of Maslow's hierarchy of needs as far as the public is concerned. Diddling officers is not a key issue.


----------



## MilEME09

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sexual-assault-allegations-vice-admiral-haydn-edmundson-1.5963430


----------



## Altair

trigger324 said:


> I don’t know, I think right now it’s much more important to be concerned about what the public thinks than what members think.* The members will continue to stick together*, the public is who supports(or doesn’t) them.


Speak for yourself.


----------



## OldSolduer

Colin Parkinson said:


> To be honest I don't think it really weighs heavily on most people. Right now people are worried about the pandemic, how they are going to pay the bills, how to keep your kids and self sane. People are near the bottom bit of Maslow's hierarchy of needs as far as the public is concerned. Diddling officers is not a key issue.


Agreed but one wonders what it will do to the military in the long run.


----------



## trigger324

Altair said:


> Speak for yourself.


Nah, probably a lot more than myself.


----------



## Altair

trigger324 said:


> Nah, probably a lot more than myself.


I'm not sure what the split is then, because a lot of people I talk to do not have a great view on the senior leadership forcing operation honor down our throats while engaging in what is coming to light.


----------



## trigger324

Altair said:


> I'm not sure what the split is then, because a lot of people I talk to do not have a great view on the senior leadership forcing operation honor down our throats while engaging in what is coming to light.


What I’m saying is that the CAF in general should be very concerned about what the public feels about the organization as a whole right now, despite its Sr personnel only who are being busted.


----------



## OldSolduer

trigger324 said:


> What I’m saying is that the CAF in general should be very concerned about what the public feels about the organization as a whole right now, despite its Sr personnel only who are being busted.


Rest assured that some mid level ones will be investigated as well.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Altair said:


> I'm not sure what the split is then, because a lot of people I talk to do not have a great view on the senior leadership forcing operation honor down our throats while engaging in what is coming to light.


Funny the exact same thing happened in the Public Service under Chreatin as his government pushed "Ethics and Values" onto the Public Service just as Adscam and the brown envelopes full of money hit the press.


----------



## Altair

Colin Parkinson said:


> Funny the exact same thing happened in the Public Service under Chreatin as his government pushed "Ethics and Values" onto the Public Service just as Adscam and the brown envelopes full of money hit the press.


I can imagine.


----------



## Weinie

Altair said:


> I'm not sure what the split is then, because a lot of people I talk to do not have a great view on the senior leadership forcing operation honor down our throats while engaging in what is coming to light.


Op Honour has been terminated. If you are aware of sexual misconduct allegations that have not been reported, it is your duty to report them. If you and your peers are currently awaiting direction/guidance.........welcome to the club. 

Op Honour,  and it's aims, are not the problem.


----------



## Jarnhamar

It's not just a few bad apples. The military is full of these assholes. Whether it's sexual assault, sexual misconduct, bullying, harassment or just being a shitty person.

I've sat in on a handful of meetings where leaders talk about what we can do to regain the trust of the troops. And I know it's happening elsewhere too.

Honestly, next to nothing. And it makes me question peoples situational awareness to think there's a quick fix here.

Training isn't going to fix this, chitchats pushed down to platoon level won't fix this, ethics courses on GCcampus  won't fix this. _Let-me-be-clear _emails won't work.

The only way the CAF will start to regain trust in the leadership at this point is by hammering the guilty parties. Charges, fines, reduction in rank, jail time, whatever. Short of that it will look like business as usual.


----------



## Altair

Weinie said:


> Op Honour has been terminated. If you are aware of sexual misconduct allegations that have not been reported, it is your duty to report them. If you and your peers are currently awaiting direction/guidance.........welcome to the club.
> 
> Op Honour,  and it's aims, are not the problem.


_sits down to Op Honour brief_

Remember, you as soldiers are not to use the F word. If you use the F word, you may think of it.

If you think of the F word, you may want to do it.

If you do the F word at work, you may assault someone.

So no more using the F word, because that will make you sexually assault someone.

Any questions?

I wish this was a parody, but it was actually a Op Honour brief I sat in.


----------



## Weinie

Altair said:


> _sits down to Op Honour brief_
> 
> Remember, you as soldiers are not to use the F word. If you use the F word, you may think of it.
> 
> If you think of the F word, you may want to do it.
> 
> If you do the F word at work, you may assault someone.
> 
> So no more using the F word, because that will make you sexually assault someone.
> 
> Any questions?
> 
> I wish this was a parody, but it was actually a Op Honour brief I sat in.


Provide a copy of that brief.  I will ensure it gets higher., with ramifications.

If you can't, (or are unwilling to) then it is rhetoric. Welcome to the CAF. We have had innumerable examples of this, doesn't excuse it. Step up. PM me with details if your not comfortable here.


----------



## ballz

I'm glad something about Treasury Board policy got brought up because I've been reading this thread and thinking about how this whole "GOFO sexual misconduct" fiasco is really just a symptom, the disease is the lack of accountability which is seen everywhere. Treasury Board policies just being one of them.

A few years ago there was a BGen who used public funds to pay for everyone's motorcycle course and do a big "poker run" across Alberta. None of the TB policies for THCEE were followed, which at that time would have required MND approval. Well, sadly someone was killed on that "exercise" and so a BOI was done. At this point you'd think for sure the guy is going to get his feet held to the fire... but nope. He didn't get promoted beyond BGen, and of course admin actions would be confidential, but what I do know is he didn't get charged for a flagrant violation of the FAA, which is largely the problem... similar to what Jarnhammer notes, I'd argue justice needs to be *seen *to happen, or else it might as well not happen at all.



daftandbarmy said:


> Did you squeal on him? Seriously....





daftandbarmy said:


> I used to try and deal with assholes like this by just going direct to their bosses.
> 
> Hopefully Karma will intervene.



Every time I've seen this crap,, it's been a Commander. Whether it's Bn, Bde, Div, or Army, it's pretty hard to go direct to their bosses.

Then consider that even in the unlikely event that their boss intervenes, all they do is stop that incident from happening, the would-be perpetrator doesn't actually get held accountable, they learn absolutely nothing from it, and you get to enjoy the next year or two working in said person's HQ.

Then consider the more likely event is that their boss, who was raised and developed just like them, takes the side of their subordinate Commander and that he's "allowed to accept the risk.*"

How many people would be stupid enough to go down that road knowing those are the two outcomes?

*Accept the risk. Something that gets said a lot when there are policies / regulations Commanders don't want to follow, and really speaks a lot about one of two things, their competency or their honesty. If they're competent and understand what "accepting risk means," then they're deliberately being dishonest because they know you can't just ignore inconvenient legal constraints such as the Law of Armed Conflict, Criminal Code of Canada, and yes, the Financial Administration Act, and call it "accepting risk." If they honestly don't understand that, then they are hyper-incompetent which also makes sense as to why we are where we are.


One interesting thing is that we never seen to hear about our internal whistleblower mechanism, most people don't know it exists.... imagine what would come to light if people actually new they could just file a Disclosure of Wrongdoing to the Internal Disclosure Office and it would be investigated by ADM(RS) who are _almost_ fully independent whilst they remain anonymous.


----------



## Altair

Weinie said:


> Provide a copy of that brief.  I will ensure it gets higher., with ramifications.
> 
> If you can't, (or are unwilling to) then it is rhetoric. Welcome to the CAF. We have had innumerable examples of this, doesn't excuse it. Step up.


It wasn't written down, it was the person running the brief. 

So sorry I didn't write it down word for word. But there were 40-50 people in the room with me, including those in my unit all looking at each other like we were living in bizarro world. 

It was great for a laugh for many weeks after that.


----------



## FJAG

Altair said:


> _sits down to Op Honour brief_
> 
> ...
> 
> I wish this was a parody, but it was actually a Op Honour brief I sat in.



I just finished reading a post from a new soldier who was wondering if his infantry DP1 instructors would treat him like a piece of shit like his BMQ instructors had and then saw your post which got  me to thinking. Why do our instructors do this? It's not like we don't teach good instructional techniques on NCO courses because we do. And the whole concept of 'you have to break them down to make a man (or woman) of them' is not like it was back in the forties when our dads (or grandads or great grandads) were being square bashed.

It strikes me there's a general cultural thing there where we continue to do things the way we experienced it even if we're convinced its wrong. (I say generally because I'm sure there are many exceptions)

It reminds me of when I was an officer cadet in Shilo. Most of our instructions came from two Sr NCO AIGs - a staff sergeant and sergeant AIG - who generally treated us well while trying to get technical concepts into our heads; pulling us aside to tell us when we failed instead of yelling at us in front of others. Heck, we had individual rooms at the officers mess and only stood inspections on Fridays. We went to Borden for Phase 2 where we met up with our Infantry peers from BOTC who lived in barracks, were yelled at continuously by their NCOs and generally treated like crap. I never understood why and I've always felt that the way I ended up treating my subordinates afterwards is because I had a good example set by that staff and that sergeant for the eight months they had control of me.

I think we have too many folks who phone it in. They don't think about the example they are setting and seem to fall back on some of the worst cruise-control, default instructional techniques that they experienced early on. 

If we have instructors allowed to give briefs as badly as the one you attended, how will we ever break this cycle because given the poor attitudes on this topic which comes out of high schools and universities exposed recruits, we're going to have to deal with this Op Honourish issue forever. There has to be a way of breaking the back of this problem.

🍻


----------



## Weinie

Altair said:


> It wasn't written down, it was the person running the brief.
> 
> So sorry I didn't write it down word for word. But there were 40-50 people in the room with me, including those in my unit all looking at each other like we were living in bizarro world.
> 
> It was great for a laugh for many weeks after that.


Then get depositions from as many people in the room, including your unit, that you were in, and submit it to me, I will ensure that it get's submitted higher.


----------



## Altair

Weinie said:


> Then get depositions from as many people in the room, including your unit, that you were in, and submit it to me, I will ensure that it get's submitted higher.


Dear god, I am tempted.


----------



## Weinie

Altair said:


> Dear god, I am tempted.


Phucking  stop...     You are a troll,


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Easy lads.


----------



## Kilted

FJAG said:


> I just finished reading a post from a new soldier who was wondering if his infantry DP1 instructors would treat him like a piece of shit like his BMQ instructors had and then saw your post which got  me to thinking. Why do our instructors do this?


It's because that's how their instructors treated them. That being said, in my time in I have seen the instructors become significantly more tame, or at least have greater restrictions put on them. There is a reason why troops are supposed to be put through stressful situations on course, to prepare them for military life and combat. There is definitely a respectful and professional way to do this. It doesn't require degrading the troops or demoralizing them. There is room for warranted criticism, but it shouldn't be used as a personal attack. Unfortunately there is a lack of professionalism that is sometimes observed. 

Talking about personal experiences before I joined the army at 17 I was just really starting to have confidence in myself.  It didn't take long for that to disappear. I mean, I did feel confident that I could carry out weapons drills probably and wear the uniform correctly, but after being degraded by course staff my confidence in myself was gone and took a few years to come back. Did it make me a stronger person in some ways, yes, but not in others. Am I significantly harder skinned because of it yes. Would I have otherwise been potentially further ahead in life than I am now, I think that there might be a good chance if that. 

I think back to those days when the worse thing you could do was be an individual, or be weak for filling out a CF-98. I remember after I tweaked a muscle on my leg on a C6 run-down in three feet of snow I was absolutely terrified when my course staff mentioned a CF-98. 

The old saying goes that there is a fine line between hard and stupid, unfortunately we find ourselves on the wrong side of it sometimes.


----------



## ballz

Weinie said:


> Then get depositions from as many people in the room, including your unit, that you were in, and submit it to me, I will ensure that it get's submitted higher.



I've had some pretty terrible Op Honour briefs. Most were not terrible by choice, in most cases it was any random SNCO or Jr Officer who got the task, was provided zero tools from the CAF to do so, trying to talk about a topic they don't understand, etc.

I've watched the "textbook" dilemmas get given, the class miss the entire point, and the instructor have no clue what the point was, and so the lesson goes on by. And yes, I spoke up and argued the point that I believed the scenario was trying to make.

My point being, Op Honour was a bunch of BS platitudes, all the CAF ever does. Our hubris destroys us, we have no idea how to change culture. Our "great" GOFOs wouldn't know how to change culture if their lives depended on it. We are in an organization that activity stamps out creativity and outside the box thinking in exchange for more and more and more transactional leadership, and that's who we have trying to change culture... the most transactional leaders we could find and promote. The CAF doesn't care if you have the best Battalion training plan and the quality of your PCF courses is great, and the quality of your Level 1-6 foundation training is great. The CAF rewards you for doing shitty PCF courses, shitty foundation training, but also had the most NDWCC donations, the most people in "green" on your DAG reports (even if its a lie), etc...

All that to say, you're all fired up to go after some schmuck that was probably thrown into this with 5 minutes to prep and no resources from the CAF, from the great GOFOs who created this idea and did zero to back it up, did a predictably poor job at it... perhaps you've got your crosshairs on the wrong person(s).


----------



## Weinie

ballz said:


> I've had some pretty terrible Op Honour briefs. Most were not terrible by choice, in most cases it was any random SNCO or Jr Officer who got the task, was provided zero tools from the CAF to do so, trying to talk about a topic they don't understand, etc.
> 
> I've watched the "textbook" dilemmas get given, the class miss the entire point, and the instructor have no clue what the point was, and so the lesson goes on by. And yes, I spoke up and argued the point that I believed the scenario was trying to make.
> 
> My point being, Op Honour was a bunch of BS platitudes, all the CAF ever does. Our hubris destroys us, we have no idea how to change culture. Our "great" GOFOs wouldn't know how to change culture if their lives depended on it. We are in an organization that activity stamps out creativity and outside the box thinking in exchange for more and more and more transactional leadership, and that's who we have trying to change culture... the most transactional leaders we could find and promote. The CAF doesn't care if you have the best Battalion training plan and the quality of your PCF courses is great, and the quality of your Level 1-6 foundation training is great. The CAF rewards you for doing shitty PCF courses, shitty foundation training, but also had the most NDWCC donations, the most people in "green" on your DAG reports (even if its a lie), etc...
> 
> All that to say, you're all fired up to go after some schmuck that was probably thrown into this with 5 minutes to prep and no resources from the CAF, from the great GOFOs who created this idea and did zero to back it up, did a predictably poor job at it... perhaps you've got your crosshairs on the wrong person(s).


And I'm  actually offering a venue that could offer some hope that we can deal with this.  Many  avenues , but if someone offers a problem, then most disregard a potential solution, then I can't offer the .poor "schmuck" anything other than platitudes.

If your experience with Op Honour has been terrible, why have you folk not been  more proactive?


----------



## Kilted

I think that Op Honour failed because it attempted to treat the symptoms while ignoring the disease. It felt like Op Honour was more a list of don't: rape, assault, rude comments, etc. It might have worked better if it was more of a lists of do's. The CAF is representative of the Canadian population, which means the same issues we have in society will come into the military. There are a number of men in society who do not respect women, or at the very least like to talk like they don't so that others will think that they are "cool." The members of the Canadian Forces should be outstanding citizens and should stand above the rest of society, which many members do, and others could if they didn't let themselves be influenced by the wrong people. If everyone in any leadership position avoided talking about women in disrespectful terms for an extended period of time, we would see significant improvement. If a generation of jr leaders stood up and realized where some of the roots of the problem were and at the very least didn't countiue it, we wouldn't need things like Op Honour. I know that it's probably too much to hope for.


----------



## daftandbarmy

trigger324 said:


> I don’t know, I think right now it’s much more important to be concerned about what the public thinks than what members think. The members will continue to stick together, the public is who supports(or doesn’t) them.





ballz said:


> Every time I've seen this crap,, it's been a Commander. Whether it's Bn, Bde, Div, or Army, it's pretty hard to go direct to their bosses.
> 
> Then consider that even in the unlikely event that their boss intervenes, all they do is stop that incident from happening, the would-be perpetrator doesn't actually get held accountable, they learn absolutely nothing from it, and you get to enjoy the next year or two working in said person's HQ.
> 
> Then consider the more likely event is that their boss, who was raised and developed just like them, takes the side of their subordinate Commander and that he's "allowed to accept the risk.*"
> 
> How many people would be stupid enough to go down that road knowing those are the two outcomes?



This is a great example of some of the underlying leadership issues in play. I don't believe it's only a feature of the CAF, other big organizations suffer from similar issues, but in a military environment the mechanisms of coercion are much stronger.


----------



## Altair

ballz said:


> I'm glad something about Treasury Board policy got brought up because I've been reading this thread and thinking about how this whole "GOFO sexual misconduct" fiasco is really just a symptom, the disease is the lack of accountability which is seen everywhere. Treasury Board policies just being one of them.
> 
> A few years ago there was a BGen who used public funds to pay for everyone's motorcycle course and do a big "poker run" across Alberta. None of the TB policies for THCEE were followed, which at that time would have required MND approval. Well, sadly someone was killed on that "exercise" and so a BOI was done. At this point you'd think for sure the guy is going to get his feet held to the fire... but nope. He didn't get promoted beyond BGen, and of course admin actions would be confidential, but what I do know is he didn't get charged for a flagrant violation of the FAA, which is largely the problem... similar to what Jarnhammer notes, I'd argue justice needs to be *seen *to happen, or else it might as well not happen at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every time I've seen this crap,, it's been a Commander. Whether it's Bn, Bde, Div, or Army, it's pretty hard to go direct to their bosses.
> 
> Then consider that even in the unlikely event that their boss intervenes, all they do is stop that incident from happening, the would-be perpetrator doesn't actually get held accountable, they learn absolutely nothing from it, and you get to enjoy the next year or two working in said person's HQ.
> 
> Then consider the more likely event is that their boss, who was raised and developed just like them, takes the side of their subordinate Commander and that he's "allowed to accept the risk.*"
> 
> How many people would be stupid enough to go down that road knowing those are the two outcomes?
> 
> *Accept the risk. Something that gets said a lot when there are policies / regulations Commanders don't want to follow, and really speaks a lot about one of two things, their competency or their honesty. If they're competent and understand what "accepting risk means," then they're deliberately being dishonest because they know you can't just ignore inconvenient legal constraints such as the Law of Armed Conflict, Criminal Code of Canada, and yes, the Financial Administration Act, and call it "accepting risk." If they honestly don't understand that, then they are hyper-incompetent which also makes sense as to why we are where we are.
> 
> 
> One interesting thing is that we never seen to hear about our internal whistleblower mechanism, most people don't know it exists.... imagine what would come to light if people actually new they could just file a Disclosure of Wrongdoing to the Internal Disclosure Office and it would be investigated by ADM(RS) who are _almost_ fully independent whilst they remain anonymous.


Edmonton right?

I had to collect the members kit from their home if this was the incident from CFB Edmonton.

Same BGen who would park their motorcycle on the queens grass outside of HQ.

Good times. Not even a slap on the hand.


----------



## Weinie

Weinie said:


> Then get depositions from as many people in the room, including your unit, that you were in, and submit it to me, I will ensure that it get's submitted higher.


I am attempting to break the narrative or perspective that no senior officer cares about how we considerr/perceive our subordinates. I have never been in the Air Force or Navy, but I an sure that they would echo my comments.


----------



## Halifax Tar

ballz said:


> I've had some pretty terrible Op Honour briefs. Most were not terrible by choice, in most cases it was any random SNCO or Jr Officer who got the task, was provided zero tools from the CAF to do so, trying to talk about a topic they don't understand, etc.
> 
> I've watched the "textbook" dilemmas get given, the class miss the entire point, and the instructor have no clue what the point was, and so the lesson goes on by. And yes, I spoke up and argued the point that I believed the scenario was trying to make.
> 
> My point being, Op Honour was a bunch of BS platitudes, all the CAF ever does. Our hubris destroys us, we have no idea how to change culture. *Our "great" GOFOs wouldn't know how to change culture if their lives depended on it.* We are in an organization that activity stamps out creativity and outside the box thinking in exchange for more and more and more transactional leadership, and that's who we have trying to change culture... the most transactional leaders we could find and promote. The CAF doesn't care if you have the best Battalion training plan and the quality of your PCF courses is great, and the quality of your Level 1-6 foundation training is great. The CAF rewards you for doing shitty PCF courses, shitty foundation training, but also had the most NDWCC donations, the most people in "green" on your DAG reports (even if its a lie), etc...
> 
> All that to say, you're all fired up to go after some schmuck that was probably thrown into this with 5 minutes to prep and no resources from the CAF, from the great GOFOs who created this idea and did zero to back it up, did a predictably poor job at it... perhaps you've got your crosshairs on the wrong person(s).



I agree with your post but I believe they know how, its that they are unwilling.  Look at the news mons amies (Sorry starting a year long French course and I am at the embryo stage lol).

Their friends and peers are the ones falling now, might be them next.  It was easy to shake a finger and push policy when it was the unwashed masses and Cadets are RMC (I'm sure they shower there).  But now, by gosh, the policy is coming after them too.

These are a group of people who truly believe the institution exist to serve them and their whims.  Simple anecdotal example,  how many RCN ships have been delayed coming home because GO/FO whapittysplat could make the original timing so the ship needed to shift ?  Its happened to me 2 out of 3 times.

Coming home on Freddy our families were told they couldn't greet us on the jetty, social distancing and all that.  We come home, hundreds of spit and polished turds all over the jetty trying to get pictures and then we were held by speeches up for what seemed like an eternity only to board busses and be shunted off to different locations to finally be reunited with our family.


----------



## MilEME09

Some of the posts here scream out to me that any future training needs to be delivered by an outside agency who will deliver it properly.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

From what I've heard about a certain training session at RMC a few years ago that doesn't always work either.


----------



## OldSolduer

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> From what I've heard about a certain training session at RMC a few years ago that doesn't always work either.


The target audience has to be receptive and the presenter has to be credible


----------



## daftandbarmy

Meanwhile, in the national media....


What happens when an all-volunteer force loses the trust of its members and the public?​
*The military's sexual misconduct crisis is turning into a national security problem, say experts*

There was a time when putting an allied general in a compromising position was the sole dominion of foreign intelligence services.

No longer. And while there have been no indications to date that adversaries such as Russia and China have been involved in the ongoing sexual misconduct crisis gripping the Canadian military, the implications for national security are real and very stark, say U.S. military law experts.

 The ethical and institutional wounds afflicting the Canadian Armed Forces all appear to be self-inflicted, as are those involving the actions of American military leaders. 

Much of the commentary on the crisis in the military has focused on social and institutional justice — the promise of a long-awaited reckoning for survivors of sexual assault and sexual misconduct.

The flip side, seldom discussed, is how sexual misconduct can affect national security beyond the potential for blackmail scenarios — the kind of salacious stuff you find in spy fiction.

"I think it can present a real danger," said retired U.S. Army lieutenant-colonel Victor Hansen, a professor of law at the New England School of Law in Boston.

"I think it has ... very tangible direct consequences to national security, but I think it has longer-reaching, more intangible effects."

How sexual misconduct threatens recruitment​The first danger, said Hansen, is to the military's talent pool — the skills and talents that are lost when victims start to wonder how they can remain loyal to an institution that allows misconduct to go unchecked, and decide to quit.

The Canadian military has seen that happen already, he said, citing the recent resignation of Lt.-Col. Eleanor Taylor — a highly decorated combat officer who served as a company commander in Afghanistan and as a senior staff officer with special forces.

Taylor "could have been an agent for change and she's walking away, saying, 'I can't be a part of this anymore. I've lost complete confidence in this system to do justice,'" said Hansen.

"That has real and long-lasting impacts on national security."


https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mi...CBC News Top Headlines  – Morning_1613_255288


----------



## OldSolduer

OldSolduer said:


> The target audience has to be receptive and the presenter has to be credible


I should add a credible presenter can sway a non receptive audience


----------



## Haggis

Most analysts expect we will see deep COVID debt related funding cuts to Defence in the very near future.  Recruiting will not be critical in the face of force size and capability reductions.


----------



## OldSolduer

Haggis said:


> Most analysts expect we will see deep COVID debt related funding cuts to Defence in the very near future.  Recruiting will not be critical in the face of force size and capability reductions.


I’m expecting it too along with cancellations of capital acquisitions. No fighters, no ships and whatever else our nice hair PM doesn’t want. Worst GoC in my memory.


----------



## ModlrMike

I'm thinking the "decade of darkness" will have nothing on what's coming.


----------



## ArmyRick

We are about to see some really dark days for the CAF. It sucks because I believe 90-95% of the serving/previous members served with honour. It seems way too many senior leadership have too many accusations being thrown at them. I am pretty sure our opinion with the general public is going to tank. 

Look at what a previous liberal government did to the Canadian Airborne Regiment in '95 when embarrassed by them. One swift stroke of a pen and done. If this becomes too much of a thorn in PM JT side (and its not something O'Toole can defend or justify), what drastic actions will this brand of Liberals take to show the public they are not tolerating this?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

If someone says that the CF is not representative of Canada, you can propose National Service as a solution, that way we will have all the good and bad.


----------



## ModlrMike

In case anyone thinks I'm over reacting:

Military facing ‘reckoning’ over misconduct but no details yet on action: Monsef​


----------



## daftandbarmy

OldSolduer said:


> The target audience has to be receptive and the presenter has to be credible


----------



## Altair

ArmyRick said:


> We are about to see some really dark days for the CAF. It sucks because I believe 90-95% of the serving/previous members served with honour. It seems way too many senior leadership have too many accusations being thrown at them. I am pretty sure our opinion with the general public is going to tank.
> 
> Look at what a previous liberal government did to the Canadian Airborne Regiment in '95 when embarrassed by them. One swift stroke of a pen and done. If this becomes too much of a thorn in PM JT side (and its not something O'Toole can defend or justify), what drastic actions will this brand of Liberals take to show the public they are not tolerating this?


I've heard this in terms of policing, but if you have 5 dishonourable soldiers and 95 honourable soldiers who don't do anything about them, what do you have?

100 dishonourable soldiers.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Doing nothing if you believe that doing something will result in no useful outcome and may cause hardship for yourself is not dishonourable.  However, it would be amusing to see the politicians apply that rule very strictly to their own "Right Honourable" and "Honourable" selves.

The politicians promising things like a "reckoning" occupy exactly the same position relative to the CAF as the most senior officers of the CAF do to the rest of the CAF - compromised by the actions of their own peers and leaders, and therefore with very little standing to make any kind of threats, demands, promises, assurances, etc.  Best to just keep quietly weeding the garden without any fanfare.

A credible presenter can not be anyone who is an acolyte of some flavour of fashionable socio-politics, or tainted by the appearance of it.


----------



## Altair

Brad Sallows said:


> Doing nothing if you believe that doing something will result in no useful outcome and may cause hardship for yourself is not dishonourable.  However, it would be amusing to see the politicians apply that rule very strictly to their own "Right Honourable" and "Honourable" selves.
> 
> The politicians promising things like a "reckoning" occupy exactly the same position relative to the CAF as the most senior officers of the CAF do to the rest of the CAF - compromised by the actions of their own peers and leaders, and therefore with very little standing to make any kind of threats, demands, promises, assurances, etc.  Best to just keep quietly weeding the garden without any fanfare.
> 
> A credible presenter can not be anyone who is an acolyte of some flavour of fashionable socio-politics, or tainted by the appearance of it.


I hope that's true, because I know of about 2 more shoes to drop a la Gen Vance.

Either way, I'm looking forward to getting out.


----------



## Brad Sallows

If anyone who knows about something dishonourable - or more broadly, likely to eventually harm someone else if left unchecked - does nothing about it, then everyone is complicit in every ill thing they know of.


----------



## Altair

Brad Sallows said:


> If anyone who knows about something dishonourable - or more broadly, likely to eventually harm someone else if left unchecked - does nothing about it, then everyone is complicit in every ill thing they know of.


Consensual as far as I know.

As for the military, well...


----------



## Mills Bomb

MilEME09 said:


> Some of the posts here scream out to me that any future training needs to be delivered by an outside agency who will deliver it properly.



It seems like that would be a logical idea. I suppose when or if a true outside agency takes over it could be best for them to provide the expectations rather than leaving it up to interpretation. We have people from PSP come in to teach us about fitness so it's certainly not impossible or much of a stretch.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Brad Sallows said:


> If anyone who knows about something dishonourable - or more broadly, likely to eventually harm someone else if left unchecked - does nothing about it, then everyone is complicit in every ill thing they know of.


I think the problem here is that for most of us if we raise a complaint we don't have a recourse when the CoC says "ya, okay tracking, thanks, get back to work".
It seems like the only time the CAF takes things seriously is when someone goes to FaceBook or the Media. 

I've reported stuff. As much of troglodyte as I may come across here I can fake articulation when required. Nothing.  Its a big "Thanks...now fuck off"


----------



## OldSolduer

Jarnhamar said:


> I think the problem here is that for most of us if we raise a complaint we don't have a recourse when the CoC says "ya, okay tracking, thanks, get back to work".
> It seems like the only time the CAF takes things seriously is when someone goes to FaceBook or the Media.
> 
> I've reported stuff. As much of troglodyte as I may come across here I can fake articulation when required. Nothing.  Its a big "Thanks...now fuck off"


Or MYOFB Sergeant- that’s not your concern


----------



## Navy_Pete

OldSolduer said:


> Or MYOFB Sergeant- that’s not your concern


And then the CoC is shocked when people go to the media because SFA happened when they followed the process.


----------



## Loachman

Dennis Prager: The 6 Flaws in Human Nature That America Overcame to Become Great
By Dennis Prager February 15, 2021
ttps://www.westernjournal.com/dennis-prager-6-flaws-human-nature-america-overcame-become-great/

Given how flawed human nature is, America has been a remarkable moral achievement.

<snip>

No. 4: The sex drive.

Consider how many men have lost everything - their money, reputation, livelihood, even their family - in order to gratify their sex drive. The reason there has been so much irresponsible and sometimes evil sexual behavior is not because of “sexism” or “patriarchy,” but because of this drive.

The wonder is not how much sexual impropriety exists in America; the wonder is how little there is compared to the past, compared to virtually every society in history and compared to many societies today.

<snip>


----------



## Good2Golf

Jarnhamar said:


> I think the problem here is that for most of us if we raise a complaint we don't have a recourse when the CoC says "ya, okay tracking, thanks, get back to work".
> It seems like the only time the CAF takes things seriously is when someone goes to FaceBook or the Media.
> 
> I've reported stuff. As much of troglodyte as I may come across here I can fake articulation when required. Nothing.  Its a big "Thanks...now fuck off"


Direct to the NIS also works. I’ve done that a few times. Even got follow-up from some of my reports, which was encouraging.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Good2Golf said:


> Direct to the NIS also works. I’ve done that a few times. Even got follow-up from some of my reports, which was encouraging.



I wish I'd thought of that. Your Kung Fu is stronger ...

I went direct to the COS once, about a real nut job CO, and got nothing.

Then the COS became a Bde Comd.


----------



## ArmyRick

One of the issues with trying to bring up disciplinary or other issues with CoC (not just sexual misconduct but many other major issues) is sometimes it results in the "third" COA against yourself.

What is the "third" COA? There is disciplinary proceedings, administrative proceedings and then your career will suddenly halt and you will be assigned meaningless, non career progressing jobs approach. It happens. I have seen it happen to others and it happened to myself as well. It was one of three reasons I put on my release memo in 2018 when I got out. And oddly enough that CO was told to resign or he was going to be fired six months later. 

Basically the CAF created this environment.


----------



## OldSolduer

ArmyRick said:


> One of the issues with trying to bring up disciplinary or other issues with CoC (not just sexual misconduct but many other major issues) is sometimes it results in the "third" COA against yourself.
> 
> What is the "third" COA? There is disciplinary proceedings, administrative proceedings and then your career will suddenly halt and you will be assigned meaningless, non career progressing jobs approach. It happens. I have seen it happen to others and it happened to myself as well. It was one of three reasons I put on my release memo in 2018 when I got out. And oddly enough that CO was told to resign or he was going to be fired six months later.
> 
> Basically the CAF created this environment.


You’ve learnt well Master Jedi 👍🏻


----------



## mariomike

Kilted said:


> Talking about personal experiences before I joined the army at 17 I was just really starting to have confidence in myself.  It didn't take long for that to disappear.


I joined the PRes 1970 when I was 16. I don't recall any Op Honour style lectures. One thing I do remember was during the enrollment medical, the doctor asked, "Do you like girls?"

I think our instructors did a fine job.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Altair said:


> I hope that's true, because I know of about 2 more shoes to drop a la Gen Vance.
> 
> Either way, I'm looking forward to getting out.


Don't let the door hit you on the way out.  I'm as disgusted as everyone else is by the actions of some of our senior leadership but at the end of the day, we have CAF members deployed on operations at the moment, doing their very best to serve their Country under incredibly difficult circumstances.  Instead of focusing on what some cucumber sandwich munching patsy in Ottawa is doing, why don't you back the troops at the front and put some energy towards supporting them?

I personally don't give a crap what sort of trouble Senior Leadership get themselves in to and if anything, the continuous game of GOFO musical chairs at the top just goes to show that none of them are really irreplaceable.  If anything this clear out is well overdue as the Chateau Officers and Bureaucrats were getting a little too comfortable up in their Ivory Towers IMO.

Time for the force to clear out the chaff and start focusing on generating combat capable forces again.


----------



## Altair

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Don't let the door hit you on the way out.  I'm as disgusted as everyone else is by the actions of some of our senior leadership but at the end of the day, we have CAF members deployed on operations at the moment, doing their very best to serve their Country under incredibly difficult circumstances.  Instead of focusing on what some cucumber sandwich munching patsy in Ottawa is doing, why don't you back the troops at the front and put some energy towards supporting them?
> 
> I personally don't give a crap what sort of trouble Senior Leadership get themselves in to and if anything, the continuous game of GOFO musical chairs at the top just goes to show that none of them are really irreplaceable.  If anything this clear out is well overdue as the Chateau Officers and Bureaucrats were getting a little too comfortable up in their Ivory Towers IMO.
> 
> Time for the force to clear out the chaff and start focusing on generating combat capable forces again.


I've done what I've wanted in the CAF, and I'm looking forward to my next challenge in life.

The fact that my leaving coincides with this nonsense is merely a fortunate coincidence.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Time for the force to clear out the chaff and start focusing on generating combat capable forces again.



And there's the rub....

All we need is a mission, because idle hands are the Devil's workshop


----------



## Altair

daftandbarmy said:


> And there's the rub....
> 
> All we need is a mission, because idle hands are the Devil's workshop


B-Gen* (Ret) Daniel Menard would not agree.

*Or is it Col?


----------



## PMedMoe

Loachman said:


> No. 4: The sex drive.
> 
> Consider how many men have lost everything - their money, reputation, livelihood, even their family - in order to gratify their sex drive. The reason there has been so much irresponsible and sometimes evil sexual behavior is not because of “sexism” or “patriarchy,” but because of this drive.
> 
> The wonder is not how much sexual impropriety exists in America; the wonder is how little there is compared to the past, compared to virtually every society in history and compared to many societies today.



[sarcasm] Oh, so we should be _*glad*_ it's not worse than it is?? [/sarcasm]

Not that I give much value to the opinion of Dennis Prager....


----------



## SeaKingTacco

PMedMoe said:


> [sarcasm] Oh, so we should be _*glad*_ it's not worse than it is?? [/sarcasm]
> 
> Not that I give much value to the opinion of Dennis Prager....


Having travelled extensively outside North America, I would posit that it is much worse in other parts of the world.

This is not to say that things could not be better in North America.


----------



## PMedMoe

SeaKingTacco said:


> Having travelled extensively outside North America, I would posit that it is much worse in other parts of the world.
> 
> This is not to say that things could not be better in North America.


Of that, I have no doubt.  But to simply blame men's sex drive for misconduct is much the same as the old "Boys will be boys" argument.

I did notice that the rest of that paragraph was left out:



> This has largely been the result of the influence of Judeo-Christian ethics.
> 
> Prior to the baby boomer generation, most American men were raised to believe that manhood was defined by marriage and by taking care of a family. With the left’s assault on Judeo-Christian religions, more and more young men feel free to revert to their animallike sexual nature, which is not monogamous and not naturally inclined to getting married and making a family.



I don't equate Christianity with morality.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

All the major religion are based around some sort of morality and it is religion that kickstarted humanity down that road. It is no longer the case that religion is the only path to good morals, but this society was built on Judo-Christian morality with its good bits and bad. We been adjusting the mix every since. Also Christianity covers a wide spectrum, the church where my kids sing in the choir has a gay priest and accepts my Muslim wife and my rather cranky agnostic self with open arms, with no requirements other than to be kind to others.


----------



## Haggis

PMedMoe said:


> Not that I give much value to the opinion of Dennis Prager....


Former CDS Gen Tom Lawson voiced a similar opinion just before handing over to Vance.


----------



## PMedMoe

Haggis said:


> Former CDS Gen Tom Lawson voiced a similar opinion just before handing over to Vance.


And then backpedalled like crazy: 



> "I apologize for my awkward characterization, in today's CBC interview, of the issue of sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. Sexual misconduct in any form, in any situation is clearly unacceptable," the statement said.


----------



## OldSolduer

Colin Parkinson said:


> the church where my kids sing in the choir has a gay priest and accepts my Muslim wife and my rather cranky agnostic self with open arms, with no requirements other than to be kind to others.


And that is the true church, or mosque or whatever. Have courage and be kind.


----------



## PMedMoe

Colin Parkinson said:


> All the major religion are based around some sort of morality and it is religion that kickstarted humanity down that road. It is no longer the case that religion is the only path to good morals, but this society was built on Judo-Christian morality with its good bits and bad. We been adjusting the mix every since. Also Christianity covers a wide spectrum, the church where my kids sing in the choir has a gay priest and accepts my Muslim wife and my rather cranky agnostic self with open arms, with no requirements other than to be kind to others.


I'm not saying there isn't good (for the most part) religions/churches.  I'm just saying that being a Christian doesn't necessarily make one moral.

Evangelicals come to mind.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Considering the death toll in the 20th century by declared Atheists (aka Communists) the non-religious types don't have much of a track record either. You can't deny the role religion has had on forming morality and how to this day it still has an effect. The only difference is that we now have other means of creating and enforcing that morality.


----------



## PMedMoe

Okay, let's not go off on a tangent (again).  I shouldn't have bothered with the rest of the quote but just wanted to show the context that Prager was using in his Op-Ed.  

If some men have such a virulent sex drive that it causes them to assault and/or force themselves on women or "revert to their animallike sexual nature", then perhaps they should be chemically castrated.


----------



## trigger324

Altair said:


> I know of about 2 more shoes to drop a la Gen Vance.


🍿


----------



## Weinie

PMedMoe said:


> And then backpedalled like crazy:


He was so over the top unprepared for that interview, and so out of touch with contemporary events, that I literally cringed when watching it, and I have developed some fairly thick skin. It was disgraceful.


----------



## FJAG

Colin Parkinson said:


> Considering the death toll in the 20th century by declared Atheists (aka Communists) the non-religious types don't have much of a track record either. You can't deny the role religion has had on forming morality and how to this day it still has an effect. The only difference is that we now have other means of creating and enforcing that morality.



Just a reminder that the folks that killed 6 million Jews and 20 million Russians wore belt buckles with "God With Us" on them. I won't even get into witch burnings and the inquisition and the crusades and the Wars of the Reformation and ... and ...

🤔


----------



## ballz

FWIW I'd love a new thread to discuss religion for 8 posts before it gets locked up..... but let's not ruin this one....


----------



## daftandbarmy

ballz said:


> FWIW I'd love a new thread to discuss religion for 8 posts before it gets locked up..... but let's not ruin this one....


----------



## Jarnhamar

FJAG said:


> I won't even get into witch burnings and the inquisition



It did take care of the witch problem and magic hasn't turned children into animals for over 100 years. Mission accomplished I'd say.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Jarnhamar said:


> It did take care of the witch problem and magic hasn't turned children into animals for over 100 years. Mission accomplished I'd say.


You know, that is surprisingly hard to argue against....


----------



## dapaterson

That's nothing.  I have a rock that keeps bears away.


----------



## FJAG

Jarnhamar said:


> It did take care of the witch problem and magic hasn't turned children into animals for over 100 years. Mission accomplished I'd say.


Oh?


----------



## dapaterson

The RCN's problems are primarily RCN leadership problems unconnected to Hellyer.

Solve the toxic leadership first.


----------



## daftandbarmy

dapaterson said:


> The RCN's problems are primarily RCN leadership problems unconnected to Hellyer.
> 
> Solve the toxic leadership first.



Here's a good reminder....

“It is comparatively simple to select the generals after a display of their military qualities on the battlefield.  The difficulty is when we must choose them prior to employment in active operations. . . . The most important factor of all is character, which involves integrity, unselfish and devoted purpose, a sturdiness of bearing when everything goes wrong and all are critical, and a willingness to sacrifice self in the interest of the common good.*”–*George C. Marshall, 1944, writing to Miss Craig’s class in Roanoke, Virginia


----------



## MilEME09

dapaterson said:


> The RCN's problems are primarily RCN leadership problems unconnected to Hellyer.
> 
> Solve the toxic leadership first.


We need to end the culture of promote and post to deal with problem soldiers. Instead people need to stop being lazy, and start charging and reprimanding bad apples and those who don't do their jobs.


----------



## OldSolduer

MilEME09 said:


> We need to end the culture of promote and post to deal with problem soldiers. Instead people need to stop being lazy, and start charging and reprimanding bad apples and those who don't do their jobs.


When I was in I often saw sub par officers and NCOs posted to “where they couldn’t do any harm”.


----------



## kev994

OldSolduer said:


> When I was in I often saw sub par officers and NCOs posted to “where they couldn’t do any harm”.


That bites you in the ass because they tend to do well where they can’t do any harm, then they come back and try to supervise... disaster ensues.


----------



## FJAG

OldSolduer said:


> When I was in I often saw sub par officers and NCOs posted to “where they couldn’t do any harm”.



The thing about average is that there are just as many people below average as there are above average. Considering how long it takes to build a replacement from scratch, its not unusual to find that the system needs to find a place for them.

I'm a firm believer in the Peter Principle. Since the military is a hierarchy that thrives, on and rewards with, promotion it is no surprise that many folks end up being promoted to a level where their competence barely keeps up or doesn't measure up anymore. That's normal. There are places in the system where they can still usefully contribute.

What's abnormal is promoting folks beyond that level just because there is a position to fill and they're the next one on the promotion list because their current supervisor doesn't have the courage to mark them down to how they truly are.

🍻


----------



## OldSolduer

kev994 said:


> That bites you in the ass because they tend to do well where they can’t do any harm, then they come back and try to supervise... disaster ensues.


I’ve often heard a certain retttttired officer was never to command troops again after his stint as a CO. I’m sure you kkkkknow of whom I speak...


----------



## daftandbarmy

Survey says....


Majority of Canadians not confident military can improve workplace culture: Nanos survey​
A new survey suggests Canadians aren't very confident in the Canadian military's ability to change its workplace culture following reports of sexual misconduct and discrimination within the forces.

According to the latest survey from Nanos Research, just 13 per cent of Canadians are confident the Canadian Armed Forces can “change its workplace to be welcoming to everyone,” while 29 per cent are “somewhat confident” and 56 per cent are either not confident or somewhat not confident.

Additionally, 61.3 per cent of women involved in the survey were either not confident or somewhat not confident in the military’s ability to change its culture.

Canadians are also not very impressed with the Canadian government’s investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct and discrimination in the military, with 54 per cent of respondents indicating their perception of the investigations is either poor or very poor, while just one per cent of Canadians indicated they thought the government’s investigation had been “very good.”

*Capital Dispatch: Stay up to date on the latest news from Parliament Hill*

This comes a week after Lt.-Gen. Wayne Eyre, acting chief of the defence staff, promised to create a safer environment within the military following allegations of sexual misconduct.

"We have to learn why previous approaches did not work and learn from that and incorporate those into our plan going forward," Eyre said during testimony before the House of Commons Status of Women Committee on March 23.

Former chief of the defence staff Gen. Jonathan Vance began the current program -- Operation Honour -- in 2015. Vance is under investigation for allegations of sexual misconduct that CTV News has not independently verified.










						Majority of Canadians not confident military can improve workplace culture: Nanos survey
					

A new Nanos survey suggests Canadians aren't very confident in the Canadian military's ability to change its workplace culture following reports of sexual misconduct and discrimination within the forces.



					www.ctvnews.ca


----------



## Colin Parkinson

FJAG said:


> The thing about average is that there are just as many people below average as there are above average. Considering how long it takes to build a replacement from scratch, its not unusual to find that the system needs to find a place for them.
> 
> I'm a firm believer in the Peter Principle. Since the military is a hierarchy that thrives, on and rewards with, promotion it is no surprise that many folks end up being promoted to a level where their competence barely keeps up or doesn't measure up anymore. That's normal. There are places in the system where they can still usefully contribute.
> 
> What's abnormal is promoting folks beyond that level just because there is a position to fill and they're the next one on the promotion list because their current supervisor doesn't have the courage to mark them down to how they truly are.
> 
> 🍻


I had one soldier that was literally a "loyal dog", not a bright dog, but if I gave him a task that was within his competence, it would get done and he would work late to help me as I treated him with respect. There are a lot of unglamorous tasks in the military and sometimes you need people who don't feel they are special and just want to be given a fair shake. You don't want an army that they are the majority, but you also don't want an army without them.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

You mean shake up the " he/she is just a Corporal" mentality?  

Definitely asking too much IMO.


----------



## mariomike

Colin Parkinson said:


> I had one soldier that was literally a "loyal dog", not a bright dog, but if I gave him a task that was within his competence, it would get done and he would work late to help me as I treated him with respect. There are a lot of unglamorous tasks in the military and sometimes you need people who don't feel they are special and just want to be given a fair shake. You don't want an army that they are the majority, but you also don't want an army without them.


I've read, "An ounce of loyalty is worth a pound of cleverness."


----------



## Lumber

mariomike said:


> I've read, "An ounce of loyalty is worth a pound of cleverness."





daftandbarmy said:


> Here's a good reminder....
> 
> “It is comparatively simple to select the generals after a display of their military qualities on the battlefield.  The difficulty is when we must choose them prior to employment in active operations. . . . The most important factor of all is character, which involves integrity, unselfish and devoted purpose, a sturdiness of bearing when everything goes wrong and all are critical, and a willingness to sacrifice self in the interest of the common good.*”–*George C. Marshall, 1944, writing to Miss Craig’s class in Roanoke, Virginia


I think one of the biggest problems with the navy is purely attrition. It's hard to pick the best candidate when there is such a rediculously small pool to choose from. Seriously go do an advanced search on the GAL and just put "Capt(N)" and/or "Cmdre" in the rank box. You'll find that across the rcn there are very few of either.


----------



## shawn5o

Majority of Canadians not confident military can improve workplace culture: Nanos survey

Ben Cousins
CTVNews.ca Writer
Published Friday, April 2, 2021 10:04PM EDT

TORONTO -- A new survey suggests Canadians aren't very confident in the Canadian military's ability to change its workplace culture following reports of sexual misconduct and discrimination within the forces.

According to the latest survey from Nanos Research, just 13 per cent of Canadians are confident the Canadian Armed Forces can “change its workplace to be welcoming to everyone,” while 29 per cent are “somewhat confident” and 56 per cent are either not confident or somewhat not confident.

Additionally, 61.3 per cent of women involved in the survey were either not confident or somewhat not confident in the military’s ability to change its culture.

Canadians are also not very impressed with the Canadian government’s investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct and discrimination in the military, with 54 per cent of respondents indicating their perception of the investigations is either poor or very poor, while just one per cent of Canadians indicated they thought the government’s investigation had been “very good.”

Read the full article at 








						Majority of Canadians not confident military can improve workplace culture: Nanos survey
					

A new Nanos survey suggests Canadians aren't very confident in the Canadian military's ability to change its workplace culture following reports of sexual misconduct and discrimination within the forces.



					www.ctvnews.ca
				




----------------------

My granddaughter asked me about the forces, wondering if she could join. In the past, I encouraged ppl to join up and learn a trade or make a career but told her now is not a good time. She seemed disappointed. I would love to see her join up but have doubts - ref above article


----------



## Weinie

shawn5o said:


> Majority of Canadians not confident military can improve workplace culture: Nanos survey
> 
> Ben Cousins
> CTVNews.ca Writer
> Published Friday, April 2, 2021 10:04PM EDT
> 
> TORONTO -- A new survey suggests Canadians aren't very confident in the Canadian military's ability to change its workplace culture following reports of sexual misconduct and discrimination within the forces.
> 
> According to the latest survey from Nanos Research, just 13 per cent of Canadians are confident the Canadian Armed Forces can “change its workplace to be welcoming to everyone,” while 29 per cent are “somewhat confident” and 56 per cent are either not confident or somewhat not confident.
> 
> Additionally, 61.3 per cent of women involved in the survey were either not confident or somewhat not confident in the military’s ability to change its culture.
> 
> Canadians are also not very impressed with the Canadian government’s investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct and discrimination in the military, with 54 per cent of respondents indicating their perception of the investigations is either poor or very poor, while just one per cent of Canadians indicated they thought the government’s investigation had been “very good.”
> 
> Read the full article at
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Majority of Canadians not confident military can improve workplace culture: Nanos survey
> 
> 
> A new Nanos survey suggests Canadians aren't very confident in the Canadian military's ability to change its workplace culture following reports of sexual misconduct and discrimination within the forces.
> 
> 
> 
> www.ctvnews.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------
> 
> My granddaughter asked me about the forces, wondering if she could join. In the past, I encouraged ppl to join up and learn a trade or make a career but told her now is not a good time. She seemed disappointed. I would love to see her join up but have doubts - ref above article


I am torn, like you. My spouse has never experienced incidents like we have seen lately, yet people I know, and trust, have recounted horrific encounters and incidents. I have often said that if I were to magically wake up tomorrow at 18 years old, I would run to the recruiting centre to sign up again. But I have also never seen the level of harassment and misogynism that has been reported on.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Weinie said:


> I am torn, like you. My spouse has never experienced incidents like we have seen lately, yet people I know, and trust, have recounted horrific encounters and incidents. I have often said that if I were to magically wake up tomorrow at 18 years old, I would run to the recruiting centre to sign up again. But I have also never seen the level of harassment and misogynism that has been reported on.



You mean like the senior officer who said words to the effect of 'as long as I'm CO we'll never have a female officer in this unit'?

Definitely an outlier, of course, but it still exists, in the military and elsewhere.


----------



## Weinie

daftandbarmy said:


> You mean like the senior officer who said words to the effect of 'as long as I'm CO we'll never have a female officer in this unit'?
> 
> Definitely an outlier, of course, but it still exists, in the military and elsewhere.


Two of the best bosses I have ever worked for, and truly outstanding Officers, were female. A number of my female peers, over the course of my career, I would trust with my life. I have had a hockey sock of female subordinates, they were, on spec, every bit as competent as their male contemporaries, and were treated as such. 

Perhaps I have just been an "outlier" myself, and have not been exposed, but I would think that a systemic problem would have manifested itself to me before this. Started out in the ranks as a Rad Tech, was a Log O, and then PA for the last 25 years.  I am not willfully blind, but not willfully oblivious either. But I am deeply troubled by this continued series of revelations.


----------



## dapaterson

The CAF GOFOs currently remind me of The Fonz from the TV show Happy Days.  Not for their penchant for motorcycles, or for the RCAF's god-awful leather jackets.  But because, like the Fonz, they appear unable to utter the words "I was wrong."






"Seek and accept responsibility" has been sadly lacking to date; when you double down and claim that proposing a trip to a clothing optional resort with someone extremely junior to you wasn't inappropriate you have failed that PO check.

And when those in charge of a profession are not leading it, someone else will step in to take over the regulation of the profession.


----------



## dimsum

dapaterson said:


> RCAF's god-awful leather jackets


I've said this before, but the RCAF could have just copied the USAF or USN's jackets (with precedent since the old RCN aviator jackets were the same).  

But no, whoever designed them _purposely_ made them fugly.


----------



## OldSolduer

dapaterson said:


> The CAF GOFOs currently remind me of The Fonz from the TV show Happy Days.  Not for their penchant for motorcycles, or for the RCAF's god-awful leather jackets.  But because, like the Fonz, they appear unable to utter the words "I was wrong."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Seek and accept responsibility" has been sadly lacking to date; when you double down and claim that proposing a trip to a clothing optional resort with someone extremely junior to you wasn't inappropriate you have failed that PO check.
> 
> And when those in charge of a profession are not leading it, someone else will step in to take over the regulation of the profession.


It happened with the RCMP. The GoC at the time had no confidence in any uniformed senior RCMP officer at the time. The commissioner was a civilian for a while.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Has the Honourable Justin Trudeau dressed up as a Canadian Forces member yet? Maybe he can dress up in a set of DEUs and give the CAF some lessons in ethics, toxic work places, and keeping ones hands to themselves.


----------



## Haggis

Jarnhamar said:


> Has the Honourable Justin Trudeau dressed up as a Canadian Forces member yet? Maybe he can dress up in a set of DEUs and give the CAF some lessons in ethics, toxic work places, and keeping ones hands to themselves.


That's *Right* Honourable, young fella.   Leading by bad example?


----------



## OldSolduer

Haggis said:


> That's *Right* Honourable, young fella.   Leading by bad example?


Showing the world how NOT to be a leader.


----------



## shawn5o

daftandbarmy said:


> Survey says....
> 
> 
> Majority of Canadians not confident military can improve workplace culture: Nanos survey​
> A new survey suggests Canadians aren't very confident in the Canadian military's ability to change its workplace culture following reports of sexual misconduct and discrimination within the forces.
> 
> According to the latest survey from Nanos Research, just 13 per cent of Canadians are confident the Canadian Armed Forces can “change its workplace to be welcoming to everyone,” while 29 per cent are “somewhat confident” and 56 per cent are either not confident or somewhat not confident.
> 
> Additionally, 61.3 per cent of women involved in the survey were either not confident or somewhat not confident in the military’s ability to change its culture.
> 
> Canadians are also not very impressed with the Canadian government’s investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct and discrimination in the military, with 54 per cent of respondents indicating their perception of the investigations is either poor or very poor, while just one per cent of Canadians indicated they thought the government’s investigation had been “very good.”
> 
> *Capital Dispatch: Stay up to date on the latest news from Parliament Hill*
> 
> This comes a week after Lt.-Gen. Wayne Eyre, acting chief of the defence staff, promised to create a safer environment within the military following allegations of sexual misconduct.
> 
> "We have to learn why previous approaches did not work and learn from that and incorporate those into our plan going forward," Eyre said during testimony before the House of Commons Status of Women Committee on March 23.
> 
> Former chief of the defence staff Gen. Jonathan Vance began the current program -- Operation Honour -- in 2015. Vance is under investigation for allegations of sexual misconduct that CTV News has not independently verified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Majority of Canadians not confident military can improve workplace culture: Nanos survey
> 
> 
> A new Nanos survey suggests Canadians aren't very confident in the Canadian military's ability to change its workplace culture following reports of sexual misconduct and discrimination within the forces.
> 
> 
> 
> www.ctvnews.ca


Hi daftandbarmy

I apologize for repeating your post - I should have checked.


----------



## brihard

OldSolduer said:


> It happened with the RCMP. The GoC at the time had no confidence in any uniformed senior RCMP officer at the time. The commissioner was a civilian for a while.


Bill Elliott, in the wake of Zaccardelli, who was a goddamned disaster. The appointment of a civilian commissioner went over about as well as a loud dart in church.


----------



## MilEME09

brihard said:


> Bill Elliott, in the wake of Zaccardelli, who was a goddamned disaster. The appointment of a civilian commissioner went over about as well as a loud dart in church.


Now crazy thought but we need someone at the top not afraid of change and will, able and wanting to make changes. Now some will burn me for this but why not pull Andrew Leslie back in as CDS?


----------



## Haggis

MilEME09 said:


> Now crazy thought but we need someone at the top not afraid of change and will, able and wanting to make changes. Now some will burn me for this but why not pull Andrew Leslie back in as CDS?


You're four days late with that idea.  And do you really want a former Liberal politician as CDS?


----------



## Weinie

MilEME09 said:


> Now crazy thought but we need someone at the top not afraid of change and will, able and wanting to make changes. Now some will burn me for this but why not pull Andrew Leslie back in as CDS?


I served with/for LGen Leslie in a number of capacities. He is one of the brightest people that I have ever met, but his report/mantra was about organizational changes. I think we need some cultural changes first.


----------



## MilEME09

Haggis said:


> You're four days late with that idea.  And do you really want a former Liberal politician as CDS?


Thsts exactly why, be more palatable to the GoC


----------



## Maxadia

Colin Parkinson said:


> I had one soldier that was literally a "loyal dog", not a bright dog, but if I gave him a task that was within his competence, it would get done and he would work late to help me as I treated him with respect. There are a lot of unglamorous tasks in the military and sometimes you need people who don't feel they are special and just want to be given a fair shake. You don't want an army that they are the majority, but you also don't want an army without them.



I want to speak to this specific post. I have several "loyal dogs" who are more than comfortable doing the unglamorous tasks in the army, and it has nothing to do with competence.  Several members of our fine army are highly educated, further schooling or trades school, and simply wish to be "just a soldier" when they come in and work for the PRes.  They deal with subordinates and managing on a daily basis, and the army allows them a way to de-stress from their regular grind - but mark my words, they perform and perform to the highest standard that I could hope to have from them.  Not only would I not want an army without them, but I do wish for more of them.

Colin - absolutely nothing against your post, just something to add.


----------



## daftandbarmy

shawn5o said:


> Hi daftandbarmy
> 
> I apologize for repeating your post - I should have checked.



Dude... it's all good. The more the merrier!


----------



## OldSolduer

brihard said:


> Bill Elliott, in the wake of Zaccardelli, who was a goddamned disaster. The appointment of a civilian commissioner went over about as well as a loud dart in church.


I recall articles in newspapers etc to the effect that the sworn members were not happy with this move but it did send a message - how well it was received is anybody’s guess. Point is, what if the GoC decides to appoint a bureaucrat to oversee the CAF? Can they legally do that, not that little terms like “legal” stop this GoC from doing what it wants.


----------



## ballz

On the topic of having civilians take over the DND (I thought they had already?), I had mulled this idea over before but never posted about it, likely cause honestly I'm pretty much done thinking about the CAF and it's problems, I have few working brain cells left and need to hold onto them.

But, one of the reasons a corporation has a Board of Directors is to think about vision, the strategy, culture, etc. The CEO implements the Board's direction and runs the corporation on a full-time basis, dealing with present day issues, etc., but the Board does the job of thinking bigger and better. The size of the board varies but 7 to 15 members is pretty common. The board also holds the C-suite executives accountable.

I think the CAF could benefit from implementing such an idea. Being on a board is generally not a full-time job, and you can be member of a board for a long period of time (something that the CAF suffers from is the "only 2 years in any position" and so you've got no ability to implement any substantial changes in such a short amount of time).

It also allows you bring in outside perspectives and expertise. So for example, a board for the CAF could have members from the private sector on it, and benefit from that perspective and expertise, but also have uniformed members who of course, bring the perspective of the CAF and what it means to serve with unlimited liability, etc., stuff that the private sector CEO isn't going to understand.

The board also does things like develops performance measures which align with the vision and strategy, and help steer the C-suite executives, another thing we sorely lack.

We could have a board that is half-serving members, and half-civilian. The serving members half would obviously have representation from the different elements, and even different ranks (again, something we sorely lack... does anybody really think the CAF CWO has a f**king clue what it's like to be a Corporal in today's CAF?).

This may be worth a thread split... or not since it's a just a fantasy, but thought experiments can be fun.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

RDJP said:


> I want to speak to this specific post. I have several "loyal dogs" who are more than comfortable doing the unglamorous tasks in the army, and it has nothing to do with competence.  Several members of our fine army are highly educated, further schooling or trades school, and simply wish to be "just a soldier" when they come in and work for the PRes.  They deal with subordinates and managing on a daily basis, and the army allows them a way to de-stress from their regular grind - but mark my words, they perform and perform to the highest standard that I could hope to have from them.  Not only would I not want an army without them, but I do wish for more of them.
> 
> Colin - absolutely nothing against your post, just something to add.


I hear you, my driver/2IC ran a 25 man BC Hydro lineman team as I recall, he was a Bombardier for life, he claimed he could not get the time off to take courses, but I think he was just in his "Happy Place" and I was blessed to have him and the other guy.


----------



## cavalryman

ballz said:


> On the topic of having civilians take over the DND (I thought they had already?), I had mulled this idea over before but never posted about it, likely cause honestly I'm pretty much done thinking about the CAF and it's problems, I have few working brain cells left and need to hold onto them.
> 
> But, one of the reasons a corporation has a Board of Directors is to think about vision, the strategy, culture, etc. The CEO implements the Board's direction and runs the corporation on a full-time basis, dealing with present day issues, etc., but the Board does the job of thinking bigger and better. The size of the board varies but 7 to 15 members is pretty common. The board also holds the C-suite executives accountable.
> 
> I think the CAF could benefit from implementing such an idea. Being on a board is generally not a full-time job, and you can be member of a board for a long period of time (something that the CAF suffers from is the "only 2 years in any position" and so you've got no ability to implement any substantial changes in such a short amount of time).
> 
> It also allows you bring in outside perspectives and expertise. So for example, a board for the CAF could have members from the private sector on it, and benefit from that perspective and expertise, but also have uniformed members who of course, bring the perspective of the CAF and what it means to serve with unlimited liability, etc., stuff that the private sector CEO isn't going to understand.
> 
> The board also does things like develops performance measures which align with the vision and strategy, and help steer the C-suite executives, another thing we sorely lack.
> 
> We could have a board that is half-serving members, and half-civilian. The serving members half would obviously have representation from the different elements, and even different ranks (again, something we sorely lack... does anybody really think the CAF CWO has a f**king clue what it's like to be a Corporal in today's CAF?).
> 
> This may be worth a thread split... or not since it's a just a fantasy, but thought experiments can be fun.


So, something like a CAF Senate, a sort of Regimental Senate on steroids?

Sorry. Just kidding. But that was my first thought. All former CDS, except those under investigation (to keep numbers down) sit on this BoD. Add a few honoraries for the civilian half and voila. Done.

Or not.


----------



## ballz

cavalryman said:


> So, something like a CAF Senate, a sort of Regimental Senate on steroids?
> 
> Sorry. Just kidding. But that was my first thought. All former CDS, except those under investigation (to keep numbers down) sit on this BoD. Add a few honoraries for the civilian half and voila. Done.
> 
> Or not.



 Yes, unfortunately that's exactly what the CAF would do if left to their own devices, and why it should not be left up to the CAF to create it.


----------



## MilEME09

ballz said:


> On the topic of having civilians take over the DND (I thought they had already?), I had mulled this idea over before but never posted about it, likely cause honestly I'm pretty much done thinking about the CAF and it's problems, I have few working brain cells left and need to hold onto them.
> 
> But, one of the reasons a corporation has a Board of Directors is to think about vision, the strategy, culture, etc. The CEO implements the Board's direction and runs the corporation on a full-time basis, dealing with present day issues, etc., but the Board does the job of thinking bigger and better. The size of the board varies but 7 to 15 members is pretty common. The board also holds the C-suite executives accountable.
> 
> I think the CAF could benefit from implementing such an idea. Being on a board is generally not a full-time job, and you can be member of a board for a long period of time (something that the CAF suffers from is the "only 2 years in any position" and so you've got no ability to implement any substantial changes in such a short amount of time).
> 
> It also allows you bring in outside perspectives and expertise. So for example, a board for the CAF could have members from the private sector on it, and benefit from that perspective and expertise, but also have uniformed members who of course, bring the perspective of the CAF and what it means to serve with unlimited liability, etc., stuff that the private sector CEO isn't going to understand.
> 
> The board also does things like develops performance measures which align with the vision and strategy, and help steer the C-suite executives, another thing we sorely lack.
> 
> We could have a board that is half-serving members, and half-civilian. The serving members half would obviously have representation from the different elements, and even different ranks (again, something we sorely lack... does anybody really think the CAF CWO has a f**king clue what it's like to be a Corporal in today's CAF?).
> 
> This may be worth a thread split... or not since it's a just a fantasy, but thought experiments can be fun.


Good place to start would be the Senate defense committee , they spend years studying issues and their reports are usually pretty good for what they think the CAF needs. Couple that with a few others, give the board control of procurement vs the GoC and we may have a winner.


----------



## Ostrozac

OldSolduer said:


> Point is, what if the GoC decides to appoint a bureaucrat to oversee the CAF? Can they legally do that, not that little terms like “legal” stop this GoC from doing what it wants.


The National Defence Act requires the CDS to be an officer (NDA 18), although as written it does seem to allow an officer that is attached or seconded to the CAF. So although a civilian bureaucrat or contractor would not be legal, a UK or US General might be, if government really wanted to put the CAF under outside management. Not that either the US or UK are perfect — both countries have jailed GOFOs recently, albeit for financial rather than sexual crimes.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

How about 2 boards, the military one made up of a retired CDS, 3 senior officers from each service and 3 CWO's also from the 3 services and civilian board made up of a number of politicians and senior civil servants. Each board weighs the nominations with a set of criteria and scores each, the top scoring few from each goes up the line for selection?


----------



## MilEME09

Ostrozac said:


> The National Defence Act requires the CDS to be an officer (NDA 18), although as written it does seem to allow an officer that is attached or seconded to the CAF. So although a civilian bureaucrat or contractor would not be legal, a UK or US General might be, if government really wanted to put the CAF under outside management. Not that either the US or UK are perfect — both countries have jailed GOFOs recently, albeit for financial rather than sexual crimes.


What about an Australian? A country with a geopolitical adversary might give a refreshing perspective.


----------



## dapaterson

There are already senior meetings with CAF's senior leadership - the notorious photo of "#Diversity" was of the Armed Forces Council Executive meeting - it's CDS, VCDS, commanders of RCN, CA, and RCAF, Comd CJOC, CMP, DComd NORAD, CANMILREP NATO and the CAF CWO.

Arguably, there are already too many senior meetings, with ill-defined and overlapping mandates, and a lack of understanding about the difference between DND and CAF mandates and responsibilities.  Can anyone explain the mandates of DSX, DXPC, ADM Council, DMC, AFCX, AFC, AFMB, IRMC, PMB, DCB, DAC, CFDAC, CAFDAC, PMEC...?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

As I recall the Aussie CDS removed soldiers from a political PR shot right there on the spot from behind the PM


----------



## PPCLI Guy

dapaterson said:


> There are already senior meetings with CAF's senior leadership - the notorious photo of "#Diversity" was of the Armed Forces Council Executive meeting - it's CDS, VCDS, commanders of RCN, CA, and RCAF, Comd CJOC, CMP, DComd NORAD, CANMILREP NATO and the CAF CWO.
> 
> Arguably, there are already too many senior meetings, with ill-defined and overlapping mandates, and a lack of understanding about the difference between DND and CAF mandates and responsibilities.  Can anyone explain the mandates of DSX, DXPC, ADM Council, DMC, AFCX, AFC, AFMB, IRMC, PMB, DCB, DAC, CFDAC, CAFDAC, PMEC...?


I have attended all but one, and briefed at most of them.  And no, I cannot nail down all the mandates...but  have an innate sense of where to pitch stuff...


----------



## OldSolduer

I was studying something - can’t recall what , maybe an OPME but I came to the conclusion there are too damn many committees. Nothing appears to be decided and if things go south no one is responsible. Just my opinion. I’ve been known to be wrong .


----------



## Blackadder1916

Colin Parkinson said:


> As I recall the Aussie CDS removed soldiers from a political PR shot right there on the spot from behind the PM



Though the Armed Forces Council "diversity" photo wasn't a "political" shot.



And the Armed Forces Council doesn't include any politicians . . .  well . . . not the civilian kind.


----------



## dapaterson

Surgeon General is also a member of AFC...


----------



## daftandbarmy

Haggis said:


> That's *Right* Honourable, young fella.   Leading by bad example?





ballz said:


> On the topic of having civilians take over the DND (I thought they had already?), I had mulled this idea over before but never posted about it, likely cause honestly I'm pretty much done thinking about the CAF and it's problems, I have few working brain cells left and need to hold onto them.
> 
> But, one of the reasons a corporation has a Board of Directors is to think about vision, the strategy, culture, etc. The CEO implements the Board's direction and runs the corporation on a full-time basis, dealing with present day issues, etc., but the Board does the job of thinking bigger and better. The size of the board varies but 7 to 15 members is pretty common. The board also holds the C-suite executives accountable.
> 
> I think the CAF could benefit from implementing such an idea. Being on a board is generally not a full-time job, and you can be member of a board for a long period of time (something that the CAF suffers from is the "only 2 years in any position" and so you've got no ability to implement any substantial changes in such a short amount of time).
> 
> It also allows you bring in outside perspectives and expertise. So for example, a board for the CAF could have members from the private sector on it, and benefit from that perspective and expertise, but also have uniformed members who of course, bring the perspective of the CAF and what it means to serve with unlimited liability, etc., stuff that the private sector CEO isn't going to understand.
> 
> The board also does things like develops performance measures which align with the vision and strategy, and help steer the C-suite executives, another thing we sorely lack.
> 
> We could have a board that is half-serving members, and half-civilian. The serving members half would obviously have representation from the different elements, and even different ranks (again, something we sorely lack... does anybody really think the CAF CWO has a f**king clue what it's like to be a Corporal in today's CAF?).
> 
> This may be worth a thread split... or not since it's a just a fantasy, but thought experiments can be fun.



Let’s be clear... ‘CAF CWO’ (and Bde CWO etc) is a political appointment, to match the US practice of elevating perfectly good SNCOs well above the level of their usefulness, or ability to have real influence over anything beyond morale patches and Commander’s coin designs.

Like ‘Militia Generals’, it’s a terrible embarrassment, of course, and something we should discontinue immediately in favour of thinning out the frontline chaff, and reinforcing the need for the highest quality leadership at the unit level - where meat meets metal.


----------



## ballz

dapaterson said:


> There are already senior meetings with CAF's senior leadership - the notorious photo of "#Diversity" was of the Armed Forces Council Executive meeting - it's CDS, VCDS, commanders of RCN, CA, and RCAF, Comd CJOC, CMP, DComd NORAD, CANMILREP NATO and the CAF CWO.
> 
> Arguably, there are already too many senior meetings, *with ill-defined and overlapping mandates, and a lack of understanding about the difference between DND and CAF mandates and responsibilities.  *Can anyone explain the mandates of DSX, DXPC, ADM Council, DMC, AFCX, AFC, AFMB, IRMC, PMB, DCB, DAC, CFDAC, CAFDAC, PMEC...?



Yes, senior meetings with the CAF's senior leadership, a bunch of people with their own ideas, agendas, vision, etc., all fighting to institute that, for the two years (or often less for GOFOs) that they are in those positions... sounds a lot like a bunch of cats that needs herding.

A board of director provides a vision and strategic direction so that those cats can actually do something useful at those meetings, or in their day job, because they actually know where the institution is supposed to be headed. They might even have you know, _strategic objectives _that they have to achieve, and performance measures that measure progress towards those objectives. We'd probably waste a lot less time on meetings that aren't oriented towards those strategic objectives, such as the kind you're talking about.

Seriously, what's the vision for the CAF? Ask 20 different people you'll get 20 different answers (or if they're really in-tune, they say "I don't know..." which is a serious problem!) This is where we are severely lacking and we need to find a way to have a vision that doesn't change every month.

A Board of Directors seems to work pretty well for Google, Apple, Microsoft, Suncor, Tesla, KPMG, Deloitte, etc... do we have nothing we can learn from how they not only succeed, but continue to succeed for years and years on end, versus becoming "too big and bureaucratic," stagnating, and imploding which is what the CAF is currently doing and would have had to fold years ago if it actually had to be accountable for it's effective management?


----------



## ballz

daftandbarmy said:


> Let’s be clear... ‘CAF CWO’ (and Bde CWO etc) is a political appointment, to match the US practice of elevating perfectly good SNCOs well above the level of their usefulness, or ability to have real influence over anything beyond morale patches and Commander’s coin designs.
> 
> Like ‘Militia Generals’, it’s a terrible embarrassment, of course, and something we should discontinue immediately in favour of thinning out the frontline chaff, and reinforcing the need for the highest quality leadership at the unit level - where meat meets metal.



Don't need to convince me... I didn't bring them up as an example of something the CAF is doing right.


----------



## FJAG

One of the problems with Armed Forces Council is that it is more like a committee of the corporation's vice presidents all of whom have a vested interest in seeing each of their own departments thrive, often at the expense of the others and even of the corporation as a whole. 

A true Board of Directors comes mostly from outside the organization's operational leadership and is supposed to consist of honest brokers (frequently large shareholders with a stake in the corporations overall health and productivity) who are to look after the interests of its whole, even if at the expense of a faltering division and which may have the power to even replace the corporations operational executives if they are incapable of doing their job.

Effectively the Board ought to set strategy while the executives oversee day-to-day operations.

AFC does both and is responsible to no one albeit it should be to the Minister who unfortunately has no long term stake in the organization and frequently has conflicting priorities that run counter to long term strategy.

🍻


----------



## daftandbarmy

ballz said:


> Yes, senior meetings with the CAF's senior leadership, a bunch of people with their own ideas, agendas, vision, etc., all fighting to institute that, for the two years (or often less for GOFOs) that they are in those positions... sounds a lot like a bunch of cats that needs herding.
> 
> A board of director provides a vision and strategic direction so that those cats can actually do something useful at those meetings, or in their day job, because they actually know where the institution is supposed to be headed. They might even have you know, _strategic objectives _that they have to achieve, and performance measures that measure progress towards those objectives. We'd probably waste a lot less time on meetings that aren't oriented towards those strategic objectives, such as the kind you're talking about.
> 
> Seriously, what's the vision for the CAF? Ask 20 different people you'll get 20 different answers (or if they're really in-tune, they say "I don't know..." which is a serious problem!) This is where we are severely lacking and we need to find a way to have a vision that doesn't change every month.
> 
> A Board of Directors seems to work pretty well for Google, Apple, Microsoft, Suncor, Tesla, KPMG, Deloitte, etc... do we have nothing we can learn from how they not only succeed, but continue to succeed for years and years on end, versus becoming "too big and bureaucratic," stagnating, and imploding which is what the CAF is currently doing and would have had to fold years ago if it actually had to be accountable for it's effective management?



We do alot of work with Boards and Management Teams of various types and sizes of organization across Canada.

This is a completely unsuitable governance model for any organization whose primary mission is to close with a destroy the enemy.

Or just about anything else.  

Seriously, while there are some fantastic examples out there, it can be a complete nightmare. Think 'strata council', with somewhat less accountability.


----------



## Infanteer

ballz said:


> I think the CAF could benefit from implementing such an idea. Being on a board is generally not a full-time job, and you can be member of a board for a long period of time (something that the CAF suffers from is the "only 2 years in any position" and so you've got no ability to implement any substantial changes in such a short amount of time).
> 
> It also allows you bring in outside perspectives and expertise. So for example, a board for the CAF could have members from the private sector on it, and benefit from that perspective and expertise, but also have uniformed members who of course, bring the perspective of the CAF and what it means to serve with unlimited liability, etc., stuff that the private sector CEO isn't going to understand.
> 
> The board also does things like develops performance measures which align with the vision and strategy, and help steer the C-suite executives, another thing we sorely lack.
> 
> We could have a board that is half-serving members, and half-civilian. The serving members half would obviously have representation from the different elements, and even different ranks (again, something we sorely lack... does anybody really think the CAF CWO has a f**king clue what it's like to be a Corporal in today's CAF?).








						Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs (44th Parliament, 1st Session)
					

Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs



					sencanada.ca
				




Board not full time - check.
Long serving members - check.
Outside perspectives and expertise - check.
Developing things to help steer C-Suite - check, I guess.

To further explore your idea, I guess the next logical question would be "how does a "CAF Board of Governors"" improve on the other types of "governance boards" already in existence?  If Parliament's boards don't work, why would a CAF one?


----------



## dapaterson

Or how about Cabinet?

It sounds like what's being recommended is a board of advisers.  Would the egos of the most senior GOFOs accept anyone giving them advice?  They already have staffs, many with expertise the GOFO lacks in specific areas - how would layering over yet another bunch of people to ignore assist in decision making?


----------



## Good2Golf

It would help if Canadian parliamentarians had a long-term, non-partisan vision for the Armed Forces....like Australia does.

#notgoingtohappen


----------



## OldSolduer

Good2Golf said:


> It would help if Canadian parliamentarians had a long-term, non-partisan vision for the Armed Forces....like Australia does.
> 
> #notgoingtohappen


They do - to see how many jobs can be given to Quebec and how much to cut in bad times


----------



## Ostrozac

OldSolduer said:


> They do - to see how many jobs can be given to Quebec and how much to cut in bad times


That’s not entirely fair. GM and Colt/CZ maintain subsidized factories in Ontario, and the shipbuilding program largely bypassed Quebec’s major shipyard. There is plenty of pork being spread around the country, with uneven effect.

If only we had a national policy of ‘build lots of stuff in Quebec‘ — that would actually be a policy, which would be a nice change.


----------



## FJAG

dapaterson said:


> Or how about Cabinet?
> 
> It sounds like what's being recommended is a board of advisers.  Would the egos of the most senior GOFOs accept anyone giving them advice?  They already have staffs, many with expertise the GOFO lacks in specific areas - how would layering over yet another bunch of people to ignore assist in decision making?



Not so much advisors. To be effective a board has to have powers to shape the direction of the entity long term and to fire and hire a faltering executive. Any such board which also had authority over defence procurement and production would be useful. That, of course, presupposes that the board is knowledgeable in and of itself or is given frequent status briefings by the executive and outside advisors to be effective. 

The hard thing in forming a board to govern the military executive is to find individuals who are vested enough in the health of the organization to set aside competing interests and to generate broad policy decisions for the future. A second problem with a board in a military context is that the military does not generate income, it simply consumes resources regardless of its capability outputs. While the board might broadly direct the military it would have no control over the government's somewhat arbitrary decisions for funding. There would need to be some stable, or at least predictable, perhaps constitutionally defined, income source (As an example Chile's 1957 Restricted Law on Copper which mandated that fully 10% of the state-owned National Copper Corporation's revenues on copper exports went to military equipment purchases). A given percentage of government revenues could be one answer.

As you indicate, being a board of advisors isn't good enough because the executive will reject advice they do not like and will do it without any fear of consequences. 

As to Cabinet: that's in essence the system we do have. How has that been working out for us over the last three or four decades?

🍻


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Except Australia is a grown up country that realizes that their safety and security isn't up for debate. It's a byproduct of being the only western style democracy in a really bad neighborhood.

Canada will never act in this responsible manner because we use geography and proximity and call it a defense policy


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Never fear.

The PMO will, in a panic (or deliberately) pick the worst possible governance model to impose upon the CAF and then point fingers when it doesn’t work.

Nothing new to see hear...


----------



## dimsum

Good2Golf said:


> It would help if Canadian parliamentarians had a long-term, non-partisan vision for the Armed Forces....like Australia does.
> 
> #notgoingtohappen


Step 1:  Be really far from friends
Step 2:  Be (relatively) close to potential adversaries
Step 3:  Have some former adversaries attack your cities like Darwin and Sydney


----------



## ballz

dapaterson said:


> Or how about Cabinet?
> 
> It sounds like what's being recommended is a board of advisers.  Would the egos of the most senior GOFOs accept anyone giving them advice?  They already have staffs, many with expertise the GOFO lacks in specific areas - how would layering over yet another bunch of people to ignore assist in decision making?



As FJAG points out, it would have to a Board of _Directors_ in the sense that they give direction, not advice, for exactly the reasons you have both pointed out.

In saying that though, there's a lot of talk about how GOFOs have "experts" to advise them and while I'm sure it's true in some cases, it sure isn't true for finance which is a pretty crucial aspect. I'm skeptical about how "expert" any of our homegrown experts are but jaded by experience in finance.

I think I have something more in mind where the MND employs the CAF but the Board of Directors is responsible for setting the vision, strategy, strategic objectives, strategic procurement / capital budgeting, etc. and the CDS runs the CAF  day-to-day to ensure 1) the MND's present-day requirements are met and 2) the Board's vision/strategy is being implemented so that tomorrow's CAF can meet tomorrow's requirements.

The make-up the Board would be particularly important:



Infanteer said:


> Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs (44th Parliament, 1st Session)
> 
> 
> Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs
> 
> 
> 
> sencanada.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Board not full time - check.
> Long serving members - check.
> Outside perspectives and expertise - check.
> Developing things to help steer C-Suite - check, I guess.



I'm not fully aware of this committee's authority but I suspect it has no real authority?

The make-up of that committee is also terrible. They're almost all career "government" people whether it's policing, education, or straight up public service roles.

I think what I have in mind would need some CAF-appointed people, some Cabinet-appointed people, some Parliament-appointed people.

The CAF would be responsible for selecting any uniformed members that sit on the it and how they select them. For example, they might get 6 seats out of an 17 member board. The CAF might decide to make the CDS an ex-officio Board member (not uncommon to have the CEO sit on the Board), and have a nomination/selection process for the others.

Then the rest of the roles should be filled for specific reasons... i.e. we want some proven, private sector C-suite execs.... a CEO, CFO, CHR, etc.

Then we also want some people who "know government" i.e. a retired Parliamentarian, the DND's Deputy Minister.

And no friggin' retired GOFOs and such... the CAF will already have 6 seats and this is about moving the CAF _forward, _we already have an entire department that is fighting change we don't need to add more dinosaurs.

--------------------------------

The big problem I'm juggling with is the authorities between the MND and the Board....Ideally I'd replace the MND with the Board, and the entire Department is governed by the Board. But that doesn't work for a few huge reasons, not least of which is Cabinet needs to fully own and control the military and be able to give them tasks on a whim, not go ask a Board of 17 people who need to convene a meeting, discuss, vote, and then give direction to the Department.

And there's also some delineation between a lot of what the department does and what a Board traditionally does. For example, the Board normally has an audit committee, who would employ internal auditors... the DND already has internal auditors [ADM(RS)], so do we take ADM(RS) out of the department and have them work for the Board (I don't think this would be a terrible idea, right now ADM(RS) seems to be just ignored despite some valuable reports).

In any case, all of this thought experiment for me stemmed from some questions:
1) How do we bring some creativity into the CAF?
2) How do we bring some *real* expertise, both private sector (financial, operational, etc.) and public (legislative, bureaucratic, etc.) in the CAF?
3) How do we get the CAF a vision and strategy to guide the CDS and GOFOs, instead of just having them all fight over what they think it should be and enacting plans to make their vision come true, even if it's to the detriment of the CAF as a whole?

And my brain just started trying to work out how the CAF could adopt some of the strengths that a Board can provide, and hasn't worked out any of it yet.


----------



## Good2Golf

dimsum said:


> Step 1:  Be really far from friends
> Step 2:  Be (relatively) close to potential adversaries
> Step 3:  Have some former adversaries attack your cities like Darwin and Sydney


Come on...say it...we're just like New Zealand...letting big brother do the heavy lifting, and we tag along with beautiful landscape and a self-deprecating manner and self-aggrandizing sense of self.


----------



## dapaterson

Good2Golf said:


> Come on...say it...we're just like New Zealand...letting big brother do the heavy lifting, and we tag along with beautiful landscape and a self-deprecating manner and self-aggrandizing sense of self.


#CanadaNeedsMoreSheep


----------



## OldSolduer

Ostrozac said:


> That’s not entirely fair. GM and Colt/CZ maintain subsidized factories in Ontario, and the shipbuilding program largely bypassed Quebec’s major shipyard. There is plenty of pork being spread around the country, with uneven effect.
> 
> If only we had a national policy of ‘build lots of stuff in Quebec‘ — that would actually be a policy, which would be a nice change.


Maybe not but Mulroney did over ride a winning bid and award a maintenance contract to a Quebec company. 1989 or 90.


----------



## dapaterson

And then TCCS went to a western company to compensate...


----------



## OldSolduer

dapaterson said:


> And then TCCS went to a western company to compensate...


Ok I stand corrected. We’re kinda off topic aren’t we?


----------



## bLUE fOX

Jarnhamar said:


> Has the Honourable Justin Trudeau dressed up as a Canadian Forces member yet? Maybe he can dress up in a set of DEUs and give the CAF some lessons in ethics, toxic work places, and keeping ones hands to themselves.


Of course:









						The Great War (2007)
					

Brian McKenna and Justin Trudeau in The Great War (2007)




					m.imdb.com


----------



## Navy_Pete

I can't believe that people are seriously suggesting replacing the MND with a group; things are a shit show at every level we have 'senior advisor boards' because no one can be held accountable. At least with the MND there is a single individual it rolls up to.

Not that anyone is ever necessarily held accountable, but if something needs to go to a group, it already goes to Cabinet, and there are all kinds of outside reports from all kinds of consultants that are used to specifically bring in outside expertise and suggest new ideas. The main problem usually is they try and shoehorn widget making processes onto the CAF, which doesn't work when we hit actual operations, so we end up working around the 'solutions'.

For this specific file, we already have an ombudsman; just make the office independent of DND and add a sexual harrassment wing onto it for an independent oversight onto the process.


----------



## GR66

Or how about the two major parties come to an agreement on the objectives of our defence policy with a general agreement on funding levels and provide a REAL White Paper (not just a glorified shopping list) that the CAF can implement.  

Sounds crazy I know, but somehow other countries like the US and Australia seem to be able to take much of the partisan politics out of defence policy (pork barrel aside) in a way that maintains a general focus on what they want/need the military to do regardless of which party is in power.

I don't know that we need a new management structure, just some grown-ups at the head of the table to agree that defence of the realm is a serious matter and should be above party politics in the broad sense.  Different governments are of course free to use that military in the way they deem best for the nation, but surely the Liberals and Conservatives at least could come together and agree on the broad strokes.


----------



## Good2Golf

GR, that would assume a government want the Armed Forces to be more than an excuse to pork barrel.


----------



## Brad Sallows

A committee!  The tried and true way of solving every knotty problem in a timely and efficient manner.  How could everyone have overlooked such a solution for so long?

What kind of "vision" and "strategy" does the CAF need that wouldn't be better delivered first to Parliament?  Please to replace empty buzzwords with practical examples.

Eventually someone will have to stop dancing around the fact that male sex drive is at the root of all this and that it varies in individuals as does the ability to subordinate it to conscious reason.  Acknowledging factors and not assuming any of them away is a necessary prerequisite to solving a problem.  Those who have forgotten what it was like to be a pre-middle-age man or who never knew are not well-equipped to weigh in.  Some of the other things talked about up-thread are actually on point, not diversions from the topic, to the extent that societies have always had to come up with social structures and rules to help honest men stay honest.  Some of those have been weakened, and here we are.  So, we'll deliver firm statements to media and as many series of lectures as necessary until the problem is fixed?


----------



## Weinie

GR66 said:


> Or how about the two major parties come to an agreement on the objectives of our defence policy with a general agreement on funding levels and provide a REAL White Paper (not just a glorified shopping list) that the CAF can implement.
> 
> Sounds crazy I know, *but somehow other countries like the US and Australia seem to be able to take much of the partisan politics out of defence policy *(pork barrel aside) in a way that maintains a general focus on what they want/need the military to do regardless of which party is in power.
> 
> I don't know that we need a new management structure, just some grown-ups at the head of the table to agree that defence of the realm is a serious matter and should be above party politics in the broad sense.  Different governments are of course free to use that military in the way they deem best for the nation, but surely the Liberals and Conservatives at least could come together and agree on the broad strokes.


The US has had to, as the world's policeman since the early fifties.

Australia has come around to the concept, based on a considerably evolved geopolitical landscape, that places them as a large landmass, rich with resources, and isolated. I can see multiple scenarios evolving, in the 20-25 year horizon, where Australia acquires nukes as a strategic deterrent.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Weinie said:


> The US has had to, as the world's policeman since the early fifties.
> 
> Australia has come around to the concept, based on a considerably evolved geopolitical landscape, that places them as a large landmass, rich with resources, and isolated. I can see multiple scenarios evolving, in the 20-25 year horizon, where Australia acquires nukes as a strategic deterrent.


So, like, Vegemite isn't enough of a deterrent already?


----------



## Weinie

daftandbarmy said:


> So, like, Vegemite isn't enough of a deterrent already?


Vegemite is an "acquired" taste, radiation is imposed.


----------



## TCM621

Brad Sallows said:


> A committee!  The tried and true way of solving every knotty problem in a timely and efficient manner.  How could everyone have overlooked such a solution for so long?
> 
> What kind of "vision" and "strategy" does the CAF need that wouldn't be better delivered first to Parliament?  Please to replace empty buzzwords with practical examples.
> 
> Eventually someone will have to stop dancing around the fact that male sex drive is at the root of all this and that it varies in individuals as does the ability to subordinate it to conscious reason.  Acknowledging factors and not assuming any of them away is a necessary prerequisite to solving a problem.  Those who have forgotten what it was like to be a pre-middle-age man or who never knew are not well-equipped to weigh in.  Some of the other things talked about up-thread are actually on point, not diversions from the topic, to the extent that societies have always had to come up with social structures and rules to help honest men stay honest.  Some of those have been weakened, and here we are.  So, we'll deliver firm statements to media and as many series of lectures as necessary until the problem is fixed?


Careful now. That's kind of talk got General Lawson fired. Though to be fair, you said it better than he did.

A certain percentage of men will abuse their position to get sex, a certain percentage of women are attracted to men in positions of authority and will work to attract them. This is normal human behavior not a result of a hyper sexualized culture. We need rules to limit this type of behavior because it is bad for morale and unit discipline but we don't need to freak out every time it happens. This is, of course, completely separate from sexual assault. The former is a consensual relationship that isn't conducive to a functional workplace the later is one person forcing sex upon another.

I wish we would stop lumping sexual assault in with sexual misconduct but it diminishes the importance of dealing with sexual assault while over emphasizing the harm of other inappropriate sexual behavior. Instead of pouring all their resources into dealing with sexual assault and empowering the CoC to handle sexual misconduct, they poured all their resources into combating jokes and patted themselves on the back for how committed they were to stopping sexual misconduct.


----------



## Good2Golf

Weinie said:


> Vegemite is an "acquired" taste, radiation is imposed.


It sure beats Marmite... 🤢


----------



## RubberTree

TCM621 said:


> Careful now. That's kind of talk got General Lawson fired. Though to be fair, you said it better than he did.
> 
> A certain percentage of men will abuse their position to get sex, a certain percentage of women are attracted to men in positions of authority and will work to attract them. This is normal human behavior not a result of a hyper sexualized culture. We need rules to limit this type of behavior because it is bad for morale and unit discipline but we don't need to freak out every time it happens. This is, of course, completely separate from sexual assault. The former is a consensual relationship that isn't conducive to a functional workplace the later is one person forcing sex upon another.
> 
> I wish we would stop lumping sexual assault in with sexual misconduct but it diminishes the importance of dealing with sexual assault while over emphasizing the harm of other inappropriate sexual behavior. Instead of pouring all their resources into dealing with sexual assault and empowering the CoC to handle sexual misconduct, they poured all their resources into combating jokes and patted themselves on the back for how committed they were to stopping sexual misconduct.


1) Men abusing their position to get sex is not "normal human behaviour"

2) This is not "separate from sexual assult," this is quite literally sexual assult


----------



## Brad Sallows

Men use every advantage they can think of to get laid, which is "normal human behaviour".  Status/power attracts some - I suppose many - women; most men know that status/power attracts women; ergo, exploit status/power to attract women.  Without the notion that status/power attracts women, most literature and film would just be people standing around.


----------



## Infanteer

Brad Sallows said:


> Some of the other things talked about up-thread are actually on point, not diversions from the topic, to the extent that societies have always had to come up with social structures and rules to help honest men stay honest.  Some of those have been weakened, and here we are.



I think this is the important part - there are two issues at play here.  The first is that some men in high places acted inappropriately, and the second is that others knew about it and did nothing, allowing people to progress along with their career without consequences.

The first one will always happen, and as you say there are rules to keep people from defaulting away from upper brain "think before you act" to lower brain impulse.  The CAF has these rules in place.  The second is what the CAF is grappling with today, and the appearance of a "do as I say, not as I do" mentality in some quarters of the institution.


----------



## TCM621

RubberTree said:


> 1) Men abusing their position to get sex is not "normal human behaviour"
> 
> 2) This is not "separate from sexual assult," this is quite literally sexual assult


If it isn't normal how coming it has been happening since the beginning of written history and probably longer? The whole point of getting a position of power, from an evolutionary perspective, is to get greater access to sex. If you are telling me that there could never imagine a situation where you would be tempted to sleep with a subordinate, I'm calling you a liar. I don't know you so I couldn't begin to guess what that situation might look like but for many of these situations it involves being young, single and being able to convince yourself it isn't a huge deal.

If a man uses the status of his position to consensually engage in sexual relationships with a subordinate, it is unethical, in contravention of the code of service discipline and not the behavior we expect from our leaders. However, it is not sexual assault. The Criminal Code of Canada defines an assault as 


> *265* (1) A person commits an assault when
> 
> 
> (a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;
> (b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or
> (c) while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs.



The key word here is consensually. For there to be true consent the CCC says, 


> Consent
> 
> (3) For the purposes of this section, no consent is obtained where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason of
> 
> 
> (a) the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;
> (b) threats or fear of the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;
> (c) fraud; or
> (d) the exercise of authority.



So unless that person is using threats of reprisal, or something like that, it is not sexual assault for a supervisor to sleep with a subordinate. To be clear, I am not saying that would be normal behaviour and it would in fact be sexual assault to use threats to obtain consent. My point is that men and women have been having sex when they shouldn't since the dawn of human history, it shouldn't be shocking when it happens and it shouldn't be lumped in with sexual assault. If I experienced a situation where a peer was sleeping with his subordiante, I would council him it was a bad idea and, depending on the circumstance, make the chain aware of the situations. If I had a peer sexual assaulting a subordinate, I would make the chain aware of the situation when I drug his bloody carcass in to the office. They are 2 very different things and require very different responses.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Even if it is consensual, all the 'lower' person has to say is "I felt like I couldn't say no/took advantage/capacity/etc" and it becomes sexual assault.  What it actually was matters not one iota.

Marital problems,....wife runs to Minister,....a consensual sexual relationship eventually occurs,......Minister sentenced to 18 months as she claimed 'a position of authority' took advantage of her mental state.  Very true story....

EDIT....changed 'did' to 'sentenced to'.


----------



## OldSolduer

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Even if it is consensual, all the 'lower' person has to say is "I felt like I couldn't say no/took advantage/capacity/etc" and it becomes sexual assault.  What it actually was matters not one iota.
> 
> Marital problems,....wife runs to Minister,....a consensual sexual relationship eventually occurs,......Minister sentenced to 18 months as she claimed 'a position of authority' took advantage of her mental state.  Very true story....
> 
> EDIT....changed 'did' to 'sentenced to'.


I don’t doubt it one bit.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

@TCM621 ,

Your extract from the CCC states that "no consent is obtained when the complainant submits or does resist by reason of:   
     d.     the exercise of authority"

So an imbalance in rank can certainly impair the provision of consent. Doesn't make every relationship with a rank imbalance a sexual assault, but the potential exercise of authority by the respondent would have to be considered. 

A relationship in the workplace can also violate the Personal Relationships policy, especially when there is a supervisor/subordinate relationship.


----------



## OldSolduer

Red_Five said:


> @TCM621 ,
> 
> Your extract from the CCC states that "no consent is obtained when the complainant submits or does resist by reason of:
> d.     the exercise of authority"
> 
> So an imbalance in rank can certainly impair the provision of consent. Doesn't make every relationship with a rank imbalance a sexual assault, but the potential exercise of authority by the respondent would have to be considered.
> 
> A relationship in the workplace can also violate the Personal Relationships policy, especially when there is a supervisor/subordinate relationship.


So maybe all those service couples are in violation? I jest of course.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

What would you say if a Captain used their rank/position of authority to get a new Pte alone and then made an advance?


----------



## TCM621

Red_Five said:


> @TCM621 ,
> 
> Your extract from the CCC states that "no consent is obtained when the complainant submits or does resist by reason of:
> d.     the exercise of authority"
> 
> So an imbalance in rank can certainly impair the provision of consent. Doesn't make every relationship with a rank imbalance a sexual assault, but the potential exercise of authority by the respondent would have to be considered.
> 
> A relationship in the workplace can also violate the Personal Relationships policy, especially when there is a supervisor/subordinate relationship.


Someone outranking someone doesn't mean that they are exercising that authority to gain consent. Notices it doesn't say having authority but using that authority. I can walk down the hall and find more than member who is outranked by their service spouse does than make their entire marriage one giant sexual assault? As Bruce mentions it is risky behaviour even if you are 100% convinced that your partner consents of their own free will because more than one person's career has ended when a bad break up becomes "I feel like I couldn't say no". There are 100s of reason why supervisors shouldn't sleep with their subordinates but that doesn't make it sexual assault. I'm sure one of the lawyers on the board could be more clear but my understanding is that to be sexual assault one must do something with the intention of sex that a reasonable person would feel removed the choice of consent. Just like I can have a knife on me when I hook up with a woman that doesn't mean I committed aggravated sexual assault because I didn't brandish the knife or make any indication that the knife had anything to do with whether or not we were having sex. There has to be some action and intention.


----------



## Haggis

TCM621 said:


> If a *man* uses the status of his position to consensually engage in sexual relationships with a subordinate, it is unethical, in contravention of the code of service discipline and not the behavior we expect from our leaders. However, it is not sexual assault.
> 
> So unless that person is using threats of reprisal, or something like that, it is not sexual assault for a supervisor to sleep with a subordinate. To be clear, I am not saying that would be normal behaviour and it would in fact be sexual assault to use threats to obtain consent. My point is that men and women have been having sex when they shouldn't since the dawn of human history, it shouldn't be shocking when it happens and it shouldn't be lumped in with sexual assault. If I experienced a situation where a peer was sleeping with *his *subordinate, I would council *him* it was a bad idea and, depending on the circumstance, make the chain aware of the situations.  They are 2 very different things and require very different responses.


A superior need not use threats to gain sexual favours, but could use promises, too.  _(You want that career course?  I can get it for you. 😉 ) _That would also be using a position of authority to advantage.



> If I had a peer sexual assaulting a subordinate, I would make the chain aware of the situation when I drug *his *bloody carcass in to the office.


So you wouldn't involve the police? This is, as you described above, a crime.

I find it interesting that your post infers the aggressor is always a male.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

TCM,

My post says that an imbalance in rank can certainly impair consent. Are you arguing that it couldn’t? Some cases will be more clear cut than others. Out of curiosity have you taken Respect in the CAF?

If a person of senior rank uses their authority then it could be assault due to the impact of that authority on the giving of consent (from the CCC extract that you quoted). This is in addition to potential professional misconduct. 

I will add that it is critical for CAF chain of command to refer reports of sexual misconduct to the MPs. They will triage and either take it themselves or refer it back to the chain of command. 

Cheers


----------



## daftandbarmy

Haggis said:


> I find it interesting that your post infers the aggressor is always a male.



Yes, about that, here's an FYI for those who might be unaware of other types of aggressor:


Lesbian kicked out of the army and jailed for raping a female soldier to “make her gay”​




__





						Lesbian kicked out of the army and jailed for raping a female soldier to “make her gay”
					

A military career she started at 15 is now completely over...




					www.lgbtqnation.com


----------



## TCM621

Haggis said:


> A superior need not use threats to gain sexual favours, but could use promises, too.  _(You want that career course?  I can get it for you. 😉 ) _That would also be using a position of authority to advantage.
> 
> 
> So you wouldn't involve the police? This is, as you described above, a crime.
> 
> I find it interesting that your post infers the aggressor is always a male.


I literally don't know of the offer of favors would be considered "exercising their authority" to coerce consent. I would guess not but I could be wrong.

Of course I would call the police. Why do you think I would drag his broken bleeding ass backing to office? Call me a knuckle dragging, anachronism if you want but if I will react violently to sexual assault and gladly take the punishment. Somethings are worth it.

I used the singular male pronoun for two reasons. First it is usually a male, not always but usually. Second I use it to refer to anyone because it's easier and how I learned to write. I could have used he/she/they but I think it makes for poor reading. I'm not even touching gay/lesbian relationships or interactions but of course they could have all the same issue a male/female ones do. 


Red_Five said:


> TCM,
> 
> My post says that an imbalance in rank can certainly impair consent. Are you arguing that it couldn’t? Some cases will be more clear cut than others. Out of curiosity have you taken Respect in the CAF?
> 
> If a person of senior rank uses their authority then it could be assault due to the impact of that authority on the giving of consent (from the CCC extract that you quoted). This is in addition to potential professional misconduct.
> 
> I will add that it is critical for CAF chain of command to refer reports of sexual misconduct to the MPs. They will triage and either take it themselves or refer it back to the chain of command.
> 
> Cheers



It definitely could impair consent but it could also have absolutely nothing to do with it. My point is that it doesn't necessarily mean there is a lack of consent and it would come down to how specifically one acted. As I said earlier, I know dozens of couples where one spouse has a higher rank than other spouse. In some cases, those relationships started at work. Are we to assume those were sexual assault? Of course not, that would be ridiculous because people aren't going to stop having sex just because someone wants to stop them. It doesn't matter what they threaten a person with, some will defy those rules. Do you think there were zero gay people in the military before it was legal or that they were all celibate?

As for referring all sexual misconduct to the MPs, I think that is over blown as well. I think any case which could be a possible sexual assault should be but if a Sgt walks in to his Warrants office and say "Cpl Blank and I have been hanging out and we started dating" does that require the MPs? If he had sex with her before one of them was removed from the chain it would be sexual misconduct but involving involving MPs would be overkill. My biggest concern is that the important cases get ignored in favour of the easy ones so it looks like we are clearly a lot of files when the files they are clearly can, and should, be handled simply by the chain. 

If your argument is that the CoC has done such a poor job that the MPs have to take over because their is no trust left in the CoC, I can't argue with that. It should be easy and we shouldn't have an issue separating easily solved issues of misconduct from serious issues of sexual assault and ensuring the are dealt with accordingly. However, I won't argue that they have made a gaint mess of it.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

TCM621 said:


> I literally don't know of the offer of favors would be considered "exercising their authority" to coerce consent. I would guess not but I could be wrong.
> 
> Of course I would call the police. Why do you think I would drag his broken bleeding ass backing to office? Call me a knuckle dragging, anachronism if you want but if I will react violently to sexual assault and gladly take the punishment. Somethings are worth it.
> 
> I used the singular male pronoun for two reasons. First it is usually a male, not always but usually. Second I use it to refer to anyone because it's easier and how I learned to write. I could have used he/she/they but I think it makes for poor reading. I'm not even touching gay/lesbian relationships or interactions but of course they could have all the same issue a male/female ones do.
> 
> 
> It definitely could impair consent but it could also have absolutely nothing to do with it. My point is that it doesn't necessarily mean there is a lack of consent and it would come down to how specifically one acted. As I said earlier, I know dozens of couples where one spouse has a higher rank than other spouse. In some cases, those relationships started at work. Are we to assume those were sexual assault? Of course not, that would be ridiculous because people aren't going to stop having sex just because someone wants to stop them. It doesn't matter what they threaten a person with, some will defy those rules. Do you think there were zero gay people in the military before it was legal or that they were all celibate?
> 
> As for referring all sexual misconduct to the MPs, I think that is over blown as well. I think any case which could be a possible sexual assault should be but if a Sgt walks in to his Warrants office and say "Cpl Blank and I have been hanging out and we started dating" does that require the MPs? If he had sex with her before one of them was removed from the chain it would be sexual misconduct but involving involving MPs would be overkill. My biggest concern is that the important cases get ignored in favour of the easy ones so it looks like we are clearly a lot of files when the files they are clearly can, and should, be handled simply by the chain.
> 
> If your argument is that the CoC has done such a poor job that the MPs have to take over because their is no trust left in the CoC, I can't argue with that. It should be easy and we shouldn't have an issue separating easily solved issues of misconduct from serious issues of sexual assault and ensuring the are dealt with accordingly. However, I won't argue that they have made a gaint mess of it.


TCM,

If one of the parties submits a complaint to someone then yes - it must go to the MPs first. It can then come back to the CoC. This is policy. I have had referrals come back within an hour and we proceeded with our own CoC investigation. 

Can a MCpl ask a Cpl on a date? Different units? Sure. If the MCpl is the supervisor of the Cpl, though, there is a potential problem. 

If you are a supervisor in the CAF I recommend the Respect in the CAF course.


----------



## RubberTree

TCM, I feel like we are discussing two very different subjects. In the first post that I commented on you referred to men *abusing their power* to get sex and stated this was normal. You then stated that it wasn't sexual assault. I obviously disagree.

Now you are discussing two members of different ranks being in a sexual relationship. This is obviously a very different situation and not necessarily one that would involve assault, although the possibility is certainly present. I don't believe the two situations can be compared apples to apples. 

I also don't believe that something becomes "normal" simply because it has occurred since time immemorial. Murder, rape, child molestation, etc have been happening forever but that doesn't mean it is normal and should be tolerated.


----------



## FJAG

I always though a policy/order along these lines (and borrowing from the old Army concept that you had to get permission to get married) might work.

1. If two service members of different ranks (or three or more for the very enlightened) want to enter into a sexual relationship they will jointly attend before their respective (or joint) superior and declare that intention and sign a declaration to that effect and stating that they are both doing so freely and voluntarily;

2. The CoC will immediately ensure that the senior member has no further supervisory responsibility for the junior where after they are free to continue their relationship as they see fit;

3. In the event that the CoC determines that one of it's service members is involved in a relationship with someone of a different rank without such a declaration in place, they will be called in, interviewed as to the nature of the relationship and take such appropriate administrative or disciplinary action as is necessary based in the circumstances. Such actions shall, as a minimum, result in administrative and disciplinary actions against the senior member for being involved in the relationship without a declaration. (As the senior member he or she should clearly have known better and was at least in breach of the policy/order even when the relationship was truly consensual) 

It's a simple policy, puts the onus on the senior member to know better, provides for a way for consensual relationships to continue and, to an extent, provides a senior member who has made a declaration, protection  against spurious, after the fact, allegations of coercion.

Yup. Some folks might find this too intrusive but IMHO such a provision is both legal and defensible based on the current climate pervading the CAF.

🍻


----------



## OldSolduer

FJAG said:


> I always though a policy/order along these lines (and borrowing from the old Army concept that you had to get permission to get married) might work.
> 
> 1. If two service members of different ranks (or three or more for the very enlightened) want to enter into a sexual relationship they will jointly attend before their respective (or joint) superior and declare that intention and sign a declaration to that effect and stating that they are both doing so freely and voluntarily;
> 
> 2. The CoC will immediately ensure that the senior member has no further supervisory responsibility for the junior where after they are free to continue their relationship as they see fit;
> 
> 3. In the event that the CoC determines that one of it's service members is involved in a relationship with someone of a different rank without such a declaration in place, they will be called in, interviewed as to the nature of the relationship and take such appropriate administrative or disciplinary action as is necessary based in the circumstances. Such actions shall, as a minimum, result in administrative and disciplinary actions against the senior member for being involved in the relationship without a declaration. (As the senior member he or she should clearly have known better and was at least in breach of the policy/order even when the relationship was truly consensual)
> 
> It's a simple policy, puts the onus on the senior member to know better, provides for a way for consensual relationships to continue and, to an extent, provides a senior member who has made a declaration, protection  against spurious, after the fact, allegations of coercion.
> 
> Yup. Some folks might find this too intrusive but IMHO such a provision is both legal and defensible based on the current climate pervading the CAF.
> 
> 🍻


I think this might work.


----------



## SupersonicMax

FJAG said:


> I always though a policy/order along these lines (and borrowing from the old Army concept that you had to get permission to get married) might work.
> 
> 1. If two service members of different ranks (or three or more for the very enlightened) want to enter into a sexual relationship they will jointly attend before their respective (or joint) superior and declare that intention and sign a declaration to that effect and stating that they are both doing so freely and voluntarily;
> 
> 2. The CoC will immediately ensure that the senior member has no further supervisory responsibility for the junior where after they are free to continue their relationship as they see fit;
> 
> 3. In the event that the CoC determines that one of it's service members is involved in a relationship with someone of a different rank without such a declaration in place, they will be called in, interviewed as to the nature of the relationship and take such appropriate administrative or disciplinary action as is necessary based in the circumstances. Such actions shall, as a minimum, result in administrative and disciplinary actions against the senior member for being involved in the relationship without a declaration. (As the senior member he or she should clearly have known better and was at least in breach of the policy/order even when the relationship was truly consensual)
> 
> It's a simple policy, puts the onus on the senior member to know better, provides for a way for consensual relationships to continue and, to an extent, provides a senior member who has made a declaration, protection  against spurious, after the fact, allegations of coercion.
> 
> Yup. Some folks might find this too intrusive but IMHO such a provision is both legal and defensible based on the current climate pervading the CAF.
> 
> 🍻


I have many issues with such a policy.  The CAF has no buisness in authorizing relationships.  Sure, it can issue guidance but the declaration should be after the fact, not before, and only if it meets certain criteria (ie: one of the parties is in the other’s CoC).  

This declaration would do nothing but cover the CAF’s ass in saying it did its due dilligence.  If someone can be coerced into sexual relationships because of perceived authority, that same person can be coerced into making that declaration.

Civilians don’t have to go to their bosses or the courts to request permission to date someone. Neither should CAF members.


----------



## OldSolduer

SupersonicMax said:


> I have many issues with such a policy.  The CAF has no buisness in authorizing relationships.


When the CAF was in  Afghanistan there were explicit orders, which some chose to disobey. 

Your points are good - but the one thing lost here is how such relationships impact operational effectiveness. That should be the focus and this sort of behavior takes time and resources away from operational effectiveness IMO.


----------



## PuckChaser

SupersonicMax said:


> Civilians don’t have to go to their bosses or the courts to request permission to date someone. Neither should CAF members.


You're oversimplifying the issue. Civilian bosses cannot issue a lawful order that could cause grievous bodily harm or death to the other individual, and civilian employers aren't a gold standard of sexual harassment free workplaces. 

We should be taking our power dynamics very seriously and how they can impact relationships. The solution is not as simple as you state and has to be found somewhere between "I can bang who I want" and "The CO approves every sexual encounter you have with another military member." Obviously we haven't gotten it right thus far, or are not creating a culture where we're calling out individuals abusing power for sexual gain.


----------



## Altair

Don't take a dump where you eat has always been my policy, but I'm not sure it would be an appropriate CAF policy.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Altair said:


> Don't take a dump where you eat has always been my policy, but I'm not sure it would be an appropriate CAF policy.


AKA; "Don't fish from the company pier"


----------



## Good2Golf

PuckChaser said:


> You're oversimplifying the issue. Civilian bosses cannot issue a lawful order that could cause grievous bodily harm or death to the other individual, and civilian employers aren't a gold standard of sexual harassment free workplaces.



☝🏼 This

Perhaps I’m an outlier, but Ive experienced significant poor conduct by leaders outside CAF service as well/more.  We should in no way use civilian employers as some paragon of virtuous behaviour.  I have been both directly and indirectly in a position to have to employ whistleblower-protected statements to HR to address sexual harassment taking place in publicly-traded companies.  Even then, in some cases, the offender continued to climb the corporate ladder, notwithstanding.


----------



## ballz

PuckChaser said:


> You're oversimplifying the issue. Civilian bosses cannot issue a lawful order that could cause grievous bodily harm or death to the other individual, and civilian employers aren't a gold standard of sexual harassment free workplaces.
> 
> We should be taking our power dynamics very seriously and how they can impact relationships. The solution is not as simple as you state and has to be found somewhere between "I can bang who I want" and "The CO approves every sexual encounter you have with another military member." Obviously we haven't gotten it right thus far, or are not creating a culture where we're calling out individuals abusing power for sexual gain.



It can also be pretty frowned upon in civilian workplaces to start dating a coworker, much less a subordinate, and not uncommon to find one or both let go. It's even frowned upon when you try and do the right thing by say, finding another job so as to avoid that situation... good employees are hard to come by and so it can be held against the person who stays with the original company that their inability to keep it professional caused the company to lose a good employee.

The CAF actually seems to tolerate it a lot, perhaps out of necessity given that we are in bubble of our own and also they can't just fire someone without cause, and they find ways to accommodate it (i.e. moving people around into different positions).


----------



## SupersonicMax

PuckChaser said:


> You're oversimplifying the issue. Civilian bosses cannot issue a lawful order that could cause grievous bodily harm or death to the other individual, and civilian employers aren't a gold standard of sexual harassment free workplaces.
> 
> We should be taking our power dynamics very seriously and how they can impact relationships. The solution is not as simple as you state and has to be found somewhere between "I can bang who I want" and "The CO approves every sexual encounter you have with another military member." Obviously we haven't gotten it right thus far, or are not creating a culture where we're calling out individuals abusing power for sexual gain.


Having the right to issue lawful orders that could cause griveous bodily arm or death has nothing to do with authorizing individual relationships.  It doesn’t give COs/the CAF carte-blanche for doing whatever they please. We have an expectation of privacy in Canada, specifically laid out in the Privacy act.  I should not be required to disclose who I sleep with.  The question may be asked, for example for the purpose of a security investigation, but I should not have to answer.  In this case, if it is found that I am lying/misleading, there may be losses of priviledges (ie: security clearance) but it would be a really long stretch to apply this same logic to a day-to-day workplace.  

Yes, you should be allowed to put as much rope around your neck as you wish and suffer the consequences after the fact when things go sideways.  The issue is one of personal responsibility.  At some point in a career, one becomes part of the institution, the “they” or “Ottawa.”  At that point, your personal actions can have a very real and serious impact on the institution itself.  It is important to select people not only on their skills but also their dedication to the institution or their ability to put service before self.  

99.9% of the relationships between service-people bring no discredit on the CAF. Those that do as almost exclusively, these days anyway, by people representing the institution.  Do you really believe that a simple declaration would have dissuaded Vance or Coates from doing what they did?


----------



## Good2Golf

SupersonicMax said:


> Do you really believe that a simple declaration would have dissuaded Vance or Coates from doing what they did?


Perhaps not, but it would then have facilitated immediate and firm action being taken to remove them from their appointment without the current drawn-out debate of ‘it wasn’t illegal’ vs ‘but it was unethical and/or counter to policy (vice legislation).


----------



## SupersonicMax

Well, it is already laid out in a DAOD titled “Personal Relationships and Fraternization.” Not sure what more you need to take actions...  The lack of action on itself is a failure of the institution (and the Government for Vance’s case)


----------



## FJAG

SupersonicMax said:


> I have many issues with such a policy.  ...


It wouldn't be the first time that we've disagreed. And you're missing the point. It's not that the CAF is authorizing the relationship at all. It's an acknowledgement by the parties that the relationship exists, is non coercive and allows the CoC to ensure that there is no advantage taken of a supervisor position either in the past or future.


SupersonicMax said:


> ... Do you really believe that a simple declaration would have dissuaded Vance or Coates from doing what they did?


Maybe. More importantly it would have made kicking their ass earlier in their careers easier. It would also have stopped or brought into question the current claim in one case that the relationship was inappropriate. 

The Privacy Act provides:



> *4* No personal information shall be collected by a government institution unless it relates directly to an operating program or activity of the institution.



Based on the Deschamps Report (especially recommendation 5) such a policy would most probably pass muster under the Privacy Act as long as it is based on rank differential.

You are glossing over the fact that a policy like the above is rough on supervisors but benign to subordinates specifically to help alleviate the inequities between their positions and as a side benefit helps protect supervisors of after-the-fact allegations. Nowhere is it a cover the ass of the institution through due diligence provision. That's solely your interpretation. There's a whole hockey sock full of additional stuff the institution needs to do.

🍻


----------



## OldSolduer

Good2Golf said:


> ☝🏼 This
> 
> Perhaps I’m an outlier, but Ive experienced significant poor conduct by leaders outside CAF service as well/more.  We should in no way use civilian employers as some paragon of virtuous behaviour.  I have been both directly and indirectly in a position to have to employ whistleblower-protected statements to HR to address sexual harassment taking place in publicly-traded companies.  Even then, in some cases, the offender continued to climb the corporate ladder, notwithstanding.


A few tales here:

One of my peers, now a supervisor, was a love interest of a former senior manager in the institution.  They are no longer an item BUT one could infer the promotion was based on who was banging who. Not good for staff morale I'd say. My former peer is competent however, but the appearance was not good.

Not long ago one of our staff  was fired for having an affair with a fellow staff member who also has not returned to work.  Senior management knew about the problem but did very little to stop it.  Again, this does not speak well of senior management.

Again - not good for staff morale, which is low already.


----------



## SupersonicMax

FJAG said:


> It wouldn't be the first time that we've disagreed. And you're missing the point. It's not that the CAF is authorizing the relationship at all. It's an acknowledgement by the parties that the relationship exists, is non coercive and allows the CoC to ensure that there is no advantage taken of a supervisor position either in the past or future.
> 
> Maybe. More importantly it would have made kicking their ass earlier in their careers easier. It would also have stopped or brought into question the current claim in one case that the relationship was inappropriate.
> 
> The Privacy Act provides:
> 
> 
> 
> Based on the Deschamps Report (especially recommendation 5) such a policy would most probably pass muster under the Privacy Act as long as it is based on rank differential.
> 
> You are glossing over the fact that a policy like the above is rough on supervisors but benign to subordinates specifically to help alleviate the inequities between their positions and as a side benefit helps protect supervisors of after-the-fact allegations. Nowhere is it a cover the ass of the institution through due diligence provision. That's solely your interpretation. There's a whole hockey sock full of additional stuff the institution needs to do.
> 
> 🍻


What else does it do besides protecting the CAF?  Later, it would be fairly easy to argue the subordinate was coerced into signing a declaration.  It doesn’t do much to protect anyone beyond the CAF.  If Vance’s relationships were known by many people (including his superiors) and nothing was done, despite some pretty clear rules, an extra layer of administration, a declaration, would do zip.

So, let’s walk through a real-world example.  Sgt A and Cpl B meet each other in a bar on a Friday night.  As the night progresses, they get closer and closer.  They decide to get intimate. But wait, they have to wait until Monday to sign declaration before they do anything. Do you truly believe that the declaration will ever get signed? What it’ll do is create an administrative burden trying to administer discipline for failing to report a relationship. I could perhaps see it as an optional process as a means to protect both parties.  Given it is voluntary, it would be more difficult to coerce someone into signing one.

edit to add:  Also, because a relationship is consensual at the beginning doesn’t mean it is throughout.  How often does this thing needs to be re-signed?  Everytime people sleep with each other?  Every month?  Every year?


----------



## Brad Sallows

Is one not supposed to obtain affirmative consent at each step of escalation?  Maybe that's just for students.


----------



## SupersonicMax

There is a difference between the individuals consenting and the CAF documenting that consent.


----------



## daftandbarmy

OldSolduer said:


> A few tales here:
> 
> One of my peers, now a supervisor, was a love interest of a former senior manager in the institution.  They are no longer an item BUT one could infer the promotion was based on who was banging who. Not good for staff morale I'd say. My former peer is competent however, but the appearance was not good.
> 
> Not long ago one of our staff  was fired for having an affair with a fellow staff member who also has not returned to work.  Senior management knew about the problem but did very little to stop it.  Again, this does not speak well of senior management.
> 
> Again - not good for staff morale, which is low already.



The Queen of the North is about as low as you can get, at the bottom of the ocean, allegedly due to some 'relationship issues' on the bridge. The rumours persist amongst the maritime community here on the West Coast:

Captain of B.C. ferry that sank after crew allegedly had sex on bridge makes case for what caused disaster​In a new book, Colin Henthorne dismisses the idea his crew was having sex on the bridge. Instead, he says they failed to take one crucial step in changing course

Karl Lilgert, the ship’s fourth officer, in charge of the bridge that night, was eventually convicted of criminal negligence causing death and sentenced to four years imprisonment. Quartermaster Karen Briker, who was on the bridge with Lilgert, was fired by B.C. Ferries amidst rumours that she and Lilgert, who had previously had an affair, were either quarrelling or having sex during a crucial 14 minute period after the Queen of the North passed Sainty Point (where one of the course changes involved in navigating the Inside Passage was usually implemented) until the craft went aground on the rocks of Gil Island.









						Captain of B.C. ferry that sank after crew allegedly had sex on bridge makes case for what caused disaster
					

In a new book, Colin Henthorne dismisses the idea his crew was having sex on the bridge. Instead, he says they failed to take one crucial step in changing…




					nationalpost.com


----------



## Colin Parkinson

So what do other Non-US/UK forces say on the matter?


----------



## dapaterson

Interesting how much of this does not relate to SM/SH/SA, but is a leadership and character question - and an organizational culture that does not permit challenges to behavior of peers or superiors, leaving them to operate with impunity, should they choose to do so.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

There are two policy documents that CAF members, especially leaders, should be familiar with: DAOD 9005-1 Sexual Misconduct Response and DAOD 5019-1 Personal Relationships. DAOD 9005-1 was issued last Nov, so its quite fresh.

Sexual Misconduct is defined as "Conduct of a sexual nature that causes, or could cause harm to others, and that the person knew or ought reasonably to have known could cause harm." The nature of misconduct can range from jokes of a sexual nature, sexual harassment, viewing explicit material in the workplace, voyeurism, publication of sexual images without consent and sexual assault. The range of sexual misconduct includes both non-criminal and criminal code misconduct. Consent, or lack thereof, is a key element of sexual misconduct. The policy refers to the criminal code and highlights that no consent is obtained if "the accused induces the victim to engage in the activity by abusing a position of trust, power or authority."  So the use of rank and authority by the accused in the situation is certainly relevant, as is the situation/experience/vulnerability of the victim.  

The Personal Relationships DAOD recognizes that CAF members have an inherent right to form personal relationships of their choosing and that their privacy should be respected. It also states that there should be fair and unbiased treatment to persons under the care of CAF personnel and that vulnerable persons should be protected from exploitation. So the potential abuse of power must still be considered.

The DAOD outlines the instances when a personal relationship would be considered against the objective of the DAOD (where one member has control/influence over the other's career/work etc). It also states that CAF members must notify their chain of command of a personal relationship that could compromise the DAOD. So a MCpl dating a Cpl in a different unit would not have to inform their CoC, but a MCpl dating a Cpl under their command (in their section) must do so. I find in unit briefings that the Personal Relationships aspect is the one that we have most discussion on. 

There are additional instructions regarding personal relationships where one member might be vulnerable to abuse of power. Instructor/student relationships and situations with a direct chain of command are discussed. There is also guidance regarding adverse relationships. 

I think that it would be wrong to have a policy where we obtain _permission_ from the Chain of Command to form a personal relationship. People can form consenting relationships - it is up to those two people. If, however, that relationship compromises the workplace then there are a range of workplace consequences with due process.


----------



## Halifax Tar

dapaterson said:


> Interesting how much of this does not relate to SM/SH/SA, but is a leadership and character question - and an organizational culture that does not permit challenges to behavior of peers or superiors, leaving them to operate with impunity, should they choose to do so.



I concur.  And I have to wonder how this correlates to a PER system ?  Have we been promoting the right people, or have we been promoting people with the right ticks in the box ?


----------



## Haggis

Halifax Tar said:


> Have we been promoting the right people, or have we been promoting people with the right ticks in the box ?


There has always been problems with score inflation, ensuring that each person was scored on the bell curve correctly.  That's simple enough in theory but when personalities become involved the wheels fall off the wagon.  Members have been scored higher than warranted and the narratives adjusted (wordsmithed) to fit the score in order to:

1. get the member posted out because they are a problem;
2. get the member career loaded then promoted to fit the needs of the regimental godfathers;
3. to avoid the uncomfortable discussions that should accompany an adverse PER;
4. to avoid the effort of dealing with a redress;
5. etc. 

We have very often sent lesser quality members on course/tasking or missions because:

1. we don't want to leave a vacancy unfilled because we won't get one offered to us next year;
2. our No. 1 candidate is unavailable and it would look bad on the unit if we didn't fill the vacancy we asked for.
2. this is a "no fail tasking" (aren't they all?);
3. we need that qualification in the unit lines.

and that fills the "tick" the member needs for the next step up the ladder.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Haggis said:


> There has always been problems with score inflation, ensuring that each person was scored on the bell curve correctly.  That's simple enough in theory but when personalities become involved the wheels fall off the wagon.  Members have been scored higher than warranted and the narratives adjusted (wordsmithed) to fit the score in order to:
> 
> 1. get the member posted out because they are a problem;
> 2. get the member career loaded then promoted to fit the needs of the regimental godfathers;
> 3. to avoid the uncomfortable discussions that should accompany an adverse PER;
> 4. to avoid the effort of dealing with a redress;
> 5. etc.
> 
> We have very often sent lesser quality members on course/tasking or missions because:
> 
> 1. we don't want to leave a vacancy unfilled because we won't get one offered to us next year;
> 2. our No. 1 candidate is unavailable and it would look bad on the unit if we didn't fill the vacancy we asked for.
> 2. this is a "no fail tasking" (aren't they all?);
> 3. we need that qualification in the unit lines.
> 
> and that fills the "tick" the member needs for the next step up the ladder.









#ilovethegoldengirls


----------



## rmc_wannabe

We promote on merit and qualification, less so on character and good judgement.

I have seen the former happen far more than the latter. Ethics and leadership are one point each on a PER. That doesn't even factor in when it comes to SCRITS or "other" promotion criteria that exist in the trade mafias.

I honestly think that a 360 evaluation of pers Sgt and up / Maj and up would be a step in the right direction. Some examples off the top of my head:

-Capt Bloggins might be EEE his SOL profile, and have AOC/ATOC, but is hesitant and indecisive (as documented by his Comd Team WO's assessment) and should be developed further in rank before advancing.

- Sgt Bloggins, while lacking his DP3 course, has acted as Tp WO for 6 months; during which time he was able to improve cohesion and solve crucial admin issues that have been unresolved (as documented by the MCpl's assessment)

- Col Shitbird has all the checks in the box, however, the assessments of his COS are that he is hard to work with, is demeaning to certain staff officers, and has exercised questionable judgement when it comes to authorizing FAA Sect 32 procurements.

I can see people arguing that its will quickly become weaponized by people with an axe to grind; however, I am at a loss for how to improve the calibre of leader we see in the CAF. Checks in the box are great and all, but like Facebook and Instagram, people are eager to show when things are going great... and are dead silent when they fuck something up. Hard to hide that you're a bad leader when those in your charge have their chance to call you out on it.


----------



## Halifax Tar

rmc_wannabe said:


> We promote on merit and qualification, less so on character and good judgement.
> 
> I have seen the former happen far more than the latter. Ethics and leadership are one point each on a PER. That doesn't even factor in when it comes to SCRITS or "other" promotion criteria that exist in the trade mafias.
> 
> I honestly think that a 360 evaluation of pers Sgt and up / Maj and up would be a step in the right direction. Some examples off the top of my head:
> 
> -Capt Bloggins might be EEE his SOL profile, and have AOC/ATOC, but is hesitant and indecisive (as documented by his Comd Team WO's assessment) and should be developed further in rank before advancing.
> 
> - Sgt Bloggins, while lacking his DP3 course, has acted as Tp WO for 6 months; during which time he was able to improve cohesion and solve crucial admin issues that have been unresolved (as documented by the MCpl's assessment)
> 
> - Col Shitbird has all the checks in the box, however, the assessments of his COS are that he is hard to work with, is demeaning to certain staff officers, and has exercised questionable judgement when it comes to authorizing FAA Sect 32 procurements.
> 
> I can see people arguing that its will quickly become weaponized by people with an axe to grind; however, I am at a loss for how to improve the calibre of leader we see in the CAF. Checks in the box are great and all, but like Facebook and Instagram, people are eager to show when things are going great... and are dead silent when they fuck something up. Hard to hide that you're a bad leader when those in your charge have their chance to call you out on it.



Negative feedback on PERs would be move in the right direction.  

In my heart I love the idea of 360.  But my brain tells me it would/could be weaponized.  1 barrack room lawyer could ruin a good Sgt. On the other hand if I speak out that my Coxswain is a dick what's to protect me from his rath after the fact, oh look a posting to Dundrun!  Whoopidedoo


----------



## Haggis

Halifax Tar said:


> #ilovethegoldengirls


Deserving of an answer which avoided me posting a rant.


----------



## blacktriangle

Halifax Tar said:


> In my heart I love the idea of 360.  But my brain tells me it would/could be weaponized.  1 barrack room lawyer could ruin a good Sgt. On the other hand if I speak out that my Coxswain is a dick what's to protect me from his rath after the fact, oh look a posting to Dundrun!  Whoopidedoo


Anonymous evaluations? I know nothing is truly anonymous, and some people will talk, but like voting...no one should really know what another wrote down. Less likely for someone to cave from outside influence. Also, one negative response would be an outlier. A ton of negative feedback would be indicative that someone isn't pulling their weight, or doesn't play well with others. It should be possible to distinguish between the two.

Also - bad habits start long before Sgt or Maj. Do it from the ground up. The sooner you notice an issue, the sooner corrective action can be taken. It doesn't have to end someones career if they take the proper steps to address deficiencies, with help from peers, superiors, and the organization as a whole. CAF already does this sort of stuff (albeit to what level of success, I don't know)


----------



## TCM621

RubberTree said:


> TCM, I feel like we are discussing two very different subjects. In the first post that I commented on you referred to men *abusing their power* to get sex and stated this was normal. You then stated that it wasn't sexual assault. I obviously disagree.
> 
> Now you are discussing two members of different ranks being in a sexual relationship. This is obviously a very different situation and not necessarily one that would involve assault, although the possibility is certainly present. I don't believe the two situations can be compared apples to apples.
> 
> I also don't believe that something becomes "normal" simply because it has occurred since time immemorial. Murder, rape, child molestation, etc have been happening forever but that doesn't mean it is normal and should be tolerated.


Fair enough. I probably should have said "using their position of authority" like a medal or a fancy job title to get laid not invoking their authority to coerce sex. I just realized that when I think about how I said it, I put mental air quotes around "abuse" and that totally changes the interpretation of the sentence. Poor writing on my part.


----------



## Loachman

PMedMoe said:


> Okay, let's not go off on a tangent (again).  I shouldn't have bothered with the rest of the quote but just wanted to show the context that Prager was using in his Op-Ed.
> 
> If some men have such a virulent sex drive that it causes them to assault and/or force themselves on women or "revert to their animallike sexual nature", then perhaps they should be chemically castrated.


I did not consider the rest of it particularly important.

The drive to reproduce is a powerful survival-of-the-species one, and common to all sexually-reproducing species - it sometimes causes battles to death, even. We are not so far removed from our ancient predecessors, and that is something that should not be denied.

But, while that urge is powerful, the vast majority of us can control it, as we do many of our other ancient instincts (we still compete with each other, but more in sporting events rather than beating each other to death for the last scrap of woolly mammoth flesh). Some, however, cannot - completely, at least - and may resort to a variety of coercive means, or even outright rape.

At least the resultant problems are more out-in-the-open now, compared to past times, and, while that may look bad, it is a sign of improvement that should be recognized and celebrated and which will, thus, continue to occur - one hopes.

But still, some give in, and lose everything.


----------



## Loachman

Good2Golf said:


> It sure beats Marmite... 🤢


Outright sacrilege.

And I have yet to comprehend those who claim to like peanut butter while turning up their noses at the delicious, brown Food of the Gods.


----------



## Loachman

Brad Sallows said:


> A committee!  The tried and true way of solving every knotty problem


Or naughty problem.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Loachman said:


> Or naughty problem.


----------



## Loachman

Weinie said:


> I am torn, like you. My spouse has never experienced incidents like we have seen lately, yet people I know, and trust, have recounted horrific encounters and incidents. I have often said that if I were to magically wake up tomorrow at 18 years old, I would run to the recruiting centre to sign up again. But I have also never seen the level of harassment and misogynism that has been reported on.


But is it really worse, or just more out in the open where it can be corrected?

I have no idea. While there was much hanky-panky in my early days, I never saw or heard of any signs of forced sexual activity - but that was my relatively-small militia world. Some minor jealousies, as partners changed, but the girls were quickly accepted as equals and fitted right in. There are more women now, as well, so more potential victims, and possibly even more sensitivity to things that were considered to be quite innocent back then.

Exposure is good, though, and an early sign of improvement.

None of the women in my more-recent circle, including one with almost as much time in as me, could think of any incidents in their pasts when Op Honour began. Not every part of the CF is the same, though.

And I did discuss, somewhere here, a very troubling incidence of non-sexual harassment in the early nineties in which I played the role of assisting officer to the victim, so I am well aware that truly crappy things do happen, and were frequently covered up when they did. And the only alternative route to the chain-of-command was the media...


----------



## daftandbarmy

Loachman said:


> But is it really worse, or just more out in the open where it can be corrected?


Based on my experiences with both the military over 40 years, and many civilian organizations both large and small with my civvy job, unscientifically and anecdotally, I feel that things are much worse in the CAF with regrad to sexual harrassment, pedophiles and a number of other types of abuse.

But hey, I'm a paratrooper, so to me 'abuse' feels like people just care more about me


----------



## Loachman

daftandbarmy said:


> Based on my experiences with both the military over 40 years, and many civilian organizations both large and small with my civvy job, unscientifically and anecdotally, I feel that things are much worse in the CAF with regrad to sexual harrassment, pedophiles and a number of other types of abuse.
> 
> But hey, I'm a paratrooper, so to me 'abuse' feels like people just care more about me


The day-shift operator of Punch Press No 5 is much likely to generate headlines as anybody in uniform would be, even if he did something worse.

Aside from a few cases of spousal abuse I don't think that I've known anybody, military or civilian, accused of sexual misconduct.

And those spousal abuse cases, too, were several decades ago. I was shocked to find out, as I had no reason to suspect anything amiss, and knew their wives fairly well also. Those marriages did eventually end, and without legal intervention.

Again, there were fewer routes of escape back then than there are now, and a more open awareness.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Halifax Tar said:


> Negative feedback on PERs would be move in the right direction.
> 
> In my heart I love the idea of 360.  But my brain tells me it would/could be weaponized.  1 barrack room lawyer could ruin a good Sgt. On the other hand if I speak out that my Coxswain is a dick what's to protect me from his rath after the fact, oh look a posting to Dundrun!  Whoopidedoo


There was a pilot program a while ago for a 360 evaluation on some contracted leadership development course; I got to fill one in for a former supervisor. Apparently they bundled it up, took the high/low points and provided him some feedback.

Some of the most useful feedback I ever got was early in my career as a SLt from some of the PO1s and the Chief, as well as one of the LCdrs that wasn't my boss. Allowed me to course correct some things and build on others, and IMHO a good example of how the general development system should work. Same idea as a 360 system except it had real and concrete results.

Personally a big fan of the concept though; there are more then a few people that got a CO tour that were disasters when their shitty behaviour was obvious as a two ringer to their peers/subordinates. Even outside of the PERs it would be useful for some of the development phases; when they had the ORO sea phase it was usually pretty obvious who you would never want to actually work for, and the same probably applies for ph 6 / AHOD tours.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Navy_Pete said:


> There was a pilot program a while ago for a 360 evaluation on some contracted leadership development course; I got to fill one in for a former supervisor. Apparently they bundled it up, took the high/low points and provided him some feedback.
> 
> Some of the most useful feedback I ever got was early in my career as a SLt from some of the PO1s and the Chief, as well as one of the LCdrs that wasn't my boss. Allowed me to course correct some things and build on others, and IMHO a good example of how the general development system should work. Same idea as a 360 system except it had real and concrete results.
> 
> Personally a big fan of the concept though; there are more then a few people that got a CO tour that were disasters when their shitty behaviour was obvious as a two ringer to their peers/subordinates. Even outside of the PERs it would be useful for some of the development phases; when they had the ORO sea phase it was usually pretty obvious who you would never want to actually work for, and the same probably applies for ph 6 / AHOD tours.




Yeah, about that Performance Appraisal thing:

A Qualitative Study to Evaluate the Purpose and Comprehensiveness of the British Army’s Annual Individual Performance Appraisal System 

The PAS can be a useful tool to help motivate the appraisee, however, this largely depends on the subject and how it is delivered. When interviewing individuals who were solely the appraisee they were, on the whole, dissatisfied with the PAS and felt that it did not have a great effect on their performance. Iqbal’s (2012, p.42) paper argued that discontent from subjects is primarily because of differences in “leniency/strictness bias, accuracy of judgment, structure and administrative practices.” As a result of these disparities, Nickols (2007, p.13) argued that the PAS “devours staggering amounts of time and energy, depresses and de-motivates people, destroys trust and teamwork and [...] delivers little demonstrable value at great cost. [The PAS] when weighed, [is] found wanting in the balance."



			https://bootcampmilitaryfitnessinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/A-Qualitative-Study-to-Evaluate-the-Purpose-and-Comprehensiveness-of-the-British-Army%E2%80%99s-Annual-Individual-Performance-Appraisal-System-Maxwell-2015.pdf


----------



## FJAG

Navy_Pete said:


> There was a pilot program a while ago for a 360 evaluation on some contracted leadership development course; I got to fill one in for a former supervisor. Apparently they bundled it up, took the high/low points and provided him some feedback.
> 
> Some of the most useful feedback I ever got was early in my career as a SLt from some of the PO1s and the Chief, as well as one of the LCdrs that wasn't my boss. Allowed me to course correct some things and build on others, and IMHO a good example of how the general development system should work. Same idea as a 360 system except it had real and concrete results.
> 
> Personally a big fan of the concept though; there are more then a few people that got a CO tour that were disasters when their shitty behaviour was obvious as a two ringer to their peers/subordinates. Even outside of the PERs it would be useful for some of the development phases; when they had the ORO sea phase it was usually pretty obvious who you would never want to actually work for, and the same probably applies for ph 6 / AHOD tours.



I wasn't at first but saw it used very successfully amongst medical staff of a local hospital we represented.

My only concern about it is how much extra admin work it puts on the whole organization in both preparing evaluations and in collecting, vetting and collating the data. It would need some very good design to make it easy to complete and staff. We're not particulalry known for having a knack for that.


🍻


----------



## Navy_Pete

I agree it's a lot of extra work; I think the program was a pilot course for streamers, so maybe it was an attempt at 360 vetting? That makes a bit more sense than the current old boys network that does the backroom annointing, but that might just be off target speculation on my part. 

So maybe something like that makes more sense before the CAF invests a lot of time and money developing these people? Probably still wouldn't pick up a lot of shenanigans, but at least it filters out the great big idiots. If nothing else, might serve to modulate the behaviour of the type of people that want to be GOFOs and really cut the knees out of the ones that try and get ahead by chucking their subordinates and peers under the bus while doing their best imitations of vacuums up the chain.


----------



## SupersonicMax

A 360 evaluation is a requirement for graduating from the residential Joint Command and Staff Programme.  The intent is to provide feedback on areas to improve.


----------



## daftandbarmy

FJAG said:


> I wasn't at first but saw it used very successfully amongst medical staff of a local hospital we represented.
> 
> My only concern about it is how much extra admin work it puts on the whole organization in both preparing evaluations and in collecting, vetting and collating the data. It would need some very good design to make it easy to complete and staff. We're not particulalry known for having a knack for that.
> 
> 
> 🍻



360 reviews are one of the services we've provided to our clients, as a consulting company, for the past 20+ years. 

As you note it's a big effort and, if not done confidentially using in person interviews and accompanied by follow up coaching to help the coachee integrate the feedback and change their behaviour, can be completely ineffective. 

Some organizations try to cut corners using surveys, and it's always a sub-par product.


----------



## TCM621

Navy_Pete said:


> There was a pilot program a while ago for a 360 evaluation on some contracted leadership development course; I got to fill one in for a former supervisor. Apparently they bundled it up, took the high/low points and provided him some feedback.
> 
> Some of the most useful feedback I ever got was early in my career as a SLt from some of the PO1s and the Chief, as well as one of the LCdrs that wasn't my boss. Allowed me to course correct some things and build on others, and IMHO a good example of how the general development system should work. Same idea as a 360 system except it had real and concrete results.
> 
> Personally a big fan of the concept though; there are more then a few people that got a CO tour that were disasters when their shitty behaviour was obvious as a two ringer to their peers/subordinates. Even outside of the PERs it would be useful for some of the development phases; when they had the ORO sea phase it was usually pretty obvious who you would never want to actually work for, and the same probably applies for ph 6 / AHOD tours.


Maybe send up a "Rag sheet" from the members subordinates with the brag sheet in the PER file? It could be done survey style (rate conduct out f 5) or as some short answers to direct questions. We could do it as part of the PDR process rather than part of his evaluation if people are concerned about a disgruntled subordinate attempting to tank an evaluation. This would give the chain a better sense of how that person relates to their chain and give them time to adjust their behavior before the PER.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Liberals plan to wrap up committee probing Gen. Vance’s sexual misconduct allegation​link

This is the good part.



> *Several witnesses who are considered crucial to the investigation have yet to appear before the committee*, which is probing sexual misconduct issues in the Canadian Armed Forces, including allegations raised against Vance. *If passed, the motion would effectively shut down the committee before they can testify.*



Good luck on your retirement Mr Vance thanks for your service.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

The Liberal moving to shut down the work of a Committee of the Commons before it has a chance to cut too close to the PM, or a minister, or some Highly placed person of Liberal bent !!! Unheard of !

I am shocked, Sir ! Shocked !


----------



## ArmyRick

The motion to shut down this committee shows the Trudeau complete lack of integrity, accountability and transparency.


----------



## Kilted

I supposed that this wouldn't affect the investigation on the military side.


----------



## Haggis

Kilted said:


> I supposed that this wouldn't affect the investigation on the military side.


Too bad JWR isn't a member here. She'd have some interesting insight into that question.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Liberals shut down probe into sexual misconduct in Canadian military​Link


----------



## dangerboy

Jarnhamar said:


> Liberals shut down probe into sexual misconduct in Canadian military​Link


I wonder what promises they made to the Bloc to get their support.


----------



## dapaterson

Budget next Monday, we'll likely find out then.


----------



## OldSolduer

Jarnhamar said:


> Liberals shut down probe into sexual misconduct in Canadian military​Link


Just like a few others government has shut down 
The problems may be deeper than we think


----------



## Weinie

dapaterson said:


> Budget next Monday, we'll likely find out then.


This.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Liberal Party of Canada is the transparent feminist party; if they're shutting down the probe into sexual misconduct in the military then that's because there is nothing to find.


----------



## Weinie

Jarnhamar said:


> Liberal Party of Canada is the transparent feminist party; *if they're shutting down the probe into sexual misconduct in the military then that's because there is nothing to find.*


Or they are scared of the findings, and their implications.


----------



## OldSolduer

Weinie said:


> Or they are scared of the findings, and their implications.


My thoughts exactly


----------



## Haggis

Jarnhamar said:


> Liberal Party of Canada is the transparent feminist party; if they're shutting down the probe into sexual misconduct in the military then that's because there is nothing to find.


Nailed it.


----------



## Pikache

Weinie said:


> Or they are scared of the findings, and their implications.


With probable fall federal election


----------



## shawn5o

This article caught my eye and I do believe he has valid points


*Canada’s Military Has Become A Shambles*

SPENCER FERNANDO APRIL 12, 2021

Decades of bipartisan neglect, and now a Liberal government simultaneously obsessed with political correctness and political cover-ups is betraying the once-proud legacy of the Canadian Armed Forces.









						Canada's Military Has Become A Shambles
					

Decades of bipartisan neglect, and now a Liberal government simultaneously obsessed with political correctness and political cover-ups is betraying the once-proud legacy of the Canadian Armed Forces. Nobody likes to say this about the Canadian Armed Forces, but the sad reality is that it has...




					spencerfernando.com
				





Nobody likes to say this about the Canadian Armed Forces, but the sad reality is that it has become a shambles.

Ask yourself when the last time was you heard a positive story about the CAF?

Personally, I can’t recall one in years.

Instead, the CAF only gets in the news when there is a procurement scandal, when Veterans are being mistreated, or now, with a seemingly endless parade of top military officials resigning and being ensnared in investigations.

This comes amid a Liberal government that has continued the decades-long bipartisan tradition of underfunding the military, promising ‘future funding’ that never seems to really materialize and leaving our men and women in uniform stuck with substandard equipment.

It’s gotten so bad that governments don’t even feel the need to pretend they care about the military.

And now, the Liberal government is making clear they don’t even care about addressing the complete breakdown of leadership in the CAF.

Another cover-up​Together with the Bloc, the Liberals have voted to shut down the Defense Committee investigation into sexual misconduct in the CAF:

_“Liberal and Bloc Quebecois MPs voted together in favour of the Liberal motion that was leaked to Global News over the weekend and which aims to shut down the probe which has heard damning testimony into the government’s handling of sexual misconduct allegations in the military.”

..._

As had been noted by Mercedes Stephenson, the committee was being shut down before key witnesses had a chance to speak:



> _“Several witnesses who are considered crucial to the investigation have yet to appear before the committee, which is probing sexual misconduct issues in the Canadian Armed Forces, including allegations raised against Vance. If passed, the motion would effectively shut down the committee before they can testify.
> The list of key witnesses yet to testify include former PMO staffer Elder Marques, who was a senior adviser in the Prime Minister’s Office at the time the allegations were put forth against Vance.”_


Clearly, the Liberals are trying to protect their own partisan political interests, rather than get to the bottom of what appears to be a serious problem in the CAF.

What have military leaders actually done well?​I’ll get to the complicity of politicians –_ and the Canadian People_ – in all of this later in the article.

But first, we need to ask this question:

*What have Canada’s military leaders actually done well as of late?*

_Have they advocated effectively for Canada’s armed forces?_

Doesn’t seem like it.

_Have they built morale?_

Just the opposite apparently.

_Have they resisted political correctness?_

Nope, they’ve embraced it, while often treating people like trash behind the scenes.

_Have they inspired people to join up?_

Yet again, nope. Recruitment continues to lag.

*Most of the time, military leaders are in the news talking about ‘inclusivity’ or ‘diversity’ rather than the actual goal of the armed forces – which is to train Canadians to be effective in the controlled use of violence to assist our allies and defend our country if necessary.*

It may not sound nice, but that’s the whole point of the armed forces.

Canada has forgotten why we have a military in the first place​
The world has been at relative peace for some time, with military engagements like Afghanistan representing a fight against a foe who was not a direct state-level threat to Canada.

Of course, that is changing rapidly now, with China building up their armed forces and expanding their belligerence seemingly everywhere.

In the arctic –_ an area essential to our national security and future prosperity with immense potential wealth_ – Russia and China are incredibly active and are militarizing at a rapid pace, while Canada is doing literally nothing.

We lack the ability to defend large swathes of our territory, effectively controlling much of Canada in name only.

And many Canadian politicians seem completely fine with this.

Even the Conservatives, though they lamented the military being underfunded when they were out of power, failed to build the forces up dramatically when they were in power, with modest increases and then reductions later on, leaving the CAF in about the same moribund state as under the Liberals.

Naïve attitude of many Canadians leads to our country being virtually undefended​While it’s easy – and often partially justified – to simply blame politicians, the fact is they want to get elected.

If they thought boosting military spending would win them elections, they would do it.

Unfortunately, many Canadians have increasingly developed a naïve view of the world, a view where being ‘nice’ is somehow expected to be enough, and a view where we forget that the history of our world often includes violence and conflict.

We also have a lack of responsibility when it comes to our allies, as the less we are able to defend ourselves the more we are implicitly expecting our allies – particularly the US – to bail us out if we get into trouble.

But to expect help from our allies, we should also be able to contribute to our alliances, and that requires a stronger CAF.

If you’re reading this, there’s a good chance you are someone who thinks we need a stronger Canadian national defense capability, and I would encourage you to speak to those you know and advocate for the importance of our armed forces being capable of defending our country and contributing to our alliances.

At a time when many Canadians are starting to wake up to the rising belligerence of China, we can make headway in winning people over to the idea that Canada has neglected our military for far too long.

Our country has a long history of military strength, and in an increasingly divided world we must get back to those roots as soon as possible, and stop betraying the legacy of the CAF.

_*Spencer Fernando*_


----------



## Pikache

shawn5o said:


> This article caught my eye and I do believe he has valid points
> 
> _snip_


Do the author a favour and post the link and a snippet of the article. He might get a few more bucks from the clicks going to his site.


----------



## shawn5o

Hi Pikache

Sorry, i don't understand. Care to explain it to me


----------



## daftandbarmy

shawn5o said:


> Ask yourself when the last time was you heard a positive story about the CAF?
> 
> Personally, I can’t recall one in years.



Yeah, about all those fires and floods and, oh yeah, the whole COVID response thing in Quebec etc... 

It's easy to join the dog pile. It's harder to call BS when the multitudes seem to be on the same bandwagon


----------



## OldSolduer

Spencer Fernando is rabidly anti  Liberal Party. I’d take his writings with a grain of salt.


----------



## Pikache

shawn5o said:


> Hi Pikache
> 
> Sorry, i don't understand. Care to explain it to me


You posting the entire article here doesnt give Spencer Fernando visits to his website. People visiting his website might earn him some money through site traffic/ad revenue.

It's a common courtesy when you want to post someone's article.


----------



## dimsum

shawn5o said:


> Ask yourself when the last time was you heard a positive story about the CAF?
> 
> Personally, I can’t recall one in years.


Oh, I'd say around May/June (maybe July?) when the CAF blew the whistle on treatment in Long Term Care homes.  That's not even a year ago.

Or when the CAF went to dig out Newfoundland during the last big snowstorm.
Or any OP LENTUS mission, really.
Or any Search and Rescue-related articles (mind you it's generally not national news, just local to the areas those squadrons operate).


----------



## mariomike

dimsum said:


> Oh, I'd say around May/June (maybe July?) when the CAF blew the whistle on treatment in Long Term Care homes.  That's not even a year ago.


Good for them. Some people I have known tried to "blow the whistle" for decades. The answer from higher up was always, "Don't make waves."


----------



## rmc_wannabe

daftandbarmy said:


> Yeah, about all those fires and floods and, oh yeah, the whole COVID response thing in Quebec etc...
> 
> It's easy to join the dog pile. It's harder to call BS when the multitudes seem to be on the same bandwagon



What is the quote again? "You can build a thousand bridges in a life time, but you get 4 (and counting) GOFOs suspected of sexual misconduct...."


----------



## Halifax Tar

Jarnhamar said:


> Liberals plan to wrap up committee probing Gen. Vance’s sexual misconduct allegation​link
> 
> This is the good part.
> 
> 
> 
> Good luck on your retirement Mr Vance thanks for your service.



If you ever wanted to know how vapid and hollow the Government is this headline says everything.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Halifax Tar said:


> If you ever wanted to know how vapid and hollow the Government is this headline says everything.




Beaverton seems to have grasped the situation.


Liberals shut down probe into sexual misconduct in the military after discovering they don’t care about sexual misconduct in the military​Link


----------



## ArmyRick

No matter how you look at this whole mess, the Canadian Armed Forces on the whole has taken another hit on its public reputation. 

Sad part is, I don't think its the Liberal Party of Canada that will bear the brunt of this public shaming, it will be the current serving members of the CAF. That is entirely unfair. When I was a soldier, I hated it when 1 dickbag in the platoon/company/battalion did something to embarrass the Unit or the CAF. It only takes one incident to rip apart the well earned reputation of the forces. And then the troops and sailors will go on serving honourably, slowly rebuilding the reputation again. 

I very well remember what RSM Larry Surridge used to say "Honour is like a match, you only get to strike it once..."

Our senior leaders can damn well do better and MUST be held to an even higher standard than the rank and file. Believe me, thats not the perception with Canada right now.


----------



## QV

I think you overestimate how much the public cares about this or the CAF for that matter. Now that the Liberals have deemed this not worthy of further attention, the media will obediently follow suite and it will fade away. Only the CAF is acting as if workplace relationship drama doesn't happen practically everywhere all the time, which incidentally is why the public has a general (no pun) lack of care because it's nothing new or shocking. The Liberals have likely assessed this and are putting it to rest. Before I get jumped on - yes rape, any sexual assault, or any crime related to that is bad and if a case can be made out, it should be and would be, and furthermore inappropriate relationships in the work place are still inappropriate and I'm sure red chits abound for that behaviour too. All the tools and frameworks to deal with all of this already exists.


----------



## SupersonicMax

I hope Mercedes doesn't let it go and keeps pushing for answers.


----------



## TCM621

mariomike said:


> Good for them. Some people I have known tried to "blow the whistle" for decades. The answer from higher up was always, "Don't make waves."


Maybe if less Generals were getting their whistles blown, we wouldn't be in this mess.


----------



## daftandbarmy

TCM621 said:


> Maybe if less Generals were getting their whistles blown, we wouldn't be in this mess.


----------



## Loachman

shawn5o said:


> Hi Pikache
> 
> Sorry, i don't understand. Care to explain it to me


Post the URL along with the article (or a portion thereof), in this case Canada's Military Has Become A Shambles


----------



## Loachman

OldSolduer said:


> Spencer Fernando is rabidly anti  Liberal Party. I’d take his writings with a grain of salt.


Like the Toronto Star is rabidly anti-Conservative/rabidly pro-Liberal?

No journalist is perfect. None of them understands everything about the subject of their journalism. They are generalists rather than specialists. All have biases, to greater or lesser degrees.

There is good reason why I read/watch a lot of independent media, including Spencer Fernando. They tend to cover topics ignored (sometimes intentionally) by mainstream media, will often dig deeper, and their analyses often prove to be more accurate - and they are not funded by governments.


----------



## TCM621

Loachman said:


> Like the Toronto Star is rabidly anti-Conservative/rabidly pro-Liberal?
> 
> No journalist is perfect. None of them understands everything about the subject of their journalism. They are generalists rather than specialists. All have biases, to greater or lesser degrees.
> 
> There is good reason why I read/watch a lot of independent media, including Spencer Fernando. They tend to cover topics ignored (sometimes intentionally) by mainstream media, will often dig deeper, and their analyses often prove to be more accurate - and they are not funded by governments.


The problem isn't that you need to take Fernando with a grain of salt but too many people don't take mainstream, or friendly, news sources with a grain of salt. I like to watch Rising on youtube which is a news program from the Hill, a Washington news site. The two hosts are clearly biased. One is a Female progressive who can rarely get through a segment without mentioning Bernie Sanders and the other is an Indian American man who is a conservatives populist (as opposed to a fiscal conservative). They wear their biases on their sleeves and generally acknowledge when their biases may be colouring their views. The best any journalist can do is try to minimize possible bias and be clear what is a fact and what is an opinion (and therefore potentially biased).


----------



## mariomike

Loachman said:


> Like the Toronto Star is rabidly anti-Conservative/rabidly pro-Liberal?


If you consider this "rabidly anti-Conservative/rabidly pro-Liberal."

QUOTE
*Overall, we rate the Toronto Star Left-Center biased based on editorial positions that favor the left and High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing.








						Toronto Star
					

LEFT-CENTER BIAS These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias.  They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording




					mediabiasfactcheck.com
				



END QUOTE*


----------



## mariomike

OldSolduer said:


> Spencer Fernando is rabidly anti  Liberal Party. I’d take his writings with a grain of salt.



All I know about Spencer is what I read on here.
Journeyman said,
"He claims to provide insight because he's.... insightful; nowhere does his site mention factual. Truth is valued by some folks more than others."


----------



## Loachman

So you have not read any of his articles, then.


----------



## mariomike

Loachman said:


> So you have not read any of his articles, then.


Just what gets posted on here.


----------



## Brad Sallows

If all one knows is what one reads in the news, it's difficult to know very much, or know it very accurately.  (Look up Gell-Mann amnesia.)

The subset of all information which is the information posted here is very, very small.

Media bias checks have ceased to be meaningful, except to those living in bubbles isolated from the reporters' activism at the NYT and WaPo (most notable for their former reputations, but not the only ones), and the repeated inability of huge agencies to get simple stories correct or to admit egregious incompetence or bias when it happens (CBS is back in the news for being unable to do the news.)

We have regrettably reached the point at which bias/partisanship is so pronounced in the large media organizations that they can no longer be trusted on political and social matters; a prudent person must cross-examine everything by reading outside the "green box".


----------



## mariomike

Brad Sallows said:


> If all one knows is what one reads in the news, it's difficult to know very much, or know it very accurately.  (Look up Gell-Mann amnesia.)
> 
> The subset of all information which is the information posted here is very, very small.
> 
> Media bias checks have ceased to be meaningful, except to those living in bubbles isolated from the reporters' activism at the NYT and WaPo (most notable for their former reputations, but not the only ones), and the repeated inability of huge agencies to get simple stories correct or to admit egregious incompetence or bias when it happens (CBS is back in the news for being unable to do the news.)
> 
> We have regrettably reached the point at which bias/partisanship is so pronounced in the large media organizations that they can no longer be trusted on political and social matters; a prudent person must cross-examine everything by reading outside the "green box".


For more discussion ( 70 pages ) of the above,









						Media Bias [Merged]
					

The eminent ERC says it far more eloquently then I do in my drive by posts.  https://coloneltedcampbell.blog/2019/11/08/its-time-to-end-this-rubbish/




					www.milnet.ca


----------



## ModlrMike

If you don't read the newspaper you're uninformed, if you do, you're misinformed.
         Mark Twain (unconfirmed)


----------



## dapaterson

You can't believe everything you read on the internet - Abraham Lincoln


----------



## Mick

Brad Sallows said:


> If all one knows is what one reads in the news, it's difficult to know very much, or know it very accurately.  (Look up Gell-Mann amnesia.)
> 
> The subset of all information which is the information posted here is very, very small.
> 
> Media bias checks have ceased to be meaningful, except to those living in bubbles isolated from the reporters' activism at the NYT and WaPo (most notable for their former reputations, but not the only ones), and the repeated inability of huge agencies to get simple stories correct or to admit egregious incompetence or bias when it happens (CBS is back in the news for being unable to do the news.)
> 
> We have regrettably reached the point at which bias/partisanship is so pronounced in the large media organizations that they can no longer be trusted on political and social matters; a prudent person must cross-examine everything by reading outside the "green box".


I read a variety of news resources daily, mostly via the CFC Spotlight on Military News and International Affair.

What sources would you recommend, if one wishes to "read outside the 'green box'"?

Genuinely curious.

edit: spelling


----------



## daftandbarmy

mick said:


> I read a variety of news resources daily, mostly via the CFC Spotlight on Military News and International Affair.
> 
> What sources would you recommend, if one wishes to "read outside the 'green box'"?
> 
> Genuinely curious.
> 
> edit: spelling



The Economist.


----------



## QV

mick said:


> I read a variety of news resources daily, mostly via the CFC Spotlight on Military News and International Affair.
> 
> What sources would you recommend, if one wishes to "read outside the 'green box'"?
> 
> Genuinely curious.
> 
> edit: spelling


You have to do much more than read other news sources.  It's pretty bad out there.  When the news is commenting on a hearing for example, it's best for you to watch the actual hearing and listen to the testimony or read the official transcript.  If the news is commenting on an incident that happened to be video recorded, for an informed opinion it's best if you view the entire video yourself.  If the news is commenting on what a public figure said, for an informed opinion you'd best go listen to all what was actually said by that person not what the news said they said.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> What sources would you recommend, if one wishes to "read outside the 'green box'"?
> Genuinely curious.



A genuinely curious person would already have explored the web and answered his own question.


----------



## Mick

Brad Sallows said:


> A genuinely curious person would already have explored the web and answered his own question.


Cool.  Thanks for adding to the discussion.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Cool.  Thanks for trolling.


----------



## Mick

Brad Sallows said:


> Cool.  Thanks for trolling.


Nope.  If one were truly serious about elevating understanding and discussion on current affairs on this site, there are more effective ways than long-winded pontifications that contain no real information other than an obscure Michael Crichton reference.  

Others, like QV etc were polite enough to offer a response.  If you can't elaborate on what resources you recommend, why post at all.


----------



## Brad Sallows

"Gell-Mann amnesia" is just a name for an idea: if articles about subjects on which a reader is knowledgeable are not very reliable, why would a reader assume any other articles are more reliable?  Since I've read numerous uses of the name over the past few years, I don't consider it obscure.

If it's hard to find more "current events" sources, start with RealClearPolitics and its associated sites (RealClearPolicy, RealClearScience, etc) and branch out from there.

I see no point trying to recapitulate all the stories covering academic and newsroom activism and collusion in support of preferred political narratives.  The major media agencies gossip about each other often enough that it is almost impossible to miss.  Everyone must decide for himself at what point a source becomes insufficiently trustworthy to accept its claims without seeing what others have to say.

Likewise, when politicians and other prominent persons behave discreditably and unethically and immorally, they are untrustworthy.  Every occasion on which they choose the path leading away from inquiry and discussion and accountability increases untrustworthiness.  It doesn't mean they are never right; it does mean nothing should be accepted without verification, preferably from differently aligned sources.


----------



## Lumber

mick said:


> Cool.  Thanks for adding to the discussion.


I'm going to agree with you here and say that Brad is trolling, not you.

To answer your question, I'll go against the majority here and say that I believe the majority of main stream media, no matter how biased, present factually correct news. The real problem lies in how they spin the overall impact of their stories, how they manipulate your reaction to it, and what exactly they AREN'T saying. What I like to do is bounce between new outlets from opposing sides and see what the differences and commonalities are. For example, I read cnn and fox news, fully aware that they are both biased. For less biased news, I would recommend Aljazeera, BBC, and the (Removed IAW site guidelines).

Regards:

The Staff


----------



## Mick

Thank you for the (second) reply, Brad.  I agree with you that readers should go further than blindly accepting "the news", as presented as
"fact".

While everyone has their own personal biases, I would propose that the vast majority of posters who contribute to this site are able to see through at least some of the inherent biases of the various mainstream news sources, especially concerning subjects where they may have considerable experience or interest.

As I mentioned, I read the sources on the CFC SOMNIA site, as well as CPAC and C-SPAN to see parliamentary / congressional testimony etc in context (in line with what QV suggests).  

I will take a look at your suggestions - thank you.


----------



## Pikache

For those on DWAN, CFINTCOM OSINT cell has resources on evaluating media sources and such


----------



## Mick

Lumber said:


> I'm going to agree with you here and say that Brad is trolling, not you.
> 
> To answer your question, I'll go against the majority here and say that I believe the majority of main stream media, no matter how biased, present factually correct news. The real problem lies in how they spin the overall impact of their stories, how they manipulate your reaction to it, and what exactly they AREN'T saying. What I like to do is bounce between new outlets from opposing sides and see what the differences and commonalities are. For example, I read cnn and fox news, fully aware that they are both biased. For less biased news, I would recommend Aljazeera, BBC, and the Defence Watch portion of the Ottawa Citizen.


I agree with your take on the MSM re facts and spin.  After I finish with CTV / CBC / Global, it's on to CNN and Fox (where the competing agendas are plainly visible).

I think "gotcha" and sensationalist journalism is also playing a role in eroding trust.  Instead of asking reasonable / well-considered  questions, traps are set for juicy sound bites.


----------



## daftandbarmy

mick said:


> I agree with your take on the MSM re facts and spin.  After I finish with CTV / CBC / Global, it's on to CNN and Fox (where the competing agendas are plainly visible).
> 
> I think "gotcha" and sensationalist journalism is also playing a role in eroding trust.  Instead of asking reasonable / well-considered  questions, traps are set for juicy sound bites.


A general decline in the ability of many to think critically might be an issue too.


----------



## MilEME09

Clear majority of Canadians think feds ‘all talk and no action’ on military misconduct: Ipsos - National | Globalnews.ca
					

Across demographic categories, 75 per cent of respondents said the government and military leaders are "all talk and no action" on sexual harassment in the Canadian Forces.




					globalnews.ca
				




Looks like the vast majority don't trust the government to fix the problem, not surprising.


----------



## Haggis

MilEME09 said:


> Looks like the vast majority don't trust the government to fix the problem, not surprising.


Yet, they will be re-elected again.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Haggis said:


> Yet, they will be re-elected again.



The current crop of alternatives are nothing to write home about either though. 

Choosing a politician to vote for is like trying to figure out which limb you want broken... all options suck. Some more than others. The sad part, is that for how corrupt and incompetent the current liberal government is, they will get re-elected because people don't believe they have a viable alternative at the moment; so they will put up with it instead of upsetting the apple cart.


----------



## dapaterson




----------



## OldSolduer

rmc_wannabe said:


> The current crop of alternatives are nothing to write home about either though.
> 
> Choosing a politician to vote for is like trying to figure out which limb you want broken... all options suck. Some more than others. The sad part, is that for how corrupt and incompetent the current liberal government is, they will get re-elected because people don't believe they have a viable alternative at the moment; so they will put up with it instead of upsetting the apple cart.


Sometimes its the devil you know that's the best option.


----------



## MilEME09

OldSolduer said:


> Sometimes its the devil you know that's the best option.


If our system allowed more options that would be great


----------



## Furniture

MilEME09 said:


> If our system allowed more options that would be great


Our system allows pretty much any option, people choose the same old flavours every time. 

Don't blame first past the post for people choosing politicians they know lie to them, blame the lazy, disinterested voters.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Committee reverses itself on wrapping up investigation into military misconduct​Link

However 



> But how much further the investigation will go was in doubt Friday as *Liberal committee members launched a filibuster to avoid a vote* on a Conservative motion to summon one more witness, a former senior adviser in the Prime Minister's Office.


----------



## Messerschmitt

MPs hear harrowing account of sexual assault in the military​


			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-sexual-misconduct-1.5995295
		




> "I am here today to tell you that I was raped only one month into my basic training at St. Jean (Que.)


Raped! Not "he placed his hand on my leg so I feel sexually assaulted. " 



> Boland, a retired lieutenant-colonel, told MPs that he while worked at DND headquarters in Ottawa, he was singled out for retribution after reporting the harassment of a junior female colleague by a senior engineering manager.


If a Lt-Col goes through this, there is no hope for this institution.


----------



## Kilted

Is it really wise to have members speaking publicly while there are ongoing investigations involving the alleged events that they are speaking about?  Aren't there enough cases that have been resolved that they could have looked into?


----------



## MJP

Kilted said:


> Is it really wise to have members speaking publicly while there are ongoing investigations involving the alleged events that they are speaking about?  Aren't there enough cases that have been resolved that they could have looked into?


Did you read the article? She and the others didn't discuss their specific cases rather their loss of agency in the process and in some cases their fears over a culture that shields perpetrators and is not conducive to supporting folks in coming forward. 

From the article:
_The committee steered clear of the specifics of the assaults involving all three women; chair Marilyn Gladu noted that some of the cases "remain under investigation by military police."_


----------



## Kilted

MJP said:


> Did you read the article? She and the others didn't discuss their specific cases rather their loss of agency in the process and in some cases their fears over a culture that shields perpetrators and is not conducive to supporting folks in coming forward.
> 
> From the article:
> _The committee steered clear of the specifics of the assaults involving all three women; chair Marilyn Gladu noted that some of the cases "remain under investigation by military police."_


I did read the article, while they may have avoided specifics, they were still referencing events that are under investigation.


----------



## MJP

Kilted said:


> I did read the article, while they may have avoided specifics, they were still referencing events that are under investigation.


So no one can ever reference things that are under investigation? They are after all trying to figure out why the CAF continues to fail at providing a safe environment for all employees.  They do have to  delve into areas and systemics faults that that have caused the issues.


----------



## TCM621

Messerschmitt said:


> MPs hear harrowing account of sexual assault in the military​
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-sexual-misconduct-1.5995295
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Raped! Not "he placed his hand on my leg so I feel sexually assaulted. "
> 
> 
> If a Lt-Col goes through this, there is no hope for this institution.



As terrible as that was for that person, it is just an anecdote. All it proves is that the CAF is not immune to the evils of society anymore than any other institution. The article gives little information as to the response by the military other than. It was "terrible" and felt like an "interrogation". That could be a result of the fact that she was going through a terrible experience and being probed for details was pleasant which I think is a problem all sexual assault investigations face or it could be that the investigators had poor people skill. There is a reason most large police forces have special sexual assault sections. It is a difficult job that requires a blend of compassion and dispassion that is hard to master. Part of it is training but part of it is natural. Women tend to be better at it because they are seen as less threatening than males but even then it is a difficult line to show compassion while remaining detached enough to properly investigate it. Our MP Detachments tend to be small and, frankly, the people staffing them aren't very well trained and/or experienced. Maybe a regional team that can be dispatched or a specialty position could be created but the threshold to get that position would have to be quite high or it could end up being a disaster..



MJP said:


> So no one can ever reference things that are under investigation? They are after all trying to figure out why the CAF continues to fail at providing a safe environment for all employees.  They do have to  delve into areas and systemics faults that that have caused the issues.



In general, it is better not to comment on things under investigation because it could cause issues with that investigation. For example, if the alleged victim is found to misrepresenting the incident publicly, it could damage her credibility and cause a charge to be dismissed. The same goes for the prosecution side.


----------



## Jarnhamar

​


Kilted said:


> I did read the article, while they may have avoided specifics, they were still referencing events that are under investigation.


I hate saying this but I feel like we're in a position in the CAF where in many cases the only way someone will see justice is to go to the media and essentially force the CAF to take something seriously and investigate.


----------



## PuckChaser

Jarnhamar said:


> I hate saying this but I feel like we're in a position in the CAF where in many cases the only way someone will see justice is to go to the media and essentially force the CAF to take something seriously and investigate.


I wonder if that'll work for trucks, chest rigs and service rifle upgrades?


----------



## OldSolduer

Jarnhamar said:


> ​
> I hate saying this but I feel like we're in a position in the CAF where in many cases the only way someone will see justice is to go to the media and essentially force the CAF to take something seriously and investigate.


That's exactly what we do in Corrections.


----------



## MilEME09

PuckChaser said:


> I wonder if that'll work for trucks, chest rigs and service rifle upgrades?


So like the CBC investigation done back in the 80s that looked at the state of the CAF? Another in depth story like that might work.


----------



## Furniture

TCM621 said:


> As terrible as that was for that person, it is just an anecdote. All it proves is that the CAF is not immune to the evils of society anymore than any other institution. The article gives little information as to the response by the military other than. It was "terrible" and felt like an "interrogation". That could be a result of the fact that she was going through a terrible experience and being probed for details was pleasant which I think is a problem all sexual assault investigations face or it could be that the investigators had poor people skill. There is a reason most large police forces have special sexual assault sections. It is a difficult job that requires a blend of compassion and dispassion that is hard to master. Part of it is training but part of it is natural. Women tend to be better at it because they are seen as less threatening than males but even then it is a difficult line to show compassion while remaining detached enough to properly investigate it. Our MP Detachments tend to be small and, frankly, the people staffing them aren't very well trained and/or experienced. Maybe a regional team that can be dispatched or a specialty position could be created but the threshold to get that position would have to be quite high or it could end up being a disaster..


Perhaps the CAF should look at getting local police forces to investigate these sorts of crimes, as the local police are more likely to have the expertise and experience to handle the investigation, particularly in larger centers where they have specialized units for the task.


----------



## Good2Golf

Furniture said:


> Perhaps the CAF should look at getting local police forces to investigate these sorts of crimes, as the local police are more likely to have the expertise and experience to handle the investigation, particularly in larger centers where they have specialized units for the task.


Wouldn’t it be better for provincial forces (SQ, OPP, RCMP under contract) than Muni forces?  Direct accountability to provincial SolGens, thence to.... 🤷🏻‍♂️ (Hesitant to say MND, sadly, given how that worked out recently)


----------



## dapaterson

One partial solution would be to amend NDA 18.3 to style the position of Provost Marshall as a mandatory GiC appointment (as the CDS, JAG and military judges are), removing the potential for inappropriate CDS influence on the appointment or, indeed, CDS refusal to appoint a PM.



> Canadian Forces Provost Marshal​Marginal note:Appointment
> 
> 
> *18.3* (1) The Chief of the Defence Staff may appoint an officer who has been a member of the military police for at least 10 years to be the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal (in this Act referred to as the “Provost Marshal”).
> Marginal note:Rank
> (2) The Provost Marshal holds a rank that is not less than colonel.
> Marginal note:Tenure of office and removal
> (3) The Provost Marshal holds office during good behaviour for a term not exceeding four years. The Chief of the Defence Staff may remove the Provost Marshal from office for cause on the recommendation of an inquiry committee established under regulations made by the Governor in Council.
> Marginal noteowers of inquiry committee
> (4) An inquiry committee has the same powers, rights and privileges — other than the power to punish for contempt — as are vested in a superior court of criminal jurisdiction with respect to
> (a) the attendance, swearing and examination of witnesses;
> (b) the production and inspection of documents;
> (c) the enforcement of its orders; and
> (d) all other matters necessary or proper for the due exercise of its jurisdiction.
> 
> Marginal note:Reappointment
> (5) The Provost Marshal is eligible to be reappointed on the expiry of a first or subsequent term of office.


----------



## OldSolduer

Good2Golf said:


> Wouldn’t it be better for provincial forces (SQ, OPP, RCMP under contract) than Muni forces?  Direct accountability to provincial SolGens, thence to.... 🤷🏻‍♂️ (Hesitant to say MND, sadly, given how that worked out recently)


I'd venture that the major centres - Toronto, Winnipeg, Vancouver etc etc Police forces have that sort of expertise. The smaller cities not so much.


----------



## MilEME09

OldSolduer said:


> I'd venture that the major centres - Toronto, Winnipeg, Vancouver etc etc Police forces have that sort of expertise. The smaller cities not so much.


Perhaps each base should then have a partner police force who is selected by the provost Marshall for these situations


----------



## dapaterson

Jon Vance: Baby Daddy (times two)









						Maj. Kellie Brennan tells MPs Vance said he was ‘untouchable,’ fathered 2 of her kids - National | Globalnews.ca
					

Brennan is one of the women at the heart of allegations first reported by Global News in February about former chief of the defence staff Gen. Jonathan Vance.




					globalnews.ca


----------



## Kilted

dapaterson said:


> Jon Vance: Baby Daddy (times two)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maj. Kellie Brennan tells MPs Vance said he was ‘untouchable,’ fathered 2 of her kids - National | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> Brennan is one of the women at the heart of allegations first reported by Global News in February about former chief of the defence staff Gen. Jonathan Vance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> globalnews.ca


The wording in this is confusing.  Is the article saying that Vance has two illegitimate children?


----------



## dapaterson

Kilted said:


> The wording in this is confusing.  Is the article saying that Vance has two illegitimate children?



The claim is that Jon Vance fathered two of her children, and subsequent testimony indicates that he has not paid support.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Easy for him to disprove should he have the confidence to do that....


----------



## Navy_Pete

Uh... wow.

I keep thinking we've bottomed out, and then...


----------



## Jarnhamar

Navy_Pete said:


> Uh... wow.
> 
> I keep thinking we've bottomed out, and then...


Oh I'm sure there's a few more close hold stories some reporters are prepping.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Navy_Pete said:


> Uh... wow.
> 
> I keep thinking we've bottomed out, and then...


Jarn beat me to it.........you know phone lines are being burnt up by reporters looking for more.


----------



## FJAG

dapaterson said:


> One partial solution would be to amend NDA 18.3 to style the position of Provost Marshall as a mandatory GiC appointment (as the CDS, JAG and military judges are), removing the potential for inappropriate CDS influence on the appointment or, indeed, CDS refusal to appoint a PM.


They'd better add a "how to charge and try a wayward CDS, JAG, mil judge and PM" provision to that amendment.


----------



## dapaterson

FJAG said:


> They'd better add a "how to charge and try a wayward CDS, JAG, mil judge and PM" provision to that amendment.


Or, you know, the GiC could just remove them and replace them (other than a judge) by stipulating that they serve at pleasure.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Navy_Pete said:


> Uh... wow.
> 
> I keep thinking we've bottomed out, and then...


I watched this testimony live stream.  It was a shocking statement.


----------



## Furniture

Good2Golf said:


> Wouldn’t it be better for provincial forces (SQ, OPP, RCMP under contract) than Muni forces?  Direct accountability to provincial SolGens, thence to.... 🤷🏻‍♂️ (Hesitant to say MND, sadly, given how that worked out recently)


I was thinking RCMP initially, but said local in the end as I believe Halifax, Victoria, Edmonton, Ottawa, etc. police are more than capable, and smaller forces would likely call in the larger forces if they lacked the requisite skills/experience. 

Obviously it would have to be coordinated at the federal/provincial level, but the main point is that the experts should be doing it.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Kilted said:


> The wording in this is confusing.  Is the article saying that Vance has two illegitimate children?



I think it's saying that Vance is in deeper shit than we first thought ...


----------



## FJAG

dapaterson said:


> Or, you know, the GiC could just remove them and replace them (other than a judge) by stipulating that they serve at pleasure.


There's that but sometimes what is needed is a good jailing.

🍻


----------



## OldSolduer

daftandbarmy said:


> I think it's saying that Vance is in deeper shit than we first thought ...


As the Brits day;
 I’m fucking gobsmacked


----------



## Kilted

dapaterson said:


> The claim is that Jon Vance fathered two of her children, and subsequent testimony indicates that he has not paid support.


It's either the worse episode of Game of Thrones, or the best episode of Jerry Springer.


----------



## Jarnhamar

_* desire to do DLN courses intensifies *_


----------



## dangerboy

I would like to know how this is going to be different from the Canadian Armed Forces Ombudsman.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-racism-sexual-misconduct-vance-mcdonald-1.5998754


----------



## lenaitch

Furniture said:


> I was thinking RCMP initially, but said local in the end as I believe Halifax, Victoria, Edmonton, Ottawa, etc. police are more than capable, and smaller forces would likely call in the larger forces if they lacked the requisite skills/experience.
> 
> Obviously it would have to be coordinated at the federal/provincial level, but the main point is that the experts should be doing it.



I suppose it would be do-able on a contract or cost-recovery agreement, depending on the scope (sexual offences only?).  For larger locations, such as Ottawa, Gagetown, Borden, etc., you would be adding several thousand people to their 'population'.  For areas policed by the RCMP, OPP, SQ, the forces might be large but the local detachment resources are geared to the local workload.   I can't readily think of an instance in Ontario where a 'smaller police force' would be impacted.  Crime units aren't like fire departments sitting around waiting for the bell to go off; in OPP-land, they are already run off their feet as it is.

And what about incidents on deployments, or where witnesses, etc. are currently on deployment?   Even on a cost-recovery basis, out-of-country investigative travel can create logistical and investigative problems for civilian agencies.


----------



## daftandbarmy

lenaitch said:


> I suppose it would be do-able on a contract or cost-recovery agreement, depending on the scope (sexual offences only?).  For larger locations, such as Ottawa, Gagetown, Borden, etc., you would be adding several thousand people to their 'population'.  For areas policed by the RCMP, OPP, SQ, the forces might be large but the local detachment resources are geared to the local workload.   I can't readily think of an instance in Ontario where a 'smaller police force' would be impacted.  Crime units aren't like fire departments sitting around waiting for the bell to go off; in OPP-land, they are already run off their feet as it is.
> 
> *And what about incidents on deployments, or where witnesses, etc. are currently on deployment?   Even on a cost-recovery basis, out-of-country investigative travel can create logistical and investigative problems for civilian agencies.*



Our SNCO Corps are the backbone of any disciplinary practises in the military. The more support we give them, the better things will get.

Sadly, it seems we've frittered away their powers to the point where, ironically, the most senior are the least powerful, like the 'Command Chief' type folks who seem little more than bag holders for their bosses when, in fact, they should be helping to keep their bosses in line along with the rest of us riff raff


----------



## OldSolduer

dangerboy said:


> I would like to know how this is going to be different from the Canadian Armed Forces Ombudsman.
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-racism-sexual-misconduct-vance-mcdonald-1.5998754


It’s a “look we’re taking action” window dressing initiative.
That’s what I see here.


----------



## Loachman

Jarnhamar said:


> I hate saying this but I feel like we're in a position in the CAF where in many cases the only way someone will see justice is to go to the media and essentially force the CAF to take something seriously and investigate.


A few decades ago, I was asked by a female Corporal to be her Assisting Officer in an extremely troubling (to me as well) non-sexual harassment case. Her unit had consistently and continually stonewalled her while supporting her harasser, who was mistreating other women in his section the same way. At least one of the supporters of the harasser was a female Captain, which rather shocked me. My "client" even received written death threats, which she handed to the local MP platoon - who quickly "lost" them.

She ultimately approached media, out of desperation, the day prior to contacting me, and appeared in an interview on television that night.

I was posted out a month or two later, before I was able to complete work on her grievance, but managed to find another Captain well-versed in grievance procedures, who was successful.

I had a hard time believing that crap like that happened in the Canadian Forces, but her story was consistent and well-documented (including three supporting statements from other victims) and gave me no choice.

I'd like to think that things have improved since then. Such a hope appears to be futile, but at least these cases are receiving more attention and perhaps some corrections are beginning to take effect.

I know Bernie Boland, mentioned in one of the earlier articles, as well, but have not seen him since 1989. He was a good guy then, and that has obviously not changed.


----------



## Loachman

daftandbarmy said:


> Our SNCO Corps are the backbone of any disciplinary practises in the military.


They are not immune to transgressions, either, unfortunately.

See my last post.

The harasser was either a Sergeant or Warrant Officer. I forget which.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Loachman said:


> I had a hard time believing that crap like that happened in the Canadian Forces, but her story was consistent and well-documented (including three supporting statements from other victims) and gave me no choice.


I think it's hard to believe for anyone unless they see it first hand. I wouldn't be surprised if things are as bad today as they we're 20 or 30 years ago despite all enlightenment.


----------



## SupersonicMax

daftandbarmy said:


> Our SNCO Corps are the backbone of any disciplinary practises in the military. The more support we give them, the better things will get.
> 
> Sadly, it seems we've frittered away their powers to the point where, ironically, the most senior are the least powerful, like the 'Command Chief' type folks who seem little more than bag holders for their bosses when, in fact, they should be helping to keep their bosses in line along with the rest of us riff raff


You mean giving people like WO (Retd) Gagnon more power?



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/gagon-military-miscondct-1.5965518


----------



## Jarnhamar

I wonder what our 40-day sexual misconduct forecast looks like.

8/13 court martial proceedings

23 April - sexual assault
27 April - sexual assault
30 April - sexual assault
05 May - sexual assault
10 May - sexual assault
31 May - sexual assault, sexual assault causing bodily harm, forcible confinement, harassing communications, 
31 May - sexual assault
31 Mat - sexual assault


----------



## PMedMoe

dapaterson said:


> The claim is that Jon Vance fathered two of her children, and subsequent testimony indicates that he has not paid support.





Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Easy for him to disprove should he have the confidence to do that....


Court ordered DNA tests would prove or disprove that.


----------



## OldSolduer

Loachman said:


> They are not immune to transgressions, either, unfortunately.
> 
> See my last post.
> 
> The harasser was either a Sergeant or Warrant Officer. I forget which.


You are correct .


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

PMedMoe said:


> Court ordered DNA tests would prove or disprove that.


Would the court have that authority?


----------



## OldSolduer

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Would the court have that authority?


That’s a question best answered by FJAG but some of our guests are ordered by the courts to submit to DNA tests.
In a matter of paternity I think maybe it could be ordered


----------



## PMedMoe

It might only matter if she is seeking child support.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

But these guests have been convicted of crimes that warranted a DNA entry in tge database.
So far Mr. Vance hasn't been convicted of anything.


----------



## OldSolduer

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> But these guests have been convicted of crimes that warranted a DNA entry in tge database.
> So far Mr. Vance hasn't been convicted of anything.


You’re correct but hypothetically speaking I think - I’m not a lawyer - a judge could order the defendant to submit a DNA sample in child support cases.

I've looked at it briefly and in Ontario I believe you can be ordered to submit your DNA sample in order to determine paternity.

And the PM needs to STFU.


----------



## FJAG

A judge may make an order in criminal cases (including under the NDA) in certain circumstances providing for DNA swabbing and analysis. I do not see any statutory reason that is applicable for that in these circumstances.

In family law cases a court can make an order compelling a blood test for paternity cases, however, that does not mean that a swab or sample will be taken coercively. Instead, if a party does not submit to a DNA test, the court may make an adverse finding and declare that paternity exists. A request for such an order would have to come from a party to the proceeding, typically the mother. I don't see the mother, in this case, making such an application as she seems to be satisfied with the status quo vis a vis paternity and non support.

Missing my popcorn emoji. 

🍻


----------



## dapaterson

I do not think she is satisfied with status quo. And I suspect a non-zero number of lawyers will be approaching her to offer support in obtaining (a) support from the genetic donor and (b) support from the institution which employed the donor and did not adequately constrain his behaviours.

TL;DR CFLA's gonna have some work to do.


----------



## MilEME09

PM’s chief of staff Katie Telford was aware of concerns about Vance in 2018, former aide says
					

Former senior aide testifies he acted as PMO go-between with Defence Minister’s staff and Privy Council Office on the matter




					www.theglobeandmail.com
				




The revelations continue.


----------



## Journeyman

SupersonicMax said:


> You mean giving people like WO (Retd) Gagnon more power?
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/gagon-military-miscondct-1.5965518


Not weighing in on this thread, but what cap badge is that?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Journeyman: It's the Regiment de la Chaudiere cap badge.


----------



## antique

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Journeyman: It's the Regiment de la Chaudiere cap badge.


Hello!

I have been reading just about evreything on this site without commenting very much as I am a very old man that left some decades ago and not too much in touch with today's militari.
Please bear with me as I will try to explain my toughts on this matter.
Back in 1968 I was a very young Army Cpl. that got posted to the then ERFC (CFRS) in St-jean along with 3 other young Cpls. I was just turning 22 years old ( Just about 3 years in). Did not what I was getting into. But as I had just returned from 2 R 22e R in Werl Germany, one thing I learned was discipline. In those days, a Cpl would be in charge of a whole platoon of recruits and a Sgt would supervise 2 platoons.

So, I get there and find out that most staff pers. were Air Force . The school CO was a Navy LtCdr , the school senior NCO was an AF MWO.. But the Base CWO was a Black Watch!

2 days later I get called in by the Base CWO who gave me a stern lecture about fraternizing. Stern but to the point NO!! Because there were female recruits in the language school which CFRS staff had no business with.

At that time Cornwallis was still running Basic for females not St-Jean.  A couple of years later we started getting female recruits in ERFC.

Second talk with the base CWO who handed me a piece of paper to sign. Written instructions about fraternizing with female subordinates.  Clear , consised and to the point including what will happen to me if I dare bypass the order.

I know that some will say that the good old days were not so good now I would agree not evreything was perfect but let me say that we tried hard. Discipline is still,I think, the key . Does not matter if you are a Pvt. or the CDS it applies to all.

Make the regulations clear and do not hesitate to take on those who don't follow the rules.

Lead by example was the word then and to my aged mind is still the way to go. Discipline does not have to be harsh but fair and equal .

Sorry if I may have offended some and do not paly in the politically correct scene


----------



## mariomike

antique said:


> Discipline is still,I think, the key .


Our instructors told us, "When you learn to embrace the discipline, what follows will be easier."


----------



## Jarnhamar

mariomike said:


> Our instructors told us, "When you learn to embrace the discipline, what follows will be easier."


_The loyal hound learns to love the lash._


----------



## Journeyman

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Journeyman: It's the Regiment de la Chaudiere cap badge.


Thank you


----------



## brihard

Journeyman said:


> Not weighing in on this thread, but what cap badge is that?


Hold one here. Did _Journeyman_ just ask the rest of us what someone’s wearing on his hat? And we didn’t immediately call him on his BS?


----------



## SupersonicMax

antique said:


> Hello!
> 
> I have been reading just about evreything on this site without commenting very much as I am a very old man that left some decades ago and not too much in touch with today's militari.
> Please bear with me as I will try to explain my toughts on this matter.
> Back in 1968 I was a very young Army Cpl. that got posted to the then ERFC (CFRS) in St-jean along with 3 other young Cpls. I was just turning 22 years old ( Just about 3 years in). Did not what I was getting into. But as I had just returned from 2 R 22e R in Werl Germany, one thing I learned was discipline. In those days, a Cpl would be in charge of a whole platoon of recruits and a Sgt would supervise 2 platoons.
> 
> So, I get there and find out that most staff pers. were Air Force . The school CO was a Navy LtCdr , the school senior NCO was an AF MWO.. But the Base CWO was a Black Watch!
> 
> 2 days later I get called in by the Base CWO who gave me a stern lecture about fraternizing. Stern but to the point NO!! Because there were female recruits in the language school which CFRS staff had no business with.
> 
> At that time Cornwallis was still running Basic for females not St-Jean.  A couple of years later we started getting female recruits in ERFC.
> 
> Second talk with the base CWO who handed me a piece of paper to sign. Written instructions about fraternizing with female subordinates.  Clear , consised and to the point including what will happen to me if I dare bypass the order.
> 
> I know that some will say that the good old days were not so good now I would agree not evreything was perfect but let me say that we tried hard. Discipline is still,I think, the key . Does not matter if you are a Pvt. or the CDS it applies to all.
> 
> Make the regulations clear and do not hesitate to take on those who don't follow the rules.
> 
> Lead by example was the word then and to my aged mind is still the way to go. Discipline does not have to be harsh but fair and equal .
> 
> Sorry if I may have offended some and do not paly in the politically correct scene


Except the regulation regarding this is fairly clear.    And don’t be fooled: fraternization and sexual assault happened in your time. It was just kept more quiet.  More regulation will not help with this issue.  Our culture needs to change.


----------



## OldSolduer

SupersonicMax said:


> Except the regulation regarding this is fairly clear.    And don’t be fooled: fraternization and sexual assault happened in your time. It was just kept more quiet.  More regulation will not help with this issue.  Our culture needs to change.


Enforce the ones on the books already.


----------



## MilEME09

OldSolduer said:


> Enforce the ones on the books already.


Enforcement is our problem across the board, in discipline, standards, fitness, the whole 9 yards.


----------



## daftandbarmy

MilEME09 said:


> Enforcement is our problem across the board, in discipline, standards, fitness, the whole 9 yards.



And the SNCO is the primary instrument of enforcement. We forget that, or diminish that role, at our peril:

A TIMELESS STRENGTH: THE ARMY’S SENIOR NCO CORPS

Senior NCOs “...are the link connecting soldiers to their officers and officers to their soldiers. Their role is to translate the intentions of commanders into action.”16 This interpretation is rooted in law. The Queen’s Regulations and Orders specify the general responsibilities of all non-commissioned officers. These include the observance and enforcement of regulations, rules, orders and instructions; promoting good discipline, welfare and efficiency of all who are subordinate to the member; and reporting to the proper authority any infringement of the pertinent statutes, regulations, rules, orders and instructions governing the conduct of any person subject to the Code of Service Discipline.

Simply put, the senior NCO conducts the daily business of an army. He is expected to carry out instructions to achieve the institutional aim, as well as ensure the well-being of the soldiers. He is also trusted to pass on the ethos and traditions of the military in general, and the respective regiment in particular. Furthermore, he is required to pass on and explain directives from his superiors to his subordinates, as well as ensure that all direction is efficiently and effectively executed. 

In addition, there is a justified expectation by officers that the senior NCO has a more up-to-date and accurate insight into the general feeling and morale of the rank and file, and that potential problems or discontent are passed up the chain of command. This sentiment was clearly articulated in 1880, by then Colonel William Otter, in his Guide: A Manual for the Canadian Militia. Otter explained that it was essential that NCOs know intimately all of the characters and capabilities of their men. In regard to the Sergeant Major, he insisted that he must be an advisor to the unit Adjutant and, in general, act as “the eyes, ears and conscience of the battalion.”



			http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo3/no2/doc/39-48-eng.pdf


----------



## SupersonicMax

Exce


daftandbarmy said:


> And the SNCO is the primary instrument of enforcement. We forget that, or diminish that role, at our peril:


Except that some SNCOs are also guilty of perpetrating what we are accusing people of doing.  I don’t think that task, at least for inappropriate sexual behaviour, should be carried out by SNCOs.


----------



## MilEME09

SupersonicMax said:


> Exce
> 
> Except that some SNCOs are also guilty of perpetrating what we are accusing people of doing.  I don’t think that task, at least for inappropriate sexual behaviour, should be carried out by SNCOs.


Agreed we need an agency external from the chain of command to handle this now. We have flopped to hard publicly to be trusted to do this right.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

SupersonicMax said:


> Except the regulation regarding this is fairly clear.    And don’t be fooled: fraternization and sexual assault happened in your time. It was just kept more quiet.  More regulation will not help with this issue.  Our culture needs to change.


I have heard people, including you, say that our culture needs to change. I have yet to hear anyone say, concretely, what the end state culture should be and how, exactly, we go about changing.

I am not trolling. I am genuinely curious how people think we should do this. No general platitudes, please.


----------



## Haggis

daftandbarmy said:


> And the SNCO is the primary instrument of enforcement. We forget that, or diminish that role at our peril


The emasculation of the CAF NCM Corps began in the mid-1990s and continued for about a decade at least. The responsibility for discipline was taken from the NCMs and not fully adopted by the Officer Corps. This has led us to where we are now as the junior leaders of that era are the senior leaders of today.


----------



## MilEME09

Haggis said:


> The emasculation of the CAF NCM Corps began in the mid-1990s and continued for about a decade at least. The responsibility for discipline was taken from the NCMs and not fully adopted by the Officer Corps. This has led us to where we are now as the junior leaders of that era are rhe senior leaders of today.


And in the PRes, this BS push of the 4 year Sgt isn't helping either. Now I have people with barely any time in not allowing me to write up a troop with not replying to any calls, or emails because it would look bad om the members just starting career


----------



## OldSolduer

The backbone of the Army is the WOs and Sgts. They need to be empowered to enforce the five Ds - anyone remember them?
Dress, Deportment, Discipline, Drill and Duties.
They also need to be reined in when it’s needed.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

SeaKingTacco said:


> No general platitudes, please.


I served with him!


----------



## FJAG

OldSolduer said:


> The backbone of the Army is the WOs and Sgts. They need to be empowered to enforce the five Ds - anyone remember them?
> Dress, Deportment, Discipline, Drill and Duties.
> They also need to be reined in when it’s needed.


All of us who were combat arms officers (and probably quite a few others (except pilots maybe) have essentially received the vast majority of our basic DP1 training at the hands of Snr NCOs. Certainly in the artillery those AIGs were highly knowledgeable and were excellent examples of what a Snr NCO ought to be. As a young Lt GPO and later as a Cpt Troop Commander I wouldn't for a minute think of "managing" the troops. That was the NCO's jobs. If I had an issue with how things were done, I'd have a cup of coffee with my troop sergeant major, and later in life, my battery sergeant major, and we would work out what I wanted and he'd make it happen and fix whatever the problem was. They didn't need empowerment - they were empowered - my job was to leave it that way.

🍻


----------



## YZT580

this is not to position myself in the male chauvinist thing but what else besides what has happened did you expect would happen when you combine a bunch of healthy young ladies in the same confined area as a bunch of healthy young gentlemen?  You can write all the rules you want but at the end of the day genetics will reign.  As proven by the career that they have chosen, soldiers are stoked with excess testosterone in the same way as many athletes are and react accordingly.  Regardless of right or wrong morally they consider the stalking and seduction of said females as their unalienated right, a concept that pre-dates confederation by many dozens of centuries: it is simply a natural process and there is nothing that you either can or should do anything about.


----------



## SupersonicMax

YZT580 said:


> this is not to position myself in the male chauvinist thing but what else besides what has happened did you expect would happen when you combine a bunch of healthy young ladies in the same confined area as a bunch of healthy young gentlemen?  You can write all the rules you want but at the end of the day genetics will reign.  As proven by the career that they have chosen, soldiers are stoked with excess testosterone in the same way as many athletes are and react accordingly.  Regardless of right or wrong morally they consider the stalking and seduction of said females as their unalienated right, a concept that pre-dates confederation by many dozens of centuries: it is simply a natural process and there is nothing that you either can or should do anything about.


That was the stance of Gen Lawson.  It didn’t go so well for him.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

SupersonicMax said:


> That was the stance of Gen Lawson.  It didn’t go so well for him.


Fine. But what is the solution?


----------



## SupersonicMax

SeaKingTacco said:


> Fine. But what is the solution?


I do not know.  But status quo isn’t it.  The CAF should submit itself to an independent review by experts. The findings and recommendations should be embraced by leadership rather than the behaviour “brushed up” by the CDS as “boys be boys.”  That’s the only way to dig ourselves out of the PR hole we are digging.  Only when leadership embraces a truly inclusive, appropriate work environment can the culture start changing, from the top.  The culture will take years to change but I think we’ve already improved from even 10 years ago.  I feel the generations after the boomers/early X have less tolerance for inappropriate sexual behaviours and are not as prone to cover it up.


----------



## ballz

MilEME09 said:


> Enforcement is our problem across the board, in discipline, standards, fitness, the whole 9 yards.



Agreed, going back to my earlier post about the FAA violations. The problem is not a culture of sexual misconduct, it's a culture of no accountability and sexual misconduct is just a symptom, as is FAA violations, and the many others mentioned in this thread. If you have no accountability you will have lots of problems... sexual misconduct, FAA violations, poor training standards, poor fitness, poor material management practices, etc. and we have all of those things and more.



daftandbarmy said:


> And the SNCO is the primary instrument of enforcement. We forget that, or diminish that role, at our peril:



That may be true, but I've seen that confused with the fact that officers should not be involved in discipline and it's nonsense. SNCOs are the primary instrument of enforcement because that's what they are tasked with, not because it's some privilege bestowed upon them by God himself for which they can never be questioned, which is the way I've seen it treated when an officer tries to hold the SNCO accountable for _not_ being very good at enforcement.

I am also pretty sure you are familiar with "tone from the top," so if there's no accountability across the CAF, up down and across the ranks, we know who to blame.



OldSolduer said:


> The backbone of the Army is the WOs and Sgts. They need to be empowered to enforce the five Ds - anyone remember them?
> Dress, Deportment, Discipline, Drill and Duties.
> They also need to be reined in when it’s needed.



When it comes to discipline, I think this "SNCOs are not empowered" stuff is BS, but an open to hearing why I'm wrong. But I have never seen a SNCO who wants to enforce a higher standard, enforce discipline, be that hard-charging, old school, hard-as-nails mother f*cker we all want, ever be stopped or discouraged from doing so (well unless we count the time I witnessed a literal assault...). I've only ever seen them be rewarded for it. And quite honestly I've never actually heard one complain about it or tell me a story about a time they tried to smash a MCpl/Cpl/Pte and got stonewalled.

I have seen some RSMs/CSMs be very poor at using/applying the disciplinary system, and perhaps some creative lawyering that's made that difficult if that's what you're getting at (i.e. the whole negligent discharge fiasco).

What I have seen is many who choose the easy path, and the junior officers they work for get castrated by their OC and/or CO when they try and hold those WOs/SNCOs accountable, which has been my experience numerous times and I've seen it happen to other junior officers.

If we wanna talk about empowering SNCOs when it comes to the ability to train troops, then I'd agree,  but let's not confuse that with enforcing discipline. When it comes to training I'd say that same problem applies to SNCOs, Junior Officers, Senior Officers, Commanding Officers, and Brigade Commanders. They all have zero empowerment when it comes to training, and it's a travesty. But on the discipline side, I don't see it.


----------



## ballz

Haggis said:


> The emasculation of the CAF NCM Corps began in the mid-1990s and continued for about a decade at least. The responsibility for discipline was taken from the NCMs and not fully adopted by the Officer Corps. This has led us to where we are now as the junior leaders of that era are the senior leaders of today.



I would be super interested if you could elaborate on this observation a bit more.


----------



## PMedMoe

YZT580 said:


> this is not to position myself in the male chauvinist thing but what else besides what has happened did you expect would happen when you combine a bunch of healthy young ladies in the same confined area as a bunch of healthy young gentlemen?  You can write all the rules you want but at the end of the day genetics will reign.  As proven by the career that they have chosen, soldiers are stoked with excess testosterone in the same way as many athletes are and react accordingly.  Regardless of right or wrong morally they consider the stalking and seduction of said females as their unalienated right, a concept that pre-dates confederation by many dozens of centuries: it is simply a natural process and there is nothing that you either can or should do anything about.


If someone can't keep it in their pants, we can always try chemical castration.

There's a _*huge*_ difference between a consensual sexual relationship and sexual assault.

"Stalk and seduce" all you want, but if she says no, she means no. That's not an invitation for you to try harder.


----------



## Jarnhamar

SupersonicMax said:


> I do not know.  But status quo isn’t it.



We need more transparent punishment. 

Privates get hauled out in front of a unit and punished. The higher in rank you go the more likely you'll have a closed doors trial, or trial when the majority of the unit is away. 

A SNCO or WO the unit counts on for a million things will receive less punishment, if any, than what a troop gets.  Likewise for officers. LT gets evicerated for a an insignificant thing while a LCol skates away. 

Victims of founded harasent in the CAF don't even get told what punishment is being given their aggressor, they just get told harassment was founded. Not a lot of closure there. 

Maybe while we're at it we should revamp our promotion system to figure out how to catch these people from getting promoted. It may also prevent the inclination to not punish someone because of career implications or an upcoming command role. 

If Jon Vance skates away from this without an actual trial or an obvious and transparent attempt to discern guilt then it`s status quo for the next 20.


----------



## Good2Golf

SeaKingTacco said:


> Fine. But what is the solution?


Salt peter.  It sort of worked in the 40s...


----------



## Haggis

ballz said:


> I would be super interested if you could elaborate on this observation a bit more.


Somalia and the associated hazing videos here and in the US were the catalysts for the CAF to decide that the NCO Corps had failed at supervising and "corrective action". From this came changes to the military justice system.  Although the NDA clearly laid out that NCMs could lay charges, in many cases that power was relegated to either MWO/CWO or unit officers.  Having NCOs deal with minor improper behaviour through informal means - while never an ideal COA - was pretty much forbidden.  Military law training for NCOs was scaled back and delivered at a higher level, thus removing the ability for junior NCOs to effectively understand and use the CSD.

Then came new training, new procedures and new programs such as SHARP, which many older NCMs felt complicated and hamstrung their ability to sort out young shitbirds.  So, they quit doing it for fear of sanctions under the new regime when soldiers who were "sorted out" went running to their HAs in droves..  They began to look the other way.

An unintended consequence was that young officers, who in the past were "guided" by these same NCOs, now lacked that guidance and started to self-police quite ineffectively. (_As a CSM, I had an OC once who referred to our female soldiers as "crack troops" and "split asses".  After he failed to heed my advice to stop, I went to the RSM.  He was removed as OC but made it all the way to Colonel before retiring.  His impression of women in the CAF wasn't changed by that event._) A small number of these officers are now GO/FOs.

Although the CDA made great strides to attempt to professionalize the NCM Corps beginning in 2003, (Duty with Honour, NCM Corps 2020 etc.) these NCMs were being led by those self-policed officers, now at the field and command grades.  

On the inappropriate sexual behaviour front, these conditions brought about the birth of Operation HONOUR, which was response to the institutional failings of the CAF writ large and the NCM Corps to stomp on such conduct before it became an issue.  Now, we have a WComd who sexually assaulted a number of women and murdered one of his own troops and the architect of Operation HONOUR, and his successor, are accused of the very conduct the program was intended to prevent.


----------



## Journeyman

brihard said:


> Hold one here. Did _Journeyman_ just ask the rest of us what someone’s wearing on his hat? And we didn’t immediately call him on his BS?


AND.... I said "thank you" for the response.  I'm often out of place with some 'discussions.'


----------



## daftandbarmy

Haggis said:


> Somalia and the associated hazing videos here and in the US were the catalysts for the CAF to decide that the NCO Corps had failed at supervising and "corrective action". From this came changes to the military justice system.  Although the NDA clearly laid out that NCMs could lay charges, in many cases that power was relegated to either MWO/CWO or unit officers.  Having NCOs deal with minor improper behaviour through informal means - while never an ideal COA - was pretty much forbidden.  Military law training for NCOs was scaled back and delivered at a higher level, thus removing the ability for junior NCOs to effectively understand and use the CSD.
> 
> Then came new training, new procedures and new programs such as SHARP, which many older NCMs felt complicated and hamstrung their ability to sort out young shitbirds.  So, they quit doing it for fear of sanctions under the new regime when soldiers who were "sorted out" went running to their HAs in droves..  They began to look the other way.
> 
> An unintended consequence was that young officers, who in the past were "guided" by these same NCOs, now lacked that guidance and started to self-police quite ineffectively. (_As a CSM, I had an OC once who referred to our female soldiers as "crack troops" and "split asses".  After he failed to heed my advice to stop, I went to the RSM.  He was removed as OC but made it all the way to Colonel before retiring.  His impression of women in the CAF wasn't changed by that event._) A small number of these officers are now GO/FOs.
> 
> Although the CDA made great strides to attempt to professionalize the NCM Corps beginning in 2003, (Duty with Honour, NCM Corps 2020 etc.) these NCMs were being led by those self-policed officers, now at the field and command grades.
> 
> On the inappropriate sexual behaviour front, these conditions brought about the birth of Operation HONOUR, which was response to the institutional failings of the CAF writ large and the NCM Corps to stomp on such conduct before it became an issue.  Now, we have a WComd who sexually assaulted a number of women and murdered one of his own troops and the architect of Operation HONOUR, and his successor, are accused of the very conduct the program was intended to prevent.



Nailed it.

You forgot one other problem.... dangling an Officer's Commission in front of the the SNCO Corps as the 'apogee of professional achievement'. 

This can have the effect of ruining a good SNCO who can start to ape the worst attributes of commissioned members in an effort to try to be one of the in-crowd when, in fact, (as in your excellent example of calling out a misogynist Major) they should be keeping an eye on all of us, and encouraged, supported and rewarded to do so.

One of the worst examples of the erosion of the role of the most senior SNCOs in recent years is the 'Command Team' concept, borrowed from the Yanks, where the Commander and his 'mini-me' SNCO (all the way up to CAF Level) are portrayed as a great buddy team. They are not, and nor should they be, as their roles in the great scheme of things are much different. That relationship should be characterized by 'dynamic tension' as opposed to incense adorned harmony. 

There probably shouldn't even be a 'Command RSM', above the regimental/ unit level anyways as they are supremely disconnected from the daily goings on of the troops, which puts them in the ridiculous and toothless position of riding a chair in a HQ like any other staff Officer. If the Commander needs the daily advice of the most experienced and high performing SNCO we have, we really haven't developed our Commanders' leadership capabilities very well. The talents of that SNCO are wasted, in other words.

We need to find other ways to reward high performing SNCOs, and incent other SNCOs to be more like them while ruthlessly culling the chaff from the wheat. Then give them the tools and leeway to do their jobs, backed with the right oversight and support.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

daftandbarmy said:


> Nailed it.
> 
> You forgot one other problem.... dangling an Officer's Commission in front of the the SNCO Corps as the 'apogee of professional achievement'.
> 
> This can have the effect of ruining a good SNCO who can start to ape the worst attributes of commissioned members in an effort to try to be one of the in-crowd when, in fact, (as in your excellent example of calling out a misogynist Major) they should be keeping an eye on all of us, and encouraged, supported and rewarded to do so.
> 
> One of the worst examples of the erosion of the role of the most senior SNCOs in recent years is the 'Command Team' concept, borrowed from the Yanks, where the Commander and his 'mini-me' SNCO (all the way up to CAF Level) are portrayed as a great buddy team. They are not, and nor should they be, as their roles in the great scheme of things are much different. That relationship should be characterized by 'dynamic tension' as opposed to incense adorned harmony.
> 
> There probably shouldn't even be a 'Command RSM', above the regimental/ unit level anyways as they are supremely disconnected from the daily goings on of the troops, which puts them in the ridiculous and toothless position of riding a chair in a HQ like any other staff Officer. If the Commander needs the daily advice of the most experienced and high performing SNCO we have, we really haven't developed our Commanders' leadership capabilities very well. The talents of that SNCO are wasted, in other words.
> 
> We need to find other ways to reward high performing SNCOs, and incent other SNCOs to be more like them while ruthlessly culling the chaff from the wheat. Then give them the tools and leeway to do their jobs, backed with the right oversight and support.


D&B gives voice to something I have been quietly wondering about lately.

What effect on unit training, discipline and effectiveness has been inflicted on the CAF by the creation of the mutitude of “special advisor and Command Team“ CWO positions above unit level? All of those positions have to be fed by promoting and removing from unit lines (presumably) otherwise effective NCMs. In my unit, it has certainly created churn that did not exist before. MWOs, whom I remember as godlike creatures very few officers and no Cpl would dare cross, are now tourists in unit. They do a minimum of time, don’t really know the troops or their jobs and get moved to “bigger and better“ things, quickly. We now treat unit time, which should be the most important time in the CAF, because that is where we deliver effects from, is seen by both upwardly mobile NCMs and Officers as a check in the box to endure as quickly as possible.

Now, make no mistake in this critque: Officers (every single commissioned officer in the CAF) is personally charged with the maintenance  of discipline (go read your commissioning scroll, again). But, the primary tool is through NCMs. The best NCMs I have worked with also keep an eye on officers and have a quiet word with them when things go off the rails or if it is really serious, do not hesitate to go above them to their bosses to get corrective action taken. How effective are you as an officer,  if all your tools have been dulled, stolen or broken?

I will circle this all back to discipline and sexual harassment: If we were to de-emphasize promotions and slow down postings so that people spend more time within their various units, I would posit that we would all have an incentive to know all of our subordinates and promote their welfare and would be less likely to try and kick the can on problem children down the road, which is easy to do on a two year posting cycle, which sets up a culture of impunity, because when you begin kicking cans down the road, the loss of  accountability is inevitable. Rory Fowler, a civilian defence and former infantry officer has an excellent blog post on this.









						(It’s) the Impunity, Stupid
					

(It’s) the Impunity, Stupid     I’ll be blunt: the problem with sexual misconduct in the Canadian Forces (CF) is not the sexual nature of the misconduct.  To paraphrase James Carville: “(It’s) the impunity, stupid.”  While sexual misconduct can represent a particularly pernicious type of...




					roryfowlerlaw.com
				




My 2 cents. Critique away.


----------



## Haggis

On one occasion, as a WO, I took my officer aside and had a "Do you know why the troops hate you, sir?" talk.  Politely, but it needed to be done.

I had occasions as a CWO (and MWO) where I had to say "sir/ma'am, that's not a good idea, and here's why".  But when the officer said "gotcha, Sergeant Major, we're doing it this way anyways", I put my heels together and got it done.  

All this being said, NCMs must remain cognizant of their station in the green machine and give counsel with that in mind.  Even the newest 2Lt outranks the RSM. Under the NDA, in any game Rock-Paper-Rank, rank always wins.


----------



## ballz

Jarnhamar said:


> We need more transparent punishment.
> 
> Privates get hauled out in front of a unit and punished. The higher in rank you go the more likely you'll have a closed doors trial, or trial when the majority of the unit is away.
> 
> A SNCO or WO the unit counts on for a million things will receive less punishment, if any, than what a troop gets.  Likewise for officers. LT gets evicerated for a an insignificant thing while a LCol skates away.
> 
> Victims of founded harasent in the CAF don't even get told what punishment is being given their aggressor, they just get told harassment was founded. Not a lot of closure there.
> 
> Maybe while we're at it we should revamp our promotion system to figure out how to catch these people from getting promoted. It may also prevent the inclination to not punish someone because of career implications or an upcoming command role.
> 
> If Jon Vance skates away from this without an actual trial or an obvious and transparent attempt to discern guilt then it`s status quo for the next 20.



I've been thinking about this recently too. I think remedial measures need to be public. Not necessarily the entire narrative, but even just "IC for conduct" or "RW for performance," maybe with "related to x date / time period" or "issued on...."

I know Remedial Measures are not "discipline," but the fact that they are confidential gives the CoC a free pass to be unaccountable for poor leadership both to the media and to the soldiers.

As an example, I was recently involved in an SI involving money that implicated a Major who by then had been promoted to Lieutenant-Colonel. Everyone surrounding the file knows the guy was a wing nut and what happened was largely because the guy performed to the standard we expect of an untrained recruit. Didn't do the mandatory training courses required of his position, didn't have the mandatory Delegations of Authority in place to be doing what he was doing and was completely oblivious to the fact that he needed one, made a bunch of contracting decisions that were not allowed under the framework, etc. And it wad documented that his QM advised him that he was probably breaking contracting rules. It all came to light when the money was so mismanaged they were $80k in debt.

I am reasonably confident that he skated. Why? Well he didn't get charged, and remedial measures are "private" so I never heard of any, nor did any other LCols in his regiment when it's come up. And guess what? When the organization is doing as poorly as it is as accountability, that means I and I'll argue any reasonable person is going to assume the worst, that nothing was done.

Having them public in some manner would either remove that assumption, or allow properly informed scrutiny on our leadership, and maybe even allow someone to call out leadership at a town hall when there's an obvious incident that everyone knows about, and they can go look online and see no remedial measure was registered. It also allows media and other stakeholders to provide better scrutiny, and it takes away the "administrative action is confidential information between the CAF and the member, and therefore I cannot discuss it" get-out-of-jail free card so heavily played in these circumstances.


----------



## ModlrMike

He should have been charged. He contravened the FAA (and the CSD), and thereby broke the law. It could be argued that he committed a fraud. Anyone else would have been charged, so why not him?


----------



## ballz

Haggis said:


> Somalia and the associated hazing videos here and in the US were the catalysts for the CAF to decide that the NCO Corps had failed at supervising and "corrective action". From this came changes to the military justice system.  Although the NDA clearly laid out that NCMs could lay charges, in many cases that power was relegated to either MWO/CWO or unit officers.  Having NCOs deal with minor improper behaviour through informal means - while never an ideal COA - was pretty much forbidden.  Military law training for NCOs was scaled back and delivered at a higher level, thus removing the ability for junior NCOs to effectively understand and use the CSD.
> 
> Then came new training, new procedures and new programs such as SHARP, which many older NCMs felt complicated and hamstrung their ability to sort out young shitbirds.  So, they quit doing it for fear of sanctions under the new regime when soldiers who were "sorted out" went running to their HAs in droves..  They began to look the other way.
> 
> An unintended consequence was that young officers, who in the past were "guided" by these same NCOs, now lacked that guidance and started to self-police quite ineffectively. (_As a CSM, I had an OC once who referred to our female soldiers as "crack troops" and "split asses".  After he failed to heed my advice to stop, I went to the RSM.  He was removed as OC but made it all the way to Colonel before retiring.  His impression of women in the CAF wasn't changed by that event._) A small number of these officers are now GO/FOs.
> 
> Although the CDA made great strides to attempt to professionalize the NCM Corps beginning in 2003, (Duty with Honour, NCM Corps 2020 etc.) these NCMs were being led by those self-policed officers, now at the field and command grades.
> 
> On the inappropriate sexual behaviour front, these conditions brought about the birth of Operation HONOUR, which was response to the institutional failings of the CAF writ large and the NCM Corps to stomp on such conduct before it became an issue.  Now, we have a WComd who sexually assaulted a number of women and murdered one of his own troops and the architect of Operation HONOUR, and his successor, are accused of the very conduct the program was intended to prevent.



Thank you, this was enlightening to read.

Although - and maybe because enough time has passed since then - I did see lots of informal means used for discipline. Extras, creative inspections, creative drill practice, a bit of public shaming, etc. were used routinely in my unit. Problem we saw was it was only Privates and Corporals that ever received that.

I definitely think the CSD was/is poorly understood and poorly executed. A simple AWOL charge that should have taken a day or two to complete a UDI and do a summary trial, would take a month-long UDI after the CSMs fumbled around with it and by the time justice was done, everyone had forgot what the crime was.


----------



## TCM621

SupersonicMax said:


> I do not know.  But status quo isn’t it.  The CAF should submit itself to an independent review by experts. The findings and recommendations should be embraced by leadership rather than the behaviour “brushed up” by the CDS as “boys be boys.”  That’s the only way to dig ourselves out of the PR hole we are digging.  Only when leadership embraces a truly inclusive, appropriate work environment can the culture start changing, from the top.  The culture will take years to change but I think we’ve already improved from even 10 years ago.  I feel the generations after the boomers/early X have less tolerance for inappropriate sexual behaviours and are not as prone to cover it up.



The problem is that changing something just because the current system could be better is how ended up here. Given the current flavour of ideas floating around government, adopting them could destroy the military. Postmodern ideas based in gender, queer, postcolonial and critical race theories cannot survive in a military because they are based on an ideal that power structures must be be destroyed. A military without a power structure is a rabble not a professional fighting force. 

To paraphrase an old saying, "Do better isn't an action plan". Not only do we need to know what, exactly, better looks like and we have to suss out the 2nd, 3rd and 4th order effects. For example, on of the key second order effects of OP Honour, and how it was presented, was an unwillingness of many male members to work alone with female members for fear of inadvertently offending the woman or worse being accused of something in a he said/she said situation. What it didn't do was stop the horn dogs who didn't follow the old rules of fraternization. It turns out the new rules didn't make much difference. Vance is the public example but I think most of us have had least heard of other examples over the last few years. 

In the 90s we were all SHARPened and everything we are talking about today was addressed then. We we told in no uncertain terms what was and wasn't acceptable. As many people have said, we have the tools to deal with this. This isn't a policy thing or even a culture thing, at least not in a sexual sense. We have a culture of not holding leadership to the same account we hold the lower ranks. People who don't follow the rules need to be dealt with fairly but appropriately for the little things like an undisclosed relationship between ranks rather than letting it slide because once you start allowing leadership to decide when they want to follow the rules, it opens the door for abuse. A duty to report should also be applied to everyone and if the leadership decided not to discipline someone they should have to report that fact higher. Hold leadership accountable to the rules, it's simply and I would argue that that is something that would solve a lot more problems than just sexual misconduct but that is another thread.


----------



## dapaterson

Haggis said:


> The *emasculation* of the CAF NCM Corps began in the mid-1990s and continued for about a decade at least.





ballz said:


> What I have seen is many who choose the easy path, and the junior officers they work for get* castrated* by their OC and/or CO when they try and hold those WOs/SNCOs accountable, which has been my experience numerous times and I've seen it happen to other junior officers.



Interesting choice of words.  Part and parcel of the sick institutional culture that assumes so-called masculine approaches (yell loudest) are actually effective.  Your latent sexism is showing.

A few other random observations: the number of CWOs in the Reg F has been shrinking, not growing. There are under 600 today (vs ~500 Col+ in the Reg F).

SNCOs who quit: We're better off without them. If being held to minimal standards of professionalism scared them off, they were not leaders, but thugs.

Reserve units: they are not the real world.  There is an important CAF presence in Cornwall; it's not the SD&G. The Army Reserve needs to stop perpetuating failed units that can't generate a single trained platoon, where they demand LCols and CWOs who have never progressed beyond Pl Comd / Pl WO. Failed leadership in the Res context can be improved by a large scale downranking, reducing demand for senior ranks.


I fully agree that the current news cycle is filled with impunity of senior leaders, and failure of the institution to self-regulate. Throughout a military career, someone will have superiors, peers and subordinates.  A diseased culture of silence prevented all of them for doing what was right (rather than what was easy).

Or, to put it another way, there's a fault that got passed, time and time again, until that fault became the CDS.


----------



## YZT580

TCM621 said:


> The problem is that changing something just because the current system could be better is how ended up here. Given the current flavour of ideas floating around government, adopting them could destroy the military. Postmodern ideas based in gender, queer, postcolonial and critical race theories cannot survive in a military because they are based on an ideal that power structures must be be destroyed. A military without a power structure is a rabble not a professional fighting force.
> 
> To paraphrase an old saying, "Do better isn't an action plan". Not only do we need to know what, exactly, better looks like and we have to suss out the 2nd, 3rd and 4th order effects. For example, on of the key second order effects of OP Honour, and how it was presented, was an unwillingness of many male members to work alone with female members for fear of inadvertently offending the woman or worse being accused of something in a he said/she said situation. What it didn't do was stop the horn dogs who didn't follow the old rules of fraternization. It turns out the new rules didn't make much difference. Vance is the public example but I think most of us have had least heard of other examples over the last few years.
> 
> In the 90s we were all SHARPened and everything we are talking about today was addressed then. We we told in no uncertain terms what was and wasn't acceptable. As many people have said, we have the tools to deal with this. This isn't a policy thing or even a culture thing, at least not in a sexual sense. We have a culture of not holding leadership to the same account we hold the lower ranks. People who don't follow the rules need to be dealt with fairly but appropriately for the little things like an undisclosed relationship between ranks rather than letting it slide because once you start allowing leadership to decide when they want to follow the rules, it opens the door for abuse. A duty to report should also be applied to everyone and if the leadership decided not to discipline someone they should have to report that fact higher. Hold leadership accountable to the rules, it's simply and I would argue that that is something that would solve a lot more problems than just sexual misconduct but that is another thread.


Which is why I started my last post with "what else were you expecting?"  As a society we have abandoned most of our ethical standards.  Trudeau's antics would never have been tolerated in his father's era.  There were definite occasions when misbehaviour by rank was swept under the table but there were significantly fewer that tried it and got away with it.  Discipline, as previously noted, was more rigid and enforced.  If you want to correct what ails the CF start with establishing the moral absolutes. And those are not subject to either discussion or change.  Unfortunately the leadership for that has to come from the top: above our top paygrade.  It has to come from OW or it is a non-starter and good luck with that.


----------



## ballz

dapaterson said:


> Interesting choice of words.  Part and parcel of the sick institutional culture that assumes so-called masculine approaches (yell loudest) are actually effective.  Your latent sexism is showing.



We could have a great conversation about why certain things are characterized as masculine/feminine and whether that's sexist or not, but if the greatest of my errors is not using gender-neutral language all the time then I'd be doing great. Unfortunately, I've got bigger faults of my own to correct first.

Accountability isn't about "yelling the loudest" and I don't see where it was alluded to, so I think you're reaching a bit to characterize our comments as advocating for yelling louder. I'm talking about holding people accountable, and having an institution behind you with a spine that helps you do so. That's through the disciplinary system and administrative actions, the system that is in place and works well *if leadership would actually use it*.



dapaterson said:


> SNCOs who quit: We're better off without them. If being held to minimal standards of professionalism scared them off, they were not leaders, but thugs.



Well that's a huge assumption that they're all quitting because they don't like being held to minimal standards. What if they're quitting because they're the kind of people who insist on minimal standards of professionalism, and don't want to be part of an organization that doesn't... if that's the case, we're losing the SNCOs we need in order to keep the ones we don't want. And that goes for anyone who leaves, officer or non-com.


----------



## Haggis

ballz said:


> A simple AWOL charge that should have taken a day or two to complete a UDI and do a summary trial, would take a month-long UDI after the CSMs fumbled around with it and by the time justice was done, everyone had forgot what the crime was.


I once charged one of my soldiers while deployed in the Balkans.  He had lost  a rather expensive piece of equipment which he also failed to report as missing.  Thankfully, it was returned to us by the local police.

I did my UDI, drafted my RDP and sent it to the TF JAG for review.  When it was returned to me to complete the disciplinary proceedings, the re-drafted statement of offence and statement of particulars bore no resemblance to the alleged offence.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I disagree WZT. In a professional military, leadership and discipline has to come from within, regardless of the antics of the civilian population. So the buck stops with the person at the top of our pay grade. And along the way, the buck should never be passed up from the person where it ought to have stopped.

One of the biggest problem I personally believe is back to haunt the CAF was the judicializing  of military discipline. It was in great part the result of subjecting the military (against advice at the time - but, Hey! When did Trudeau senior ever give a rat's ass about military advice that he felt was beneath him) to the criminal rights of the Charter. The result was that military discipline became subject to the same standard as finding someone quilty of a crime. Disciplinary breaches are not crimes and the system requires the capability to punish someone on evidence that the person likely did it. Maintaining discipline requires that. In my days (pre-charter) we also had the flip side of that coin: The ones found "guilty" served their punishment (I would not call it sentence, even if it entailed Edmonton) and came back to their unit with their slate "clean" - that is they came back to their job and were taken back as they stood with their unit before the punishment and nobody mentioned it further. You don't get that in the civilian world where once convicted of a crime, you are always looked upon as a criminal for the rest of your life.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Haggis said:


> All this being said, NCMs must remain cognizant of their station in the green machine and give counsel with that in mind.  Even the newest 2Lt outranks the RSM. Under the NDA, in any game Rock-Paper-Rank, rank always wins.


Maybe now that the lowly have been able to read, AND write, for a hundred years or so, a system that is as antiquated as anything I can think of needs to change.


----------



## TCM621

ballz said:


> As an example, I was recently involved in an SI involving money that implicated a *Major who by then had been promoted to Lieutenant-Colonel*. Everyone surrounding the file knows the guy was a wing nut and what happened was largely because the guy performed to the standard we expect of an untrained recruit. Didn't do the mandatory training courses required of his position, didn't have the mandatory Delegations of Authority in place to be doing what he was doing and was completely oblivious to the fact that he needed one, made a bunch of contracting decisions that were not allowed under the framework, etc. And it wad documented that his QM advised him that he was probably breaking contracting rules. It all came to light when the money was so mismanaged they were $80k in debt.


Bold mine



Maybe the fact that some one who didn't do the bare minimum in his job could get promoted to LCol is part of the problem. It's bad enough that someone who has never earned anything after passing their DP1 course is put in charge of experienced troops who have earned their leadership position as a Capt and they can spend 25 years making like hell for everyone who works for them. When we promote those people you ruin ever larger portions of the organization.


----------



## MilEME09

TCM621 said:


> Bold mine
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the fact that some one who didn't do the bare minimum in his job could get promoted to LCol is part of the problem. It's bad enough that someone who has never earned anything after passing their DP1 course is put in charge of experienced troops who have earned their leadership position as a Capt and they can spend 25 years making like hell for everyone who works for them. When we promote those people you ruin ever larger portions of the organization.


Perhaps this shows our PDR system is broken? Then again trials of PACE are on going right now.


----------



## TCM621

MilEME09 said:


> Perhaps this shows our PDR system is broken? Then again trials of PACE are on going right now.


I would highly doubt anything changes that functionally changes how we develop people. The problem is that one needs the most personalized evaluation to be useful and we go out of our way to de-personalize it. The PACE system just seems like more like a survey than a real evaluation of a person which would follow the trend is changing things to make it easier on the drafter and the board rather than more useful to the person receiving it.

I guess we will wait and see but just like everything else it is only effective if the rules are enforced. I when I first got to my current unit, I basically had to throw a tantrum to get a PDR. I had to help my boss write it because he had never written one because they weren't used by his old  unit. The problems with how we develop people is another thread entirely but it all points back to leadership and accountability. The greatest system in the world won't do any good it it isn't used.

Edit. Fixed an autocorrect


----------



## FSTO

I wonder if the current holders of the MND and PMO portfolios would have saved them a ton of angst and time in briefing prep if they had just came out at the start and admitted that they should have done more to dig into the CDS's background.

Or am I living a world of skittle farting unicorns?


----------



## Halifax Tar

I will say it again, the desire for institutional leaders its killing the Sgt - CWO ranks.  Our job should be #1 Enacting lawful commands, #2 Promoting the Health and Welfare of those JR to our rank, and #3 Bringing institutional failures to light, while providing the highest of technical advice.

Also we can aspire to change our culture all you want, but our culture is no different than the society that we are drawn from.  As long as our society is plagued with problems A, B and C; so shall we be plagued with problems A, B and C. 

The only true way we have to correct this if through strict top to bottom enforcement of policy; hammer of god punishment for infraction of said policy, and care and compassion for those wronged.


----------



## OldSolduer

FSTO said:


> I wonder if the current holders of the MND and PMO portfolios would have saved them a ton of angst and time in briefing prep if they had just came out at the start and admitted that they should have done more to dig into the CDS's background.
> 
> Or am I living a world of skittle farting unicorns?


If you f:ck up, own it. It’s generally easier, not to mention you accept responsibility for your errors.


----------



## Lumber

Halifax Tar said:


> Also we can aspire to change our culture all you want, but our culture is no different than the society that we are drawn from.  As long as our society is plagued with problems A, B and C; so shall we be plagued with problems A, B and C.


This. Just yesterday I was listening to the radio, and the morning show shared a story about a survey done by some third party. The survey was about "sex related" emojis. Right now people uses peaches and eggplants and water droplets to provide sexual innuendo, and it was found through the survey that a lot of people would like it if there was just straight up sex emojis. 

Let's think about that. This is a topic that if even discussed at the mess would likely be grounds for an HISB incident and administrative action, and yet the radio show is talking openly about it, even joking and laughing about it, and according to the survey, the average joe wants texting to become even more sexualized than it already is.

How are we supposed to win when the underlying culture of the people that we recruit is so sexualized?


----------



## mariomike

OldSolduer said:


> If you f:ck up, own it.


As opposed to, "Admit nothing, deny everything."


----------



## mariomike

Lumber said:


> How are we supposed to win when the underlying culture of the people that we recruit is so sexualized?


Like the LAPD said, "We have one big problem. We have to recruit from the human race."


----------



## Kilted

Lumber said:


> This. Just yesterday I was listening to the radio, and the morning show shared a story about a survey done by some third party. The survey was about "sex related" emojis. Right now people uses peaches and eggplants and water droplets to provide sexual innuendo, and it was found through the survey that a lot of people would like it if there was just straight up sex emojis.
> 
> Let's think about that. This is a topic that if even discussed at the mess would likely be grounds for an HISB incident and administrative action, and yet the radio show is talking openly about it, even joking and laughing about it, and according to the survey, the average joe wants texting to become even more sexualized than it already is.
> 
> How are we supposed to win when the underlying culture of the people that we recruit is so sexualized?


If the right person was listening yes.  Some units have more of an organizational cultural that would support someone in the room reporting it, while others would tolerate it.  Then again, the average middle school student can probably get away with saying more then we can now-a-days.  I remember when I joined at age 17 how weird it felt to basically be able to talk about anything you wanted.  Now it's more like an actual nine to five when you try and avoid accidently being alone in the same room as a member of the opposite sex for any period of time.  The people who think that Op Honour hasn't changed anything are wrong, things have changed.  Maybe not in the way or degree that was hoped for, but there has been significant change.


----------



## mariomike

Kilted said:


> I remember when I joined at age 17 how weird it felt to basically be able to talk about anything you wanted.


I joined when I was 16. Not to suggest times were better or worse back then. Just different.

I enjoy a little "fishing boat talk" as much as the next guy. But, I think men and women back then tended to be more respectful with their words when in "mixed company."

I mean the language heard on the street, from both genders, can be pretty "cringe-worthy".


----------



## Brad Sallows

> get* castrated*



That's actually an excellent choice of words.  It means "loss of status/authority".  Reducing the status/authority of subordinates militates against discipline and leadership.  Thus, public praise and private correction.  Policies and pronouncements which are seen to effectively neuter (see?) subordinate leaders reduce status/authority.

Armed forces require a kind and intensity of discipline not really needed in any other institution.  Too many of the traditional tools have been made too cumbersome to use.

Of men and women, there is a bit of twaddle I have seen repeated about some senior person offering advice to newly-advanced people: your promotion didn't make you more handsome or smarter, or however it goes.  While literally true, it is bad advice.  Advancement increases status, and status is an attraction factor for many women.  A promotion or appointment to higher responsibility makes a man more attractive.  The problem for men is to understand that if you can't tell apart the people who are attracted from the people who are seeking mentorship/guidance, you have to always assume the latter and should behave that way even when you correctly understand otherwise.

Fundamentally, there are way too many people in denial of basic human nature.  The solutions that work are not necessarily the solutions we would like.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Brad Sallows said:


> Fundamentally, there are way too many people in denial of basic human nature.  The solutions that work are not necessarily the solutions we would like.



I don't think sexual abuse is ingrained in human nature, and I don't think it should be accepted.  I do think some people are predators and some people also make mistakes.  

Having said that we have tools and rules at our disposal to deal with them; so lets use them and apply them evenly across the ranks and commissions.


----------



## Brad Sallows

It is ingrained; it occurs frequently.  Instinct overcomes reason.  People are weak; I assume Darwin to be correct.  By all means apply tools.  I can't remember how long ago the SHARP and diversity stuff started, followed by ethics modules of increasing detail delivered on leadership courses.  25 years?  So far the measures taken have failed; I suppose like communism, it's because what is needed has never really been tried.  How much longer before failure is admitted?  It's worth considering whether the way forward we would prefer is a dead end.


----------



## MilEME09

mariomike said:


> I joined when I was 16. Not to suggest times were better or worse back then. Just different.
> 
> I enjoy a little "fishing boat talk" as much as the next guy. But, I think men and women back then tended to be more respectful with their words when in "mixed company."
> 
> I mean the language heard on the street, from both genders, can be pretty "cringe-worthy".


I'd Agree with your last statement when you get songs like WAP being fine in society but Dr Sues has to have a disclaimer, we have a problem. Sexualization if our very language has been accepted as normal and okay, at that's a society problem that, as a mirror of Canadian society has entered the CAF.  Unfortunately it has been accepted for to long that it will be a long and difficult road to turn back, one that will not be solved with a mandatory DLN course.


----------



## QV

Halifax Tar said:


> * I don't think sexual abuse is ingrained in human nature, and I don't think it should be accepted.* I do think some people are predators and some people also make mistakes. Having said that we have tools and rules at our disposal to deal with them; so lets use them and apply them evenly across the ranks and commissions.



Of course *abuse* should never be accepted. But people will pursue others sexually, it is human nature.  It is pretty tough to stop the forces of nature.


----------



## blacktriangle

QV said:


> It is pretty tough to stop the forces of nature.


Many CAF members are literally trained to counteract & manipulate the forces of nature. Human beings aren't meant to fly aircraft, jump out of aircraft, or dive below the surface...and yet many in the CAF do exactly that. So while one may not be able to stop the forces of nature, it is certainly possible to resist them.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Zero tolerance is the policy of the lazy; You do nothing, but punish everything, while fixing all problems that have or may occur.

Do we have issues with SH, SM, and SA? Hells yes. Do we have the adequate policy and disciplinary tools available to deal with 99% of issues? Ofcourse.
* Has there been consistent and deliberate use of these tools and mechanisms? Hell no. Full Stop. *

Like any system, tweaks will be needed. I think its a massive cop out to say "This is wrong, we need to do better. We need to rethink how we deal with this issue.."


----------



## QV

I wonder how many personal relationships turn into adverse relationships in the CAF?


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

rmc_wannabe said:


> Zero tolerance is the policy of the lazy; You do nothing, but punish everything, while fixing all problems that have or may occur.
> 
> Do we have issues with SH, SM, and SA? Hells yes. Do we have the adequate policy and disciplinary tools available to deal with 99% of issues? Ofcourse.
> * Has there been consistent and deliberate use of these tools and mechanisms? Hell no. Full Stop. *
> 
> Like any system, tweaks will be needed. I think its a massive cop out to say "This is wrong, we need to do better. We need to rethink how we deal with this issue.."


Are you saying that we don't need to do better? That we don't need to rethink how we deal with this issue? 

Yes we have policies (and everybody should indeed read and comprehend them), but it seems clear that we have a problem. If its just enforcement then why are policies not being enforced? Its not about the PER system or changes back in the 90s to how Sr NCOs were/are empowered to enforce discipline.


----------



## Kilted

QV said:


> I wonder how many personal relationships turn into adverse relationships in the CAF?


Talking about zero tolerance. I wonder if it might get to the point where service relationships are completely banned. I'm sure current ones would be Grandfathered. While I don't think this will ever happen, I'm kind of wondering what types of changes the government might make to try and make it look like they have done something when nothing else has work? Decommission all messes, try to crack down on all alcohol use, attach a military police section to every unit in the armed forces?  I know these are extreme examples, but how many GO/FO issues are we away from the government making significant changes for the sake of making changes.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Kilted said:


> Talking about zero tolerance. I wonder if it might get to the point where service relationships are completely banned. I'm sure current ones would be Grandfathered. While I don't think this will ever happen, I'm kind of wondering what types of changes the government might make to try and make it look like they have done something when nothing else has work? Decommission all messes, try to crack down on all alcohol use, attach a military police section to every unit in the armed forces?  I know these are extreme examples, but how many GO/FO issues are we away from the government making significant changes for the sake of making changes.


People have the right to form relationships. The issue is when consent is impaired and when a relationship impairs discipline. 

I think that we need to focus on two particular areas. The first is the abuse of power. The second is how we treat people that have been the victims of sexual misconduct when they come forward. 

While any set of policies regarding human behavior must have some sense of pragmatism, at the same time we cannot simply throw our hands up and say "its human nature" when discussing sexual misconduct. This is aimed at comments up-thread and not at you.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> Many CAF members are literally trained to counteract & manipulate the forces of nature.



FFS.  We teach teenagers to fly aircraft; quite ordinary people learn to jump out of aircraft and get a PADI certificate.  These are not really examples of overcoming millennia of physiological and social evolution.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Life was so much simpler when people got a punch in the mouth for acting like a moron.....


----------



## Loachman

Halifax Tar said:


> I don't think sexual abuse is ingrained in human nature, and I don't think it should be accepted.


Sexual abuse is not ingrained, and obviously should not be accepted.

The drive to procreate, however, is very much ingrained. That drive is powerful in all species that reproduce sexually - look what salmon go through for a single date - and should not be underestimated.

Most of us can control it. Some cannot. But it is there, and it is real.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Loachman said:


> Sexual abuse is not ingrained, and obviously should not be accepted.
> 
> The drive to procreate, however, is very much ingrained.


Everytime these two points are brought up in conjunction, all everyone seems to do is ALL CAPS INTERNET YELL about how awful sexual abuse is (I agree, BTW), but so far, no solutions about what we should do different. Other than that we need to “do better”. Like platitudes will solve any of our problems.

How in concrete terms, do we do better? What does better look like, in concrete terms? If we cannot describe the end state, how can we come up with a plan?


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

SeaKingTacco said:


> Everytime these two points are brought up in conjunction, all everyone seems to do is ALL CAPS INTERNET YELL about how awful sexual abuse is (I agree, BTW), but so far, no solutions about what we should do different. Other than that we need to “do better”. Like platitudes will solve any of our problems.
> 
> How in concrete terms, do we do better? What does better look like, in concrete terms? If we cannot describe the end state, how can we come up with a plan?


What two points? That people have a sex drive? Sure, but we also have the ability to control our impulses. Sometimes we fail. The consequences in a CAF context should fit the nature of the failure. 

I think I laid out broadly a few posts back what better looks like: Superiors, whether Master Corporals, 4th Year Officer Cadets or Generals, do not abuse their power in sexual relations; and victims of sexual misconduct are properly supported. I think that is a realistic start state for an end state.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

TangoTwoBravo said:


> What two points? That people have a sex drive? Sure, but we also have the ability to control our impulses. Sometimes we fail. The consequences in a CAF context should fit the nature of the failure.
> 
> I think I laid out broadly a few posts back what better looks like: Superiors, whether Master Corporals, 4th Year Officer Cadets or Generals, do not abuse their power in sexual relations; and victims of sexual misconduct are properly supported. I think that is a realistic start state for an end state.


I went looking for that post and did not find it.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

SeaKingTacco said:


> I went looking for that post and did not find it.


Post #739 for what its worth. It was the second last one on the last page.


----------



## PuckChaser

TangoTwoBravo said:


> What two points? That people have a sex drive? Sure, but we also have the ability to control our impulses. Sometimes we fail. The consequences in a CAF context should fit the nature of the failure.
> 
> I think I laid out broadly a few posts back what better looks like: Superiors, whether Master Corporals, 4th Year Officer Cadets or Generals, do not abuse their power in sexual relations; and victims of sexual misconduct are properly supported. I think that is a realistic start state for an end state.


Great point, and should really underline the fact that no two sexual misconduct incidents will be the same, and require the same level of discipline/administrative action. The totality of the circumstances, including impact on the victim and whether there was an abuse of power involved should be the guiding principles.

At the risk of grossly oversimplifying a complex issue, we can counsel and train behaviour out of a 19 year old OCdt/Pte who grabbed someone's ass at the mess where we should be leaning toward dismissal for a WO/LCol using their rank/position of authority to gain sexual favours. Unfortunately there will never be a fancy flowchart to use when looking at an incident, but using a sledgehammer when a scalpel will achieve the same effect needs to be considered.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

TangoTwoBravo said:


> Post #739 for what its worth. It was the second last one on the last page.


Ok, got it. Thank-you.


----------



## Jarnhamar

There's another aspect of the sexualized culture in our military (perhaps)?

Few anecdotal examples.

I distinctly remember one girl from basic training, absolutely stunning. Today she'd easily be one of those Instagram "models" with thousands of followers. She wasn't very popular and no one really liked her. I think it's because she kept to herself, didn't flirt around, and acted like one of the guys. A few other girls on my course were considerably less instaworthy (forgive the objectification) but they could sit on a picnic table and be surrounded by 10-15 guys all vieing for their attention. They could snap their fingers and get their laundry done, boots polished, rifle cleaned and that's without the expectation of something in return.

I've known a couple of others whose take on the military was straight-up "Guys are stupid and I can get them to do whatever I want". 

A young girl I semi-recruited a couple of years ago had a blast at St-Jean because she had the recruits AND staff eating out of her hand. Staff members trying to get in the pants of recruits was common and she unabashedly took advantage of it.

Do we place any blame on a new soldier for cozying up to a WO or Capt or General to capitalize on the special attention and treatment that comes along with it? 
Does being a more junior rank absolve someone of accountability for entering into an inappropriate relationship?


Maybe cheating on your spouse with someone from work/entering into a consensual relationship with a married superior _should_ be a 129 charge.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Jarnhamar said:


> There's another aspect of the sexualized culture in our military (perhaps)?
> 
> Few anecdotal examples.
> 
> I distinctly remember one girl from basic training, absolutely stunning. Today she'd easily be one of those Instagram "models" with thousands of followers. She wasn't very popular and no one really liked her. I think it's because she kept to herself, didn't flirt around, and acted like one of the guys. A few other girls on my course were considerably less instaworthy (forgive the objectification) but they could sit on a picnic table and be surrounded by 10-15 guys all vieing for their attention. They could snap their fingers and get their laundry done, boots polished, rifle cleaned and that's without the expectation of something in return.
> 
> I've known a couple of others whose take on the military was straight-up "Guys are stupid and I can get them to do whatever I want".
> 
> A young girl I semi-recruited a couple of years ago had a blast at St-Jean because she had the recruits AND staff eating out of her hand. Staff members trying to get in the pants of recruits was common and she unabashedly took advantage of it.
> 
> Do we place any blame on a new soldier for cozying up to a WO or Capt or General to capitalize on the special attention and treatment that comes along with it?
> Does being a more junior rank absolve someone of accountability for entering into an inappropriate relationship?
> 
> 
> Maybe cheating on your spouse with someone from work/entering into a consensual relationship with a married superior _should_ be a 129 charge.


I guess the reply is that it is always the senior person’s fault for a relationship developing.

And I would argue that in a training establishment, a student is not capable of giving consent to an instructor. The power dynamics are too out of wack. 

Thanks for sharing the anecdote. I have seen junior personnel (sometimes successful) manipulate their supervisors by dangling sex. It is wrong, but more wrong still for the senior ranking person to fall for it.


----------



## FJAG

Jarnhamar said:


> ... Do we place any blame on a new soldier for cozying up to a WO or Capt or General to capitalize on the special attention and treatment that comes along with it?
> Does being a more junior rank absolve someone of accountability for entering into an inappropriate relationship?
> 
> 
> Maybe cheating on your spouse with someone from work/entering into a consensual relationship with a married superior _should_ be a 129 charge.


I expect you might not see it quite this way but your example is somewhat akin to whether we blame a thirteen-year old high school girl for seducing her thirty-five year old teacher into a sexual relationship.

The teacher gets charged. It's that's simple. The student gets counselled.

If there is inappropriate behaviour coming from a troop, regardless of sex, that should be dealt with by the chain of command. The problem is most of our junior leaders are having trouble dealing with situations of aggressive/seductive sexual behaviour regardless of where it's coming from. That doesn't mean we shouldn't insist that they do deal with it and give them the right tools and support structure to do it.

And yes, if a junior ranked troop is acting inappropriately and fails to correct those actions after appropriate warnings and counselling then they need to be dealt with by career and/or disciplinary action. 

The biggest problem is that its embarrassing and difficult to deal with these issues. That, however, doesn't mean we shouldn't deal with them.

.02

🍻


----------



## Good2Golf

Jarnhamar said:


> There's another aspect of the sexualized culture in our military (perhaps)?
> 
> Few anecdotal examples.
> 
> I distinctly remember one girl from basic training, absolutely stunning. Today she'd easily be one of those Instagram "models" with thousands of followers. She wasn't very popular and no one really liked her. I think it's because she kept to herself, didn't flirt around, and acted like one of the guys. A few other girls on my course were considerably less instaworthy (forgive the objectification) but they could sit on a picnic table and be surrounded by 10-15 guys all vieing for their attention. They could snap their fingers and get their laundry done, boots polished, rifle cleaned and that's without the expectation of something in return.
> 
> I've known a couple of others whose take on the military was straight-up "Guys are stupid and I can get them to do whatever I want".
> 
> A young girl I semi-recruited a couple of years ago had a blast at St-Jean because she had the recruits AND staff eating out of her hand. Staff members trying to get in the pants of recruits was common and she unabashedly took advantage of it.
> 
> Do we place any blame on a new soldier for cozying up to a WO or Capt or General to capitalize on the special attention and treatment that comes along with it?
> Does being a more junior rank absolve someone of accountability for entering into an inappropriate relationship?
> 
> 
> Maybe cheating on your spouse with someone from work/entering into a consensual relationship with a married superior _should_ be a 129 charge.


The (systemic?) failing is that such behavior isn’t expressly eliminated at the very point of initial
engagement between candidate and the organization.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Good2Golf said:


> The (systemic?) failing is that such behavior isn’t expressly eliminated at the very point of initial
> engagement between candidate and the organization.



What do they do at Mil Coll? 

Genuinely interested...


----------



## Brad Sallows

At the starting line, we are like every other life form: programmed to take what we need to survive and reproduce.  We have to learn self-restraint, impulse control, and good behaviour, including not just taking what we need (want).

A recruit is not a 13-year old.  Some kids learn to manipulate adults.  Some women learn to manipulate men (and vice versa) well before high school graduation.


----------



## Good2Golf

daftandbarmy said:


> What do they do at Mil Coll?
> 
> Genuinely interested...


Data point pretty aged, and my direct experience chain doesn’t exist anymore, per se, but my recollection was a self-policed for the most part policy strict against direct/CoC relationships and a less strict but generally adhered to relationships outside the CoC as same/or near-same year better than high-low splits (eg 4th & 1st year).  Can’t say a 4/1yr split relationship never happened, but I can’t recall one.


----------



## Jarnhamar

FJAG said:


> I expect you might not see it quite this way but your example is somewhat akin to whether we blame a thirteen-year old high school girl for seducing her thirty-five year old teacher into a sexual relationship.


You're right my friend, I don't see it that way. An adult isn't akin to a 13-year-old because their rank is lower.

Take a bunch of young captains. Despite being almost twice as old as them, with more life experience and work experience, and even being their instructor on BMOQ, the military will treat me like a kid compared to them because they're higher rank. It's silly but it's what we do.

A 30 year old divorced mother of 2 corporal who starts seeing a LCol or General isn't a naive child being seduced. I'd venture even that 19 or 20 year old new soldier isn't naive. 
In fact, I've seen an RSM enter into a sneaky sneaky relationship with a cpl and she (cpl) very quickly started calling the shots.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Jarnhamar said:


> You're right my friend, I don't see it that way. An adult isn't akin to a 13-year-old because their rank is lower.
> 
> Take a bunch of young captains. Despite being almost twice as old as them, with more life experience and work experience, and even being their instructor on BMOQ, the military will treat me like a kid compared to them because they're higher rank. It's silly but it's what we do.
> 
> A 30 year old divorced mother of 2 corporal who starts seeing a LCol or General isn't a naive child being seduced. I'd venture even that 19 or 20 year old new soldier isn't naive.
> In fact, I've seen an RSM enter into a sneaky sneaky relationship with a cpl and she (cpl) very quickly started calling the shots.


The difficulty in shutting down an unwanted sexual advance from a subordinate is that, lacking witnesses, it can easily turn into a harassment complaint or worse. Good luck getting a fair hearing. These are dangerous waters. Best bet is never, especially in a training establishment, allow yourself to placed in a position where you are alone with just one student.


----------



## FJAG

Jarnhamar said:


> You're right my friend, I don't see it that way. An adult isn't akin to a 13-year-old because their rank is lower.


The similarity is in the disparity of power and the fact that the teacher/senior NCM or officer should know better and have more control over himself


Jarnhamar said:


> Take a bunch of young captains. Despite being almost twice as old as them, with more life experience and work experience, and even being their instructor on BMOQ, the military will treat me like a kid compared to them because they're higher rank. It's silly but it's what we do.


You and I strongly agree here. I personally think we'd have a better officer corps, especially at the junior and field level, if they all spent four years in the ranks rather than in a university. Even better if all leadership positions in the platoon and possibly even company level were held by senior NCMs. Our current system is a vestige of the class divide that existed (still exists?) in the Brit Army. "Education" has taken the place of "high society". At least we don't purchase our rank anymore.


Jarnhamar said:


> A 30 year old divorced mother of 2 corporal who starts seeing a LCol or General isn't a naive child being seduced. I'd venture even that 19 or 20 year old new soldier isn't naive.
> In fact, I've seen an RSM enter into a sneaky sneaky relationship with a cpl and she (cpl) very quickly started calling the shots.


I personally wouldn't want to serve with any of the four individuals in your example. As SeaKingTacco points out above; its difficult, but it needs dealing with.

🍻


----------



## Halifax Tar

Jarnhamar said:


> There's another aspect of the sexualized culture in our military (perhaps)?
> 
> Few anecdotal examples.
> 
> I distinctly remember one girl from basic training, absolutely stunning. Today she'd easily be one of those Instagram "models" with thousands of followers. She wasn't very popular and no one really liked her. I think it's because she kept to herself, didn't flirt around, and acted like one of the guys. A few other girls on my course were considerably less instaworthy (forgive the objectification) but they could sit on a picnic table and be surrounded by 10-15 guys all vieing for their attention. They could snap their fingers and get their laundry done, boots polished, rifle cleaned and that's without the expectation of something in return.
> 
> I've known a couple of others whose take on the military was straight-up "Guys are stupid and I can get them to do whatever I want".
> 
> A young girl I semi-recruited a couple of years ago had a blast at St-Jean because she had the recruits AND staff eating out of her hand. Staff members trying to get in the pants of recruits was common and she unabashedly took advantage of it.
> 
> Do we place any blame on a new soldier for cozying up to a WO or Capt or General to capitalize on the special attention and treatment that comes along with it?
> Does being a more junior rank absolve someone of accountability for entering into an inappropriate relationship?
> 
> 
> Maybe cheating on your spouse with someone from work/entering into a consensual relationship with a married superior _should_ be a 129 charge.



I used to see that on the ships all the time.  Female storesman humping stores through the ship, guys stop and help her.  If one of the guys is doing it they just walk around.  It got to the point we would send one of our girls if we needed anything because people would be more apt to help them.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Halifax Tar said:


> I used to see that on the ships all the time.  Female storesman humping stores through the ship, guys stop and help her.  If one of the guys is doing it they just walk around.  It got to the point we would send one of our girls if we needed anything because people would be more apt to help them.


I observed similar things during my career ~ which included the periods when we integrated females into most of the Canadian Army. I usually took it, normally, as "natural" ~ the big tend to help the small, etc, but I'm sure there was a sexual component, too. I also saw and tried (and too often failed) to stop incidences of sexual exploitation which included male superiors trying to exploit female subordinates (that was, usually, fairly easy to see and stop) and, sometimes, junior females trying to exploit superiors. The latter was, for me, anyway, harder to "see" and to prove and, therefore, to stop, but I am sure it did happen. My problem with "affairs" between military people was less moral than it was about "good order and discipline." I believed then, as I do now, that a commander (MCpl or MGen) cannot be all that (s)he should be if (s)he is having a sexual relationship with a subordinate.

My late wife and I were married when we were both captains. She was a nursing sister, I was a regimental officer. Neither we nor her nor my superiors thought there was any problem. Later, I was a LCol, commanding my regiment and she was still in uniform (as a reserve officer because there was, then, a critical shortage of nursing officers) but, again, because she was nowhere near my chain-of-command, nor was I near hers, no one saw it as a problem.

I did have a problem when a colleague, a friend of mine, an officer (Maj) in a (sadly) failed marriage, began an affair *while we were deployed overseas* with a MCpl in his unit. I complained but neither his CO nor the Canadian contingent commander was prepared to take the action I thought necessary.

When I was a regimental commander in Canada (1978-81) I made it clear that I agreed, generally, with Pierre Trudeau that the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation, but I told my officers and the RSM told the senior and junior NCOs that relationships between messes were not a good thing and were not acceptable because of that "good order and discipline" thing, and would be "solved" by either marriage or a posting for one or the other party. I'm sad to say that the latter was almost always the result. That being said, there were several happy and successful marriages amongst offices and amongst NCOs but, fewer, I think, between e.g. captains and corporals.


----------



## mariomike

There were no females on my basic or trade training. I may be naive for remembering things this way, but it seemed to me the better assignments, such as chauffeuring higher ups versus loading and unloading trucks were equitably distributed.



> The captain rides in a jeep
> The sergeant rides in a truck
> The general rides in a limousine
> But we're just out of luck



My sister made her career with the Regular Force. Stayed in for the whole ride. Whatever may, or may not, have happened, I've never heard her say a bad word about the organization. Maybe, at least as far as what she has told me, it may have been a sort of "What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas" attitude.  🤷‍♂️


----------



## Jarnhamar

SeaKingTacco said:


> I guess the reply is that it is always the senior person’s fault for a relationship developing.


Agreed. I think the disconnect comes with assuming a higher rank is the more mature, responsible one.



SeaKingTacco said:


> And I would argue that in a training establishment, a student is not capable of giving consent to an instructor. The power dynamics are too out of wack.


Agreed. Students should also be held accountable for entering into these relationships too.



SeaKingTacco said:


> Thanks for sharing the anecdote. I have seen junior personnel (sometimes successful) manipulate their supervisors by dangling sex. It is wrong, but more wrong still for the senior ranking person to fall for it.


Agreed. They get paid more, more benefits, more authority; nail em.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Jarnhamar said:


> Agreed. I think the disconnect comes with assuming a higher rank is the more mature, responsible one.
> 
> 
> Agreed. Students should also be held accountable for entering into these relationships too.
> 
> 
> Agreed. They get paid more, more benefits, more authority; nail em.


I still think you have to examine each case on its own merits, rather than a blanket “execute the guilty bastards” policy.


----------



## Jarnhamar

SeaKingTacco said:


> I still think you have to examine each case on its own merits, rather than a blanket “execute the guilty bastards” policy.


That's a good point.

A counterpoint to my previous comments about women willingly getting involved in inappropriate relationships with superiors (which I should have included) is the pressure and perceived mistreatment if they refuse. Sending nude pictures to the Pl WO because they felt if they said no he would fail them.

Do we absolve students of accountability even though they read and signed a piece of paper saying they understood the rules because of student/instructor power dynamics?
Do we have the resources to investigate every case to determine if a soldier was pressured vs wanted special treatment?

A blanket approach to punishment would absolutely punish victims sometimes. But maybe it would also start to prevent those innocent weekend "texted you by mistake, but how's it going?" situations from progressing.

I know I sound like a narc but we've proven time and time again we can't police ourselves. I think we need some kind of reporting/action system where pte smith can call a hotline to report inappropriate behavior. And something actually gets done about it. That too can (would) be weaponized, but what we keep doing over and over isn't working.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Jarnhamar said:


> That's a good point.
> 
> A counterpoint to my previous comments about women willingly getting involved in inappropriate relationships with superiors (which I should have included) is the pressure and perceived mistreatment if they refuse. Sending nude pictures to the Pl WO because they felt if they said no he would fail them.
> 
> Do we absolve students of accountability even though they read and signed a piece of paper saying they understood the rules because of student/instructor power dynamics?
> Do we have the resources to investigate every case to determine if a soldier was pressured vs wanted special treatment?
> 
> A blanket approach to punishment would absolutely punish victims sometimes. But maybe it would also start to prevent those innocent weekend "texted you by mistake, but how's it going?" situations from progressing.
> 
> I know I sound like a narc but we've proven time and time again we can't police ourselves. I think we need some kind of reporting/action system where pte smith can call a hotline  *send a text to a confidential third party outside of the chain of command *to report inappropriate behavior. And something actually gets done about it. That too can (would) be weaponized, but what we keep doing over and over isn't working.



There, FTFY.... 

E.g., 

Reporting and Investigating Mechanisms for Workplace Harassment in the Arts

Recommendations for Reporting Mechanisms:

1. Establish a confidential, independent third-party sector-wide resource for the complainants, respondents and witnesses of workplace harassment.
2. Further examine the viability for anonymous reporting mechanisms.
3. Develop experiential training to respond “in-the-moment” to incidents of harassment.
4. Access financial support for individuals.

Reporting Mechanisms
“Organizations should put into place clear procedures for reporting workplace harassment and/or violence. Workers should be aware to whom they should report complaints or incidents of workplace harassment or violence (e.g., the Executive Director or General Manager). Organizations should consider measures to encourage bystanders to report observed incidents of harassment in the workplace. Some organizations use measures such as reporting hotlines, which facilitate the anonymous reporting of incidents. While this may prove effective in encouraging the reporting of incidents where workers may not be comfortable raising issues that involve co-workers, very specific reporting guidelines should be put in place to ensure that anonymous reporting of incidents provides adequate information for the organization to conduct an investigation into the circumstances related to the reported incident. Some organizations may find that they cannot effectively triage a complaint of harassment, particularly when the complaint is against a member of senior management, such as the Artistic Director. In those cases, organizations should consider using an external resource to triage complaints.”

Reporting and Investigating Mechanisms for Workplace Harassment in the Arts  CHRC, 2019


----------



## dapaterson

Patricia / CANSOF officer sexually assaults another officer (who s married to yet another CANSOF / Patricia officer); Comd CANSOF and Regiment wrote to court to support the rapist.  (Amended: Not the Regimental Col who wrote the letter).



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-sexual-assault-1.6004040


----------



## MilEME09

Military police recommended end to 2015 Vance probe within hours of his swearing-in - National | Globalnews.ca
					

The news comes a week after one of the women at the heart of separate allegations reported this year testified that Vance had told her he 'owned' the military police.




					globalnews.ca
				




Oh boy this is not good optics at all


----------



## QV

dapaterson said:


> Patricia / CANSOF officer sexually assaults another officer (who s married to yet another CANSOF / Patricia officer); Comd CANSOF and Regimental Colonel wrote to court to support the rapist.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-sexual-assault-1.6004040


"O'Brien said Hamilton had a "distinguished past" and had been dealing with a lot of stress. O'Brien sentenced Hamilton to three years' probation rather than jail time. O'Brien also placed him on a sex offender registry and required him to undergo treatment and community service. Hamilton was later sentenced to* three years in custody for a separate, unrelated sexual assault case."*

So this guy was a sex offender in other cases too.  Imagine how the chain of command could have supported this offender had this case been kept entirely within the MJ system.


----------



## dapaterson

Per In the Courts (Kingston Whig-Standard 17 Sept 2017)

Jonathan H. Hamilton, 41, was convicted on two counts of unlawfully entering a dwelling, two related counts of sexual assault and two common assaults. His sentencing was suspended and he was placed on probation for three years, ordered included on the Sex Offender Information Registry for life and his DNA was ordered to be entered in the national DNA bank. Hamilton was a major in the Canadian Forces, diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder when he committed the offences in 2015. Justice Larry O'Brien heard evidence that, under the influence of alcohol, he walked into the unlocked home of a fellow member of the military at Canadian Forces Base Kingston while the man was deployed and touched his comrade's sleeping wife through the covers as she lay in her bed. He also physically attacked the woman's husband on two other occasions, once entering their home to throw a punch at the man and on a later occasion charging him in a downtown bar. When confronted with what he'd done, Justice O'Brien was told, Hamilton initially claimed he'd been testing the woman's fidelity to her husband. At his sentencing hearing, however, he admitted to the judge that, unhappy in his own marriage, he'd misread the woman's friendliness as something more.


----------



## Edward Campbell

And now, Mercedes Stephenson reports that some MPs are making fun (in a private FB group) of Kellie Brennan: Posts in private military police Facebook group mock woman at heart of Vance allegation


----------



## brihard

dapaterson said:


> Patricia / CANSOF officer sexually assaults another officer (who s married to yet another CANSOF / Patricia officer); Comd CANSOF and Regiment wrote to court to support the rapist.  (Amended: Not the Regimental Col who wrote the letter).
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-sexual-assault-1.6004040


Oh come on...



Edward Campbell said:


> And now, Mercedes Stephenson reports that some MPs are making fun (in a private FB group) of Kellie Brennan: Posts in private military police Facebook group mock woman at heart of Vance allegation



Edit to add: OH COME ON!


----------



## dapaterson

Maybe he misunderstood what CANSOF means when they say "assaulter"?


----------



## MilEME09

Edward Campbell said:


> And now, Mercedes Stephenson reports that some MPs are making fun (in a private FB group) of Kellie Brennan: Posts in private military police Facebook group mock woman at heart of Vance allegation


Well there goes the MPs


----------



## brihard

MilEME09 said:


> Well there goes the MPs



Great. I give it two weeks before we see “CFB whatever Sexual Assault Investigation Team” on the RCMP internal job boards...

I wonder who in the MPs was embarrassed enough to disclose this.


----------



## PuckChaser

Are we at the point where someone convicted of sexual assault can no longer have character references or raise mitigating factors at sentencing? What of due process?


----------



## dapaterson

A CAF member sexually assaulted another CAF member.  The CAF position should be" Toss this loser in jail for life."


----------



## dapaterson

brihard said:


> Great. I give it two weeks before we see “CFB whatever Sexual Assault Investigation Team” on the RCMP internal job boards...
> 
> I wonder who in the MPs was embarrassed enough to disclose this.



The only MP worth retaining.


----------



## brihard

PuckChaser said:


> Are we at the point where someone convicted of sexual assault can no longer have character references or raise mitigating factors at sentencing? What of due process?


Of course he can, but maybe the chain of command oughtn’t provide one, for the greater good of the institution. It certainly calls their judgment and priorities into question.


----------



## dapaterson

Have to wonder what their Colonel-in-Chief, Adrienne Clarkson, will have to say about this...


----------



## Weinie

Edward Campbell said:


> And now, Mercedes Stephenson reports that some MPs are making fun (in a private FB group) of Kellie Brennan: Posts in private military police Facebook group mock woman at heart of Vance allegation


MP Group spokesperson said that all comments, that they have reviewed,  seem to have come from not currently serving MP's. Doesn't make it better, but mods will have to clean house.


----------



## PuckChaser

dapaterson said:


> A CAF member sexually assaulted another CAF member.  The CAF position should be" Toss this loser in jail for life."


Sounds a lot like "march the guilty bastard in" summary trial system we tried to get away with. Maybe we should just line up and shoot everyone that makes a dick joke that offends someone at work?


brihard said:


> Of course he can, but maybe the chain of command oughtn’t provide one, for the greater good of the institution. It certainly calls their judgment and priorities into question.


There's nothing wrong with a properly worded character reference from the member's chain of command as long as it sticks to the facts surrounding that individual's previous employment and conduct. It's the member's legal right to bring up character references and mitigating factors just as much as it's the right of Crown to have victim impact statements and aggravating factors heard.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Weinie said:


> MP Group spokesperson said that all comments, that they have reviewed,  seem to have come from not currently serving MP's. Doesn't make it better, but mods will have to clean house.


I find allot of our FB groups become polluted with long since left there service folks with opinions no longer socially accepted and often posting in a derogatory manner towards current serving members.


----------



## blacktriangle

Weinie said:


> MP Group spokesperson said that all comments, that they have reviewed,  seem to have come from not currently serving MP's. Doesn't make it better, but mods will have to clean house.


Maybe not currently serving MPs, but one has to wonder if they are still employed as LEOs with another service. Sad either way.


----------



## brihard

Halifax Tar said:


> I find allot of our FB groups become polluted with long since left there service folks with opinions no longer socially accepted and often posting in a derogatory manner towards current serving members.


Sounds like an MP version of “The Mess Tent”. My organization has a similar FB group mostly comprising retirees that turned into a cesspool, and which those of us still serving have largely vacated.

I think the MP Group is ‘The Pointsmens Association” or something like that.


----------



## Weinie

brihard said:


> Sounds like an MP version of “The Mess Tent”. My organization has a similar FB group mostly comprising retirees that turned into a cesspool, and which those of us still serving have largely vacated.
> 
> I think the MP Group is ‘The Pointsmens Association” or something like that.


My father in law was a former Mountie (30+ yrs). He had joined some of the FB groups to keep in touch,  and then quickly bailed when he saw what they were turning into.


----------



## QV

PuckChaser said:


> Sounds a lot like "march the guilty bastard in" summary trial system we tried to get away with. Maybe we should just line up and shoot everyone that makes a dick joke that offends someone at work?
> 
> There's nothing wrong with a properly worded character reference from the member's chain of command as long as it sticks to the facts surrounding that individual's previous employment and conduct. It's the member's legal right to bring up character references and mitigating factors just as much as it's the right of Crown to have victim impact statements and aggravating factors heard.


But since he was already found guilty it’s not the same... I agree with you re impact statements however if my direct chain provided a letter of support for the bad guy while ignoring me, I’d be quite jaded too.  The CoC should have abstained given all parties were from within same unit or command.


----------



## PuckChaser

Reading the article, at least one of the character references were not from the members chain of command. Dawe was DComd CANSOF in 2017, and Hamilton was presumably posted to Kingston where there are no CANSOF units.


----------



## RangerRay

dapaterson said:


> Patricia / CANSOF officer sexually assaults another officer (who s married to yet another CANSOF / Patricia officer); Comd CANSOF and Regiment wrote to court to support the rapist.  (Amended: Not the Regimental Col who wrote the letter).
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-sexual-assault-1.6004040



Jesus H. Christ! 🤦‍♂️


----------



## brihard

PuckChaser said:


> Reading the article, at least one of the character references were not from the members chain of command. Dawe was DComd CANSOF in 2017, and Hamilton was presumably posted to Kingston where there are no CANSOF units.


And, per the notes taken in the phone call, he explicitly stated that he wished to mitigate the convicted member’s sentencing. While it’s within everyone’s rights for this to have been done, I believe it was a terrible lapse of judgment by a general officer who I believe is otherwise very highly regarded. And it reflects terribly on the military as an institution when a senior, institutional leader did this. I understand the victim’s feeling of betrayal in seeing multiple senior officers going to bat for the guy who attacked him and sexually assaulted his wife.

This is not a situation where consideration of optics were allowed to prejudice a judicial proceeding wherein guilt was being determined. The ‘bastard’ had already been marched in and found guilty in provincial court. They chose to vouch for the character of a man who had already convicted, and who later went and did still worse and got three years in the clink for it. They attached their names and credibility to that, unfortunately.


----------



## daftandbarmy

PuckChaser said:


> Reading the article, at least one of the character references were not from the members chain of command. Dawe was DComd CANSOF in 2017, and Hamilton was presumably posted to Kingston where there are no CANSOF units.



This sounds familiar, and not just in the SF world:

"She said there's a dark side to the "band of brothers" mentality in the military — especially in the highly secretive Special Forces, where there's a code of silence and an expectation that soldiers will protect each other at all costs."



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-sexual-assault-1.6004040


----------



## Weinie

daftandbarmy said:


> I assume that the article you're referring to is this (right out of daytime TV shit show) one?
> 
> Sexual assault victim's family denounces military brass for supporting attacker during sentencing​Senior military members wrote character references for convicted sex offender
> 
> 
> A retired former major with Canada's special forces says he felt betrayed after senior military leaders gave positive character references to a soldier found guilty of sexually assaulting his wife — while offering no support to his family.
> 
> Kevin Schamuhn's regiment and a deputy commander in his chain of command, Maj.-Gen. Peter Dawe, submitted letters to a judge in 2017 prior to a sentencing hearing for Maj. Jonathan Hamilton.
> 
> On May 2, 2017, a judge found Hamilton guilty on six criminal counts, including unlawfully entering the Schamuhns' home and sexually assaulting Schamuhn's wife Annalise, a retired logistics officer, on two separate occasions. Hamilton was also found guilty of physically assaulting Schamuhn twice.
> 
> Schamuhn said that when he confronted Dawe about it, he acknowledged he wanted to influence sentencing and felt Hamilton was a "good guy" who deserved a break.
> 
> "It was an extremely painful betrayal," Schamuhn said. "By far, worse than anything I had ever experienced in combat.
> 
> "Of all the enemies I fought overseas, none of them have that level of access to my personal life and to the vulnerability of my family."
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-sexual-assault-1.6004040?ref=mobilerss&cmp=newsletter_CBC%20News%20Top%20Headlines%20%20%E2%80%93%20Evening_1617_262332


On the horns of a dilemma.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Weinie said:


> On the horns of a dilemma.



I'm sure that 'horny' had something to do with it, sadly


----------



## McG

PuckChaser said:


> Sounds a lot like "march the guilty bastard in"...


Well he was already convicted when the letters, written in the name of the institution, were produced to say what a swell guy he was in the eyes of the CAF. So, yes, it was known he was the guilty bastard who broke into someone's house and crawled into her bed while she was sleeping.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Did the CAF write a character reference in Russell Williams's defense?


Edit- just read the article. 
Classic _But he was a good guy_

That's why this shit show isn't going to change.


----------



## daftandbarmy

McG said:


> Well he was already convicted when the letters, written in the name of the institution, were produced to say what a swell guy he was in the eyes of the CAF. So, yes, it was known he was the guilty bastard who broke into someone's house and crawled into her bed while she was sleeping.


----------



## OldSolduer

daftandbarmy said:


> I'm sure that 'horny' had something to do with it, sadly


Not just “horny”. There’s an element of power and control here.
Someone should look at his background and see if there were any unsolved B & Es where a female was sexually assaulted in areas where he lived.
You don’t wake up one day and decide “new career path - serial Rapist I think!”
Bet he’s done similar things before


----------



## cavalryman

Journeyman said:


> Not weighing in on t





OldSolduer said:


> Not just “horny”. There’s an element of power and control here.
> Someone should look at his background and see if there were any unsolved B & Es where a female was sexually assaulted in areas where he lived.
> You don’t wake up one day and decide “new career path - serial Rapist I think!”
> Bet he’s done similar things before


Wasn't that the pattern for Williams?


----------



## OldSolduer

cavalryman said:


> Wasn't that the pattern for Williams?


I think so. I’ve never looked at his story in depth.
These guys have a pattern and a certain way of thinking. 
Whoever here said “I thought he was a bit off “ I can guarantee you others thought the same


----------



## mariomike

cavalryman said:


> Wasn't that the pattern for Williams?


I don't know. We devoted 29 toxic pages ( LOCKED ) of discussion to that individual, if interested in researching it.


----------



## Jarnhamar

mariomike said:


> I don't know. We devoted 29 toxic pages ( LOCKED ) of discussion to that individual, if interested in researching it.


What makes you say it was toxic?


----------



## Kilted

It seems like we are getting a new story every day.  I suppose that was bound to happen after the allegations were made against two different CDS's.  I'm sure there are many people who were afraid to come forward due to a difference in rank may be less intimidated to come forward now.


----------



## ArmyRick

PuckChaser said:


> Are we at the point where someone convicted of sexual assault can no longer have character references or raise mitigating factors at sentencing? What of due process?


Piss poor judgement call. And I can't believe you would suggest it. The victims? They are sub-human to you? 

THIS IS PART OF THE PROBLEM! Its very bad optics, we are not talking about a drunk driving incident or a bar brawl gone awry, we are talking about a serving soldier who snuck into someone's home and RAPED a fellow soldier. UNACCEPTABLE.

And maybe Major General Dawe (I remember him from the patrcias and he is a hell of good infantry officer) should take a pause and really think about what he has done. 

The fact that the victim and her husband were treated like this is really disgusting.


----------



## ModlrMike

The member asked for a character reference, there was no obligation to give him one. That's the extent of due process I would have ensured in this instance.


----------



## OldSolduer

CBC report on the news this morning does not flatter the CAF. A few public firings might help once it’s been determined that guilt is established.


----------



## mariomike

Jarnhamar said:


> What makes you say it was toxic?


The subject of discussion. Not those discussing it.

Possibly why it finally got locked after 29 pages?



> Locked, just like the reprobates cell door...





> dileas
> tess





> milnet.ca staff


When he dies, I suppose it will be noted in his thread. Then immediately re-locked and the key thrown away, without the need for further discussion.


----------



## Halifax Tar

I cant imagine being a member of a command and having faith in that leadership when they give character references for a convicted rapist. 


Tarnished Brass Part Deux coming ?


----------



## Kilted

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-forces-sexual-assault-misconduct-operation-honour-1.6006290
		


The article doesn't state how many of those cases occurred during the five-year period and how many were from before.  Another thing that I have heard (may be true, may not be, hopefully someone here can confirm or deny this) was that the Op Honour numbers included allegations against cadets (I'm not talking about CIC), and in fact made up a significant percentage of all Op Honour related cases.


----------



## PuckChaser

ArmyRick said:


> Piss poor judgement call. And I can't believe you would suggest it. The victims? They are sub-human to you?


Yeah, that's exactly what I said. Rape victims are sub human. Where's my eyeroll emoticon when I need it?

Seeing the accused/offender get fair due process entitled under the law and the Charter of Rights while also ensuring victims feel heard, supported and see justice done should not be mutually exclusive. We are rapidly careening towards what the CAF always does when it has a problem, swing the pendulum so far the other direction without any thought to the consequences we create even more problems. 

So what's the solution here? No CAF member can ever make a character statement on behalf of an offender in a sexual misconduct trial? Whats next, can no longer testify for the defense? What if that CAF member is a material witness that could completely exonerate the accused? Does it stop at sexual misconduct? Now no CAF member can testify in a trial ever, for any reason except for the prosecution? Do you see how ridiculous that sounds, or the potential legal problems that arise out of those statements?

At the end of the day, I'm not defending what Hamilton did. I'm glad justice was served and presumably he was released post-haste. There's no place for that behaviour regardless of whatever PTSD excuse people want to use. I can also see why Dawe would want to make a statement on the behalf of an individual who he likely served with on a 2 way range and saw what he perceived were out of character issues. Dawe also went way beyond his loyalty to a friend, and made some pretty tone deaf statements (allegedly, we have one side of the story and no copy of the letter) and swerved outside of his lane of providing a character reference on Hamilton's past performance and character before the incident. I've also heard Dawe speak a few years after this trial, and although he didn't make any direct references, he stated he'd been involved in a sexual misconduct case where he didn't fully support the victim and understood the impact that causes to them and that he had learned from that mistake. It was an odd statement of humility to make (especially from a GOFO to a large group of people), but this article seems like that's the incident he was referring to.


----------



## McG

PuckChaser said:


> Seeing the accused ...


He was not "the accused." He was already convicted. He was unambiguously a sex offender.
If someone as an individual wants to go sit in the trail and testify on thier own behalf that Jon was a nice guy, then they can fill their boots.
There should never have been any letters of support from the the CAF or any part of the CAF.
Neither performance in Kandahar nor PTSD have any bearing in the matter of what Jon did.


----------



## Halifax Tar

McG said:


> He was not "the accused." He was already convicted. He was unambiguously a sex offender.
> If someone as an individual wants to go sit in the trail and testify on thier own behalf that Jon was a nice guy, then they can fill their boots.
> There should never have been any letters of support from the the CAF or any part of the CAF.
> Neither performance in Kandahar nor PTSD have any bearing in the matter of what Jon did.


Agreed.  And anyone who wrote those letters or endorsed them should be released, post haste, with the full loss of all retirement benefits including pension and a forfeiture of all awards and decorations bestowed. 

We need to treat these cretins the same or worse than those who commit the offenses.


----------



## McG

Announcements should be starting soon: LIVE: Sajjan addresses CAF sexual misconduct


----------



## Eaglelord17

This all just brought me back to thinking of that Reservist Cpl who helped support a female in his regiment who brought up a sexual assault complaint only to be railroaded by his CoC. If I recall correctly his appeal through redress of grievance made it all the way to the CDS where the 2IC agreed with the Cpl but the CDS overruled it. Really makes you wonder if that decision should now be looked at again with all the new information which has come to light, could he file a redress of grievance over a clearly biased judge?









						ON TARGET: Soldier alleges he faced reprisals for helping female colleague — espritdecorps
					

By Scott Taylor  Almost lost in the swirling news storms surrounding the controversial firing of sportscaster Don Cherry, the naming of Justin Trudeau’s new cabinet and the daily revelations regarding U.S. President Donald Trump’s road to impeachment, there was a startling report about a Canadian so




					espritdecorps.ca


----------



## Haggis

Halifax Tar said:


> Agreed.  And anyone who wrote those letters or endorsed them should be released, post haste, with the full loss of all retirement benefits including pension and a forfeiture of all awards and decorations bestowed.
> 
> We need to treat these cretins the same or worse than those who commit the offenses.


Russell Williams kept his pension after confessing to and  being found guilty of murdering one of his own troops.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Halifax Tar said:


> Agreed.  And anyone who wrote those letters or endorsed them should be released, post haste, with the full loss of all retirement benefits including pension and a forfeiture of all awards and decorations bestowed.
> 
> We need to treat these cretins the same or worse than those who commit the offenses.


That's a little extreme isn't it?  A lapse in judgement such as this isn't criminal and has no bearing on someone's previous honourable service.


----------



## Mick

Another external review by a retired justice.









						Feds initiate independent review into sexual misconduct in the military
					

The federal government announced Thursday an independent review into harassment and sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces led by former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour.



					www.ctvnews.ca
				




Interestingly, it appears that MGen Carrignan will be promoted (either to LGen or Lt-Gov🙃), as Chief of Professional Conduct:

"Sajjan also announced the creation of the Chief Professional Conduct and Culture, led by Lt.-Gov. Jennie Carignan, which will function as an internal organization coordinating between branches to establish culture change."


----------



## dangerboy

In 2015 the Deschamps recommended: 
Recommendation No. 3
Create an independent center for accountability for sexual assault and harassment outside of the CAF with the responsibility for receiving reports of inappropriate sexual conduct, as well as prevention, coordination and monitoring of training, victim support, monitoring of accountability, and research, and to act as a central authority for the collection of data.

That was 6 years ago and they are just now addressing this.


----------



## Haggis

Paraphrased question from Mecedes Stephenson to LGen Carignan: "What do you think of this appointment compared to not being appointed Commander of the Army?"


----------



## daftandbarmy

dangerboy said:


> In 2015 the Deschamps recommended:
> Recommendation No. 3
> Create an independent center for accountability for sexual assault and harassment outside of the CAF with the responsibility for receiving reports of inappropriate sexual conduct, as well as prevention, coordination and monitoring of training, victim support, monitoring of accountability, and research, and to act as a central authority for the collection of data.
> 
> That was 6 years ago and they are just now addressing this.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Halifax Tar said:


> Agreed.  And anyone who wrote those letters or endorsed them should be released, post haste, with the full loss of all retirement benefits including pension and a forfeiture of all awards and decorations bestowed.
> 
> We need to treat these cretins the same or worse than those who commit the offenses.



On the other hand this practise might be encouraged so we can more easily identify the enablers, hoist upon their own petard


----------



## MilEME09

Haggis said:


> Paraphrased question from Mecedes Stephenson to LGen Carignan: "What do you think of this appointment compared to not being appointed Commander of the Army?"


I think the other half of her question was better, she took the minister to task with this announcement. You could clearly see the hamster wheel spinning as he tried to think of an answer as to why this took 6 years.


----------



## QV

McG said:


> He was not "the accused." He was already convicted. He was unambiguously a sex offender.
> If someone as an individual wants to go sit in the trail and testify on thier own behalf that Jon was a nice guy, then they can fill their boots.
> There should never have been any letters of support from the the CAF or any part of the CAF.
> Neither performance in Kandahar nor PTSD have any bearing in the matter of what Jon did.


I agree here.  I think what keeps getting crossed is the term “sexual misconduct”.  This guy committed violent indictable crimes against another person.  Unlawfully entering another’s home and sexually assaulting them should never be even remotely in the same category as an inappropriate relationship.  After he was convicted of this, the CAF goes on to state what a good guy he is so go easy... uh no he’s not.  This would have been the time to abstain.  This goes back to my assertion where discipline matters and crimes are being conflated in the CAF.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

And we can also ask, had the convicted been Sgt. Bloggins, would these letters, written in the good name of  the unit,  been made and forwarded??  "Have faith in our leadership" has got to be about zero by now......and sinking.


----------



## CBH99

I'd like to suggest a potential possibility in regards to the Dawes letter...  no idea if I am right or wrong, and we don't have any statements either way.

But is it possible that Dawes wrote him a character reference, not knowing the full details of the case against him?  Or that the accused/convicted downplayed the events, or used their friendship to his advantage?


I've personally seen it happen, probably more than once - where someone has an employer, longtime family friend, even someone in the criminal justice community, write a character reference on their behalf - not knowing the details of the case, who would not have written the letter if they had.

I have no idea either way, just tossing it out there as a possibility?


----------



## dangerboy

Statement from the MND



> Every day, Defence Team members uphold the values of peace, freedom, and respect for the dignity of all people.
> 
> Recently we have seen sobering evidence that, for many of you, these values do not match your own lived experiences. We have listened and reflected on the words from those who have shared their accounts of sexual misconduct.
> 
> To every member in the Canadian Armed Forces and every person in the Department of National Defence who has been affected by sexual harassment and violence and felt that we were not there to support you, I am truly sorry.
> 
> Experts inside and outside National Defence have highlighted the gaps in our policies and practices that have led us to fail our fellow team members, and we recognize that bold action is needed to transform the culture of the Defence Team to one of dignity and respect.
> 
> This culture change must be comprehensive, lasting and address the systemic challenges at the root of the problem, including any value, policy, or practice that results in discrimination, biases, harmful stereotypes, abuses of power, or other harmful behaviours.
> 
> To begin understanding and addressing these challenges, the Government of Canada is setting up an Independent External Comprehensive Review of our institutional policies, practices, programs, procedures and culture.
> 
> This review will be led by Madam Louise Arbour, former Supreme Court Justice, carried out transparently, and with input from appropriate stakeholders. It builds on the report prepared by former Justice Marie Deschamps in 2015, taking a broader look at how and why our existing workplace dynamics enable harmful behaviours, and how we must change to address them.
> 
> In addition and support to this review, we are also standing up a new organization—the Chief, Professional Conduct and Culture.
> 
> Under the leadership of LGen Jennie Carignan this team will be responsible for creating the conditions for cultural transformation. They will unify, integrate, and coordinate efforts across the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces.
> 
> Their goal is ensuring that our actions and behaviours reflect the very best parts of our organization, and Canadian society. We’re dedicated to creating lasting culture change across the Defence Team.
> 
> At the same time, we know we must do more to support people when they’ve been harmed. Recent announcements in Budget 2021 have outlined financial support for new programs to address sexual misconduct and gender-based violence across the Defence Team. These include a partnership with Veterans Affairs Canada to develop a peer support network for CAF members, and continued efforts to implement the Declaration of Victims’ Rights in our military justice system, to name a few.
> 
> These are just the first of many new steps that we are taking to build on the positive aspects of our culture while shedding the toxic and outdated values, practices, and policies that harm our people.
> 
> I remain grateful every day for the hard work I see from all members of the Defence Team. I am proud of the work you do. The efforts we are starting today are my commitment to ensure that every member of the Defence Team can go about their work with dignity, respect and a renewed trust in the organization that supports them. You deserve no less.
> 
> The Honourable Harjit S. Sajjan
> 
> Minister of National Defence


----------



## Halifax Tar

Haggis said:


> Russell Williams kept his pension after confessing to and  being found guilty of murdering one of his own troops.


He shouldn't have either.  



SupersonicMax said:


> That's a little extreme isn't it?  A lapse in judgement such as this isn't criminal and has no bearing on someone's previous honourable service.


That sounds remarkably like the spirit of the letter these officers wrote in defense of a convicted rapist.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Mick said:


> Another external review by a retired justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Feds initiate independent review into sexual misconduct in the military
> 
> 
> The federal government announced Thursday an independent review into harassment and sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces led by former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour.
> 
> 
> 
> www.ctvnews.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interestingly, it appears that MGen Carrignan will be promoted (either to LGen or Lt-Gov🙃), as Chief of Professional Conduct:
> 
> "Sajjan also announced the creation of the Chief Professional Conduct and Culture, led by Lt.-Gov. Jennie Carignan, which will function as an internal organization coordinating between branches to establish culture change."


So Officers policing officers.  Sounds reasonable.  Its worked for the last few hundred years.

I wish Gen Carrignan the best and I hope she's successful, but I have lost faith that the commissioned folks have the moral fortitude to police themselves or the CAF as a whole in general terms.


----------



## PuckChaser

McG said:


> He was not "the accused." He was already convicted. He was unambiguously a sex offender.
> If someone as an individual wants to go sit in the trail and testify on thier own behalf that Jon was a nice guy, then they can fill their boots.
> There should never have been any letters of support from the the CAF or any part of the CAF.
> Neither performance in Kandahar nor PTSD have any bearing in the matter of what Jon did.


Out of all that you cherry picked 3 words and took them out of context.

Hamilton is an offender, he was convicted. I was speaking it much broader terms about both accused individuals and offenders being given all of their entitled rights under the Charter. As much as we want to tar and feather these folks or march them through the streets yelling "Shame" like Game of Thrones, they're still Canadian Citizens and should see due process.


----------



## Halifax Tar

PuckChaser said:


> Out of all that you cherry picked 3 words and took them out of context.
> 
> Hamilton is an offender, he was convicted. I was speaking it much broader terms about both accused individuals and offenders being given all of their entitled rights under the Charter. As much as we want to tar and feather these folks or march them through the streets yelling "Shame" like Game of Thrones, they're still Canadian Citizens and should see due process.


He did receive due process and was convicted.  And after the conviction letters were submitted to the court in defence of his character.   I'm not sure what you two are arguing about.


----------



## QV

Halifax Tar said:


> He shouldn't have either.
> 
> 
> That sounds remarkably like the spirit of the letter these officers wrote in defense of a convicted rapist.


To take his money would be stealing.  It would be the same as Walmart taking a former employees RRSP contributions somehow. Just because someone commits a grievous crime doesn’t mean the state can now commit crimes against the accused/ convicted.


----------



## Halifax Tar

QV said:


> To take his money would be stealing.  It would be the same as Walmart taking a former employees RRSP contributions somehow. Just because someone commits a grievous crime doesn’t mean the state can now commit crimes against the accused/ convicted.



I would say defending a rapist is stealing the faith and trust we place in the CoC.   Give him a return of contributions.


----------



## mariomike

I'm not an expert on pension law. But, my understanding is once an employee is vested in a pension plan, he or she has the right to keep it. Aka "locked in".

Any SMEs please correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## QV

Halifax Tar said:


> *I would say defending a rapist is stealing the faith and trust we place in the CoC*.   Give him a return of contributions.



The chain of command needs to stay out of criminal matters, period.  If afterwards they want to pursue admin measures, fill your boots.


----------



## dapaterson

I'm certain CANSOF was just as supportive and understanding and wrote letters of support for Cpl Collier, convicted of theft a couple years ago.

Oh.

Never mind.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Halifax Tar said:


> He shouldn't have either.
> 
> 
> That sounds remarkably like the spirit of the letter these officers wrote in defense of a convicted rapist.


Then lobby your MP to submit a bill in Parliament that might one day become a law that strips people of their pensions, if convicted of some level of crime.

Quick question or two, if it is not too much trouble:

What level of crime between DUI and murder loses someone their pension?

Is this just the CAF? All Federal Gov’t? The entire country?

RRSPs, too?

Where does the confiscated pension go? The victim? General Revenues?

What do we do about the now newly destitute ex-service member (and convicted criminal) once they have served their sentence? How about the (probably) spouse and kids that you just plunged into poverty? Too bad, sad? Can they apply for welfare?

Not defending convicted criminals, I just think you potentially might create a whole new class of issues, if you legalize pension confiscation.


----------



## McG

PuckChaser said:


> Out of all that you cherry picked 3 words and took them out of context.
> 
> Hamilton is an offender, he was convicted. I was speaking it much broader terms about both accused individuals and offenders being given all of their entitled rights under the Charter. As much as we want to tar and feather these folks or march them through the streets yelling "Shame" like Game of Thrones, they're still Canadian Citizens and should see due process.


No Canadian has a charter right that the Canadian Armed Forces (or any part of it) will defend their honour after having been convicted of a predatory behaviour. If an individual, acting as an individual, want to go on the stand and give a character reference then that is the individual's decision. Never in the history of forever should there have been a letter on PPCLI letterhead saying this rapist is actually a good guy.


----------



## PuckChaser

No, but offenders are entitled to character references in sentencing mitigation. If the CAF takes a stand banning all CAF members for filing letters on behalf, then we are influencing due process. There's a way to provide a character reference based on past actions that isn't a glowing recommendation on their current behaviour, clearly these 2 Patricias missed that mark.


----------



## brihard

SeaKingTacco said:


> Then lobby your MP to submit a bill in Parliament that might one day become a law that strips people of their pensions, if convicted of some level of crime.
> 
> Quick question or two, if it is not too much trouble:
> 
> What level of crime between DUI and murder loses someone their pension?
> 
> Is this just the CAF? All Federal Gov’t? The entire country?
> 
> RRSPs, too?
> 
> Where does the confiscated pension go? The victim? General Revenues?
> 
> What do we do about the now newly destitute ex-service member (and convicted criminal) once they have served their sentence? How about the (probably) spouse and kids that you just plunged into poverty? Too bad, sad? Can they apply for welfare?
> 
> Not defending convicted criminals, I just think you potentially might create a whole new class of issues, if you legalize pension confiscation.


The RCMP Superannuation Act allows for a member dismissed for misconduct to be given a return of contributions, or Treasury Board may exercise discretion to allow the member to receive their pension. TBS has recently started making greater use of this provision.

It would require a similar amendment to the CF Superannuation Act.


----------



## Halifax Tar

SeaKingTacco said:


> Then lobby your MP to submit a bill in Parliament that might one day become a law that strips people of their pensions, if convicted of some level of crime.
> 
> Quick question or two, if it is not too much trouble:
> 
> What level of crime between DUI and murder loses someone their pension?



When a Snr Officer in seen to defend the character of another rapist officer this does nothing but work to errod the CoC.  I can tell you right now in my lines the rumblings are not good and we are seeing people show their displeasure for the perceived lenience towards officers in punishment in these matters with their feet.

Throw into this that the victim was not only a JR Officer but married to another officer who has been bullied by the convicted.  This seems to be an especially egregious crime and while the punishment for the offender needs to be swift and vicious the same must be for anyone who can be seen to support the convicted.  The trust in the CoC must be maintained and that means sometimes when people step out of line in scenarios like this we need to make an example of them.



SeaKingTacco said:


> Is this just the CAF? All Federal Gov’t? The entire country?



I am only talking CAF.



SeaKingTacco said:


> RRSPs, too?



That depends did the CAF make direct contributions ?



SeaKingTacco said:


> Where does the confiscated pension go? The victim? General Revenues?



I like the idea of giving it to the victim.



SeaKingTacco said:


> What do we do about the now newly destitute ex-service member (and convicted criminal) once they have served their sentence? How about the (probably) spouse and kids that you just plunged into poverty? Too bad, sad? Can they apply for welfare?
> 
> Not defending convicted criminals, I just think you potentially might create a whole new class of issues, if you legalize pension confiscation.



Sounds like someone should have used better judgement before they put the livelihood of their family at stake.



dapaterson said:


> I'm certain CANSOF was just as supportive and understanding and wrote letters of support for Cpl Collier, convicted of theft a couple years ago.
> 
> Oh.
> 
> Never mind.


Is this establishing a pattern perhaps ?


----------



## Takeniteasy

CAF only has itself to blame for this ongoing wave of embarrassment. Now there is an MND fumbling through a press conference and the only bonus this time around is that the CDS (acting) did not throw senior NCOs under the bus. There were key words thrown out, highly respected people profiled and introduced, directives explained etc...  The positive for the Federal gov't/DND/CAF on this is that the Class Action was settled before this current wave of Duty Without Honour!


----------



## daftandbarmy

dapaterson said:


> I'm certain CANSOF was just as supportive and understanding and wrote letters of support for Cpl Collier, convicted of theft a couple years ago.
> 
> Oh.
> 
> Never mind.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

brihard said:


> The RCMP Superannuation Act allows for a member dismissed for misconduct to be given a return of contributions, or Treasury Board may exercise discretion to allow the member to receive their pension. TBS has recently started making greater use of this provision.
> 
> It would require a similar amendment to the CF Superannuation Act.


I just had a quick read through the CFSA and can confirm what you said- under the current legislation, there appears to be no mechanism to remove a pension benefit, regardless of the crime.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Halifax Tar said:


> When a Snr Officer in seen to defend the character of another rapist officer this does nothing but work to errod the CoC.  I can tell you right now in my lines the rumblings are not good and we are seeing people show their displeasure for the perceived lenience towards officers in punishment in these matters with their feet.
> 
> Throw into this that the victim was not only a JR Officer but married to another officer who has been bullied by the convicted.  This seems to be an especially egregious crime and while the punishment for the offender needs to be swift and vicious the same must be for anyone who can be seen to support the convicted.  The trust in the CoC must be maintained and that means sometimes when people step out of line in scenarios like this we need to make an example of them.
> 
> 
> 
> I am only talking CAF.
> 
> 
> 
> That depends did the CAF make direct contributions ?
> 
> 
> 
> I like the idea of giving it to the victim.
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like someone should have used better judgement before they put the livelihood of their family at stake.
> 
> 
> Is this establishing a pattern perhaps ?


I am not debating that there is restlessness within the ranks. What I am saying is that, unless new policies are carefully conceived to avoid undesirable second/third order effects, we risk making the situation even worse. Which seems par for the course for just about every level of government in Canada.

And thank-you for your response. Please believe me when I say that I wasn’t Trolling you. I was genuinely curious how you thought we should get around some of the problems the sprung to my mind, at least.


----------



## Halifax Tar

SeaKingTacco said:


> I am not debating that there is restlessness within the ranks. What I am saying is that, unless new policies are carefully conceived to avoid undesirable second/third order effects, we risk making the situation even worse. Which seems par for the course for just about every level of government in Canada.


This we can agree on.  Policy needs to be direct and unambiguous in this matter and needs to be in place to address the offense and not create knock on effects or give it the ability to be applied outside of its intent.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Halifax Tar said:


> This we can agree on.  Policy needs to be direct and unambiguous in this matter and needs to be in place to address the offense and not create knock on effects or give it the ability to be applied outside of its intent.


Totally agree.  Note that I added a thought to the post you quoted, as you were typing.


----------



## Halifax Tar

SeaKingTacco said:


> Totally agree.  Note that I added a thought to the post you quoted, as you were typing.


All good my friend.  I wouldn't accuse a zoomie of trolling


----------



## Blackadder1916

brihard said:


> The RCMP Superannuation Act allows for a member dismissed for *misconduct* to be given a return of contributions, or Treasury Board may exercise discretion to allow the member to receive their pension. *TBS has recently started making greater use of this provision.*
> 
> It would require a similar amendment to the CF Superannuation Act.



Could you clarify re TBS making greater use of this provision - are they allowing more dismissed members to receive pension benefits or are they being more hardline sticking to only return of contributions?

While a similar amendment to the CF Superannuation Act would be necessary for such a policy, there are other acts and regulations that would also have to be changed.  At the basis of a lot of it would be definitions of "misconduct" and "dismissal".  I don't know what the RCMP use of the terms are in relation to releases from the force (or even if the RCMP uses release items similarly to the CAF).  However, release from the CAF is an administrative function.  Dismissal or dismissal with disgrace are punishments under the CSD.  A situation such as being currently discussed (_unsatisfactory civil conduct, or conviction of an offence by a civil court, of a serious nature not related to the performance of his duties but reflecting discredit on the Service_) is not termed "Misconduct" but "Unsatisfactory Conduct" and would result in a 2A release or even depending on circumstances a 5F Unsuitable for Further Service.


----------



## Kilted

QV said:


> To take his money would be stealing.  It would be the same as Walmart taking a former employees RRSP contributions somehow. Just because someone commits a grievous crime doesn’t mean the state can now commit crimes against the accused/ convicted.


Besides leaving the money for his kids in his will, what can he actually do with that money?


----------



## brihard

Blackadder1916 said:


> Could you clarify re TBS making greater use of this provision - are they allowing more dismissed members to receive pension benefits or are they being more hardline sticking to only return of contributions?
> 
> While a similar amendment to the CF Superannuation Act would be necessary for such a policy, there are other acts and regulations that would also have to be changed.  At the basis of a lot of it would be definitions of "misconduct" and "dismissal".  I don't know what the RCMP use of the terms are in relation to releases from the force (or even if the RCMP uses release items similarly to the CAF).  However, release from the CAF is an administrative function.  Dismissal or dismissal with disgrace are punishments under the CSD.  A situation such as being currently discussed (_unsatisfactory civil conduct, or conviction of an offence by a civil court, of a serious nature not related to the performance of his duties but reflecting discredit on the Service_) is not termed "Misconduct" but "Unsatisfactory Conduct" and would result in a 2A release or even depending on circumstances a 5F Unsuitable for Further Service.


My understanding is TBS is going after pensions more frequently than in the past. I don't have much insight beyond that, and the question of what specifically constitutes 'misconduct' is not fully settled.


----------



## Ostrozac

Kilted said:


> Besides leaving the money for his kids in his will, what can he actually do with that money?


Just because someone is doing time doesn't mean that they can't participate in the wider culture, and even the wider economy. Prisoners have recorded live albums (notably Charles Manson) or written (Napoleon's memoirs were especially popular in the 19th century). And a little seed money helps to pay your agent, get your project off the ground, etc...

Pensions seem particularly protected in both US and Canadian law -- I remember that when all was done and dusted for OJ Simpson, one of the only things left to him was his NFL pension. I do wonder what the history is of protecting pensions specifically that is not extended to other assets.


----------



## Eaglelord17

Ostrozac said:


> Just because someone is doing time doesn't mean that they can't participate in the wider culture, and even the wider economy. Prisoners have recorded live albums (notably Charles Manson) or written (Napoleon's memoirs were especially popular in the 19th century). And a little seed money helps to pay your agent, get your project off the ground, etc...
> 
> Pensions seem particularly protected in both US and Canadian law -- I remember that when all was done and dusted for OJ Simpson, one of the only things left to him was his NFL pension. I do wonder what the history is of protecting pensions specifically that is not extended to other assets.


Its so the state doesn't end up having to care for you afterwards. Not just that but if you start taking it away, people will gradually open up what it can be removed for and I guarantee you there would be places taking advantage of that for their own benefit (i.e. stripping you of your pension so they don't have to pay it). Easier just to give everyone their pension (which they did earn) and allow a very small amount of bad apples to keep it, than potentially everyone else in a bad situation.


----------



## Haggis

Kilted said:


> Besides leaving the money for his kids in his will, what can he actually do with that money?


Fund an appeal to his conviction?


----------



## TCM621

Does anyone know what was in the letter from Dawes or anyone else? I have heard it referred to as a character reference and "defending a rapist" but was that actually the case? I think that matters. If the letters were along the lines of "He is a good guy and he made a mistake so go easy on him" that is one thing but if it was long the lines of "He had an exemplarity career until getting PTSD from Multiple tours in Afghanistan. His post PTSD behaviour has been out of character compared to his earlier behaviour" it is a legitimate factor that should be considered at sentencing.

I think this was likely handled poorly, because that is the usual MO, but I think it is important to actually know what was on those letters before making judgement.


----------



## mariomike

Weinie said:


> My father in law was a former Mountie (30+ yrs). He had joined some of the FB groups to keep in touch,  and then quickly bailed when he saw what they were turning into.


Every emergency service likely has a pensioners association to provide social interaction. I think RCMP and OPP have multiple "chapters" for retired members. Municipal services also have their local meetings and get togethers. Of course these are on hold during the pandemic. FB is ok for some, but I think most pensioners  prefer the luncheon meetings and "coffee catches."


----------



## dangerboy

mariomike said:


> Every emergency service likely has a pensioners association to provide social interaction. I think RCMP and OPP have multiple "chapters" for retired members. Municipal services also have their local meetings and get togethers. Of course these are on hold during the pandemic. FB is ok for some, but I think most pensioners  prefer the luncheon meetings and "coffee catches."


Pensioners of a certain age, newer pensioners I have my doubts that they are looking for that.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Perhaps in the case of a commissioned officer who signed an oath, that time committing the offences that directly conflict with the oath is struck from their pensionable time? So if they served for 25 years, but started the offenses 5 years previous, they are only credited for the 20 years they have not been found guilty for.


----------



## Loachman

I thought that his wife sued him for the pension - she should at least have got some of it - but a quick check confirmed that he's still receiving it.

I was also reminded that he was instructing in Portage while I was doing my Helicopter Instructor course there. I never met him, though, and I'm quite happy about that.

Back to the original topic, were these character letters restricted to outlining his character and performance and mental condition prior to raping this poor woman, or were they defending/excusing his crime?

If the former, I still believe that the concept of such statements is justified and fair, although perhaps clumsily handled. If the latter, then definitely no. Regimental letterhead should not have been used, in my opinion.


----------



## Haggis

Loachman said:


> If the former, I still believe that the concept of such statements is justified and fair, although perhaps clumsily handled. If the latter, then definitely no. Regimental letterhead should not have been used, in my opinion.



Character letters and victim impact statements are two sides of the same coin and both have a place in our legal system.  *Mr*. Peter Dawe should have written personally on behalf of the offender and should not have, in any way, represented the institution while doing so.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Either PTSD is a manifestation of psychological stress, or it is not.

Either psychological stress is a mitigating factor when people who have experienced difficult circumstances commit crimes, or it is not.

If it is not, there's a lot of stuff that is going to have to be walked back by all levels of government.


----------



## mariomike

dangerboy said:


> Pensioners of a certain age, newer pensioners I have my doubts that they are looking for that.


Our association members are "of a certain age". All have a minimum of 25 years ( full-time ) service to join.

Social media may be preferred by some who now live far away, or are confined. But, most prefer to break bread with people they know from the old days.  Especially with so many passing away.

Different strokes for different folks.  🤷‍♂️


----------



## Loachman

Haggis said:


> Character letters and victim impact statements are two sides of the same coin and both have a place in our legal system.  *Mr*. Peter Dawe should have written personally on behalf of the offender and should not have, in any way, represented the institution while doing so.


I can agree with that, although the circumstances of his involvement with the offender would have been pertinent.

Have the letters been made public?


----------



## Jarnhamar

SupersonicMax said:


> That's a little extreme isn't it?  A lapse in judgement such as this isn't criminal and has no bearing on someone's previous honourable service.


Part of the problem is the CAF keeps treating sexual misconduct as an innocent _lapse in judgement_.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Jarnhamar said:


> Part of the problem is the CAF keeps treating sexual misconduct as an innocent _lapse in judgement_.



Looks like the US military is having similar issues:


Senators call for military justice reform, as sexual assault in the ranks persists​ 

    The most recent data from the Defense Department estimated almost 21,000 service members were sexually assaulted in 2018, marking a significant increase from the department’s previous 2016 survey that recorded about 14,900 instances of sexual assault.

    “This same report also revealed a record low rate of conviction. It's clear that this system is not working. We cannot have good order and discipline when crimes like these are occurring within our ranks and with a culture on base is one not of justice, but of retaliation,” Gillibrand said.

    At the news conference, sexual-assault survivor Amy Marsh shared her story of retaliation and harassment after reporting a sexual assault — a pattern that is all too familiar, advocates say.

    Marsh, a military spouse of a member of the Air Force, testified in March at a Senate hearing that a chief master sergeant sexually assaulted her while she lived on Travis Air Force Base, Calif.

    Marsh explained when she came forward to report an assault, she and her husband were retaliated against so severely that her family was forced to move to a different state and her case was dismissed.

    “Had a trained, independent senior military prosecutor reviewed the facts of my case, I might have had a shot at sharing my side of the story in the court of law. Letting a judge or a jury make the decision instead of a commander,” Marsh said Thursday.









						Senators call for military justice reform, as sexual assault in the ranks persists
					

The modified proposal would still give prosecution authority to trained, independent military prosecutors, but it adds new prevention measures.




					www.stripes.com


----------



## Jarnhamar

MInister of National Defense said:
			
		

> Every day, Defence Team members bla bla bla



This guy gets caught lying about being the architect of Op Medusa and doesn't get hammered for it for fear of losing votes or whatever the reason was, fluffed off the 2015 deschamps report, Vice-Admiral Norman stuff, General Vance crap, but we're supposed to have faith in him? 

That's a hard fuck no.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Jarnhamar said:


> Part of the problem is the CAF keeps treating sexual misconduct as an innocent _lapse in judgement_.


I am not talking about the sexual assault committed by the guilty but rather the good character reference letter provided by the CoC.


----------



## QV

TCM621 said:


> Does anyone know what was in the letter from Dawes or anyone else? I have heard it referred to as a character reference and "defending a rapist" but was that actually the case? I think that matters. If the letters were along the lines of "He is a good guy and he made a mistake so go easy on him" that is one thing but if it was long the lines of "He had an exemplarity career until getting PTSD from Multiple tours in Afghanistan. His post PTSD behaviour has been out of character compared to his earlier behaviour" it is a legitimate factor that should be considered at sentencing.
> 
> I think this was likely handled poorly, because that is the usual MO, but I think it is important to actually know what was on those letters before making judgement.


IIRC the male victim stated in his discussion with Dawe, Dawe stated these points to him.... it’s in the article or the interview I can’t recall.  His account indicates Dawe was quite callous about it.


----------



## QV

Jarnhamar said:


> Part of the problem is the CAF keeps treating sexual misconduct as an innocent _lapse in judgement_.


No, what you say is exactly the problem.  There is sexual misconduct and then there are crimes.  Those two need to be differentiated.  Misconduct can be a lapse in judgement.  Raping someone is never a mere lapse in judgement.  Cracking a bad joke sexual in nature that demeans someone is likely a lapse in judgement.  Breaking into a home and committing sexual assault is a serious crime.  There is a wide gulf and they need to be handled entirely differently.  

This is exactly the reason why the CAF is in this position, it is continually conflating discipline with crime and there is inappropriate involvement for each.  The police don’t need to be involved in discipline, and the CoC doesn’t need to be involved in the handling of crimes.  If both would focus on their own area, the problems would be significantly reduced.  Instead you process discipline like a crime (a late soldier is not swiftly dealt with) and you leave discipline as a plea option when dealing with crimes (guilty for discreditable conduct for criminal offences dropped).


----------



## Jarnhamar

Does cracking a bad joke sexual in nature fall under the definition of sexual misconduct?
Answered my own question.


----------



## Halifax Tar

SupersonicMax said:


> I am not talking about the sexual assault committed by the guilty but rather the good character reference letter provided by the CoC.


You don't see a Snr Officer using organizational letterhead and positions, while writing a positive character reference for a member member who is guilty of not only raping a junior member but physically assaulting her husband, more than once, as the "CAF treating sexual misconduct as an innocent _lapse in judgement" _do you ?

How about a quotes:

_"Schamuhn said that when he confronted Dawe about it, he acknowledged he wanted to influence sentencing and felt Hamilton was a "good guy" who deserved a break"

"It was to affect sentencing. That's precisely the reason. I'm not going to apologize for that," Dawe told Schamuhn, according to Schamuhn's notes."

"Given all that he had been subjected to in terms of his experience overseas, how frankly he was mistreated by the institution, I thought he deserved a break ..." Dawe said, according to the notes. "I certainly don't see him as a threat to society for just a second. I think on the whole he's a pretty good guy."

"Hamilton was later sentenced to three years in custody for a separate, unrelated sexual assault case."_

Sounds like a stand up guy who deserved the backing of his current and former CoCs.

If you can think Hamilton is a good guy who deserves a break, I don't want you wearing the same uniform as me.  I dont care if you dont think that way anymore.  You have broken my trust; and you've made yourself a threat to the good order an discipline of the CAF.



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-sexual-assault-1.6004040
		


If you haven't read the article, do so.


----------



## Lumber

Loachman said:


> I can agree with that, although the circumstances of his involvement with the offender would have been pertinent.
> 
> Have the letters been made public?


I don't think it's the content of the letter that is the issue.

The victims husband took notes during a phone call with Dawes. In that phone call, apparently, Dawes admitted that he was submitting his letter with the express purpose of trying to get the member's sentence reduced. That's the issue.


----------



## MilEME09

Jarnhamar said:


> This guy gets caught lying about being the architect of Op Medusa and doesn't get hammered for it for fear of losing votes or whatever the reason was, fluffed off the 2015 deschamps report, Vice-Admiral Norman stuff, General Vance crap, but we're supposed to have faith in him?
> 
> That's a hard fuck no.


You want to start restoring faith, we need a  new minister, someone not tainted, I have 0 faith in our current minister to do anything other then save his own skin.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Halifax Tar said:


> You don't see a Snr Officer using organizational letterhead and positions, while writing a positive character reference for a member member who is guilty of not only raping a junior member but physically assaulting her husband, more than once, as the "CAF treating sexual misconduct as an innocent _lapse in judgement" _do you ?


This is precisely what I said: it is a lapse in judgement, not one that is illegal however.  Stripping LGen Dawes’ and his staff’s pension is an overkill, emotional suggestion.


----------



## Halifax Tar

SupersonicMax said:


> This is precisely what I said: it is a lapse in judgement, not one that is illegal however.  Stripping LGen Dawes’ and his staff’s pension is an overkill, emotional suggestion.


_"Schamuhn said that when he confronted Dawe about it, he acknowledged he wanted to influence sentencing and felt Hamilton was a "good guy" who deserved a break"

"It was to affect sentencing. That's precisely the reason. I'm not going to apologize for that," Dawe told Schamuhn, according to Schamuhn's notes."

"Given all that he had been subjected to in terms of his experience overseas, how frankly he was mistreated by the institution, I thought he deserved a break ..." Dawe said, according to the notes. "I certainly don't see him as a threat to society for just a second. I think on the whole he's a pretty good guy."_

Sure sounds like a "lapse in judgement" (There is sarcasm every time I use this phrase FYI).   Sounds pretty calculated to me.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Halifax Tar said:


> _"Schamuhn said that when he confronted Dawe about it, he acknowledged he wanted to influence sentencing and felt Hamilton was a "good guy" who deserved a break"
> 
> "It was to affect sentencing. That's precisely the reason. I'm not going to apologize for that," Dawe told Schamuhn, according to Schamuhn's notes."
> 
> "Given all that he had been subjected to in terms of his experience overseas, how frankly he was mistreated by the institution, I thought he deserved a break ..." Dawe said, according to the notes. "I certainly don't see him as a threat to society for just a second. I think on the whole he's a pretty good guy."_
> 
> Sure sounds like a "lapse in judgement" (There is sarcasm every time I use this phrase FYI).   Sounds pretty calculated to me.


Sure, and there are administrative processes for that, possibly and up to being released. Guessing an RW or C&P for a GOFO is a career kiss of death anyway, but this is a good example of a disciplinary issue where we have admin tools for misconduct, but doesn't cross over into anything criminal. I think he should be held accountable for such a monumentally bad decision, but witholding his pension would be insane (and likely legally indefensible).

I don't trust TBS at all, and the last thing I want them to be able to do is pull people's pension over misconduct, and it should be a really high bar with some serious criminal convictions while in uniform for them to meet to take that action. They don't pay out losses on posting house sales as it is, and the matched pension contribution is part of our contracts that I'm sure they'd love to get rid of. If someone is doing their job (even poorly), they shouldn't have the authority to retroactively not honour their contract commitment, but there is nothing stopping them from firing that person and not accruing additional contributions..


----------



## SupersonicMax

Halifax Tar said:


> Sounds pretty calculated to me.


Do you also believe the moon landing was a hoax?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Navy_Pete said:


> Sure, and there are administrative processes for that, possibly and up to being released. Guessing an RW or C&P for a GOFO is a career kiss of death anyway, but this is a good example of a disciplinary issue where we have admin tools for misconduct, but doesn't cross over into anything criminal. I think he should be held accountable for such a monumentally bad decision, but witholding his pension would be insane (and likely legally indefensible).
> 
> I don't trust TBS at all, and the last thing I want them to be able to do is pull people's pension over misconduct, and it should be a really high bar with some serious criminal convictions while in uniform for them to meet to take that action. They don't pay out losses on posting house sales as it is, and the matched pension contribution is part of our contracts that I'm sure they'd love to get rid of. If someone is doing their job (even poorly), they shouldn't have the authority to retroactively not honour their contract commitment, but there is nothing stopping them from firing that person and not accruing additional contributions..


I walked it back before.  Give him a return of contributions and dishonorable release.

Lets also not act like I'm creating policy here.  My opinion is worth just as much as the next guy's.


----------



## Halifax Tar

SupersonicMax said:


> Do you also believe the moon landing was a hoax?


Nope.


----------



## Brad Sallows

When Canada sends people to do jobs and they come back broken, for some values of "broken" Canada and the institution accept no responsibility for adverse changes to capabilities and/or behaviour?  And that is what some people want from Canada and the institution?


----------



## Navy_Pete

Halifax Tar said:


> I walked it back before.  Give him a return of contributions and dishonorable release.
> 
> Lets also not act like I'm creating policy here.  My opinion is worth just as much as the next guy's.


That's massively excessive when you look at the dishonourable release criteria, and decisions like that are exactly why we have an extensive grievance process and Admin reviews are done outside the CoC.

And lets be honest, they do that for this one GOFO, it becomes a precedent, and then it gets rolled out against 100s of lower deckers.

You can't make policy when you are pissed off, and all the rules around things like what needs to be done to demote someone is to prevent abuse by GOFOs, not to protect them.


----------



## MilEME09

Matt Gurney: Desperate Liberals hire judge to shield Trudeau from Vance sexual misconduct allegations
					

The Trudeau government, self-styled feminists all, were given a credible allegation about sexual misconduct at the very top of Canada's military and ignored it




					nationalpost.com
				




Opinions today are not rosy for the liberals


----------



## SupersonicMax

Halifax Tar said:


> I walked it back before.  Give him a return of contributions and dishonorable release.


Are you talking about LGen Dawes, who was not found guilty of anything criminal?


----------



## lenaitch

Ostrozac said:


> Just because someone is doing time doesn't mean that they can't participate in the wider culture, and even the wider economy. Prisoners have recorded live albums (notably Charles Manson) or written (Napoleon's memoirs were especially popular in the 19th century). And a little seed money helps to pay your agent, get your project off the ground, etc...
> 
> Pensions seem particularly protected in both US and Canadian law -- I remember that when all was done and dusted for OJ Simpson, one of the only things left to him was his NFL pension. I do wonder what the history is of protecting pensions specifically that is not extended to other assets.



Less so in the US in relation to public employee.  This link is specific to law enforcement - details obviously vary by state:









						Which States Have Laws that Allow for Police Pension Forfeiture?
					

Police pension forfeiture laws vary by state—some officers could lose their benefits if they commit a crime, and some get to keep them.




					equable.org
				




Although, admittedly, pension legislation makes my head swim,  there appears to be no provision in Ontario for denying pension benefits for any reason.  In relation to 'going after' someone's pension, the Pension Benefits Act provides that "_Money payable under a pension plan is exempt from execution, seizure or attachment_", with the exception of certain provisions of family law.  Pension contributions are a 50/50 partnership between the employee and employer, contributing to a large, hopefully sustainable pool.  Pension costs are often part of the negotiation package applicable to everyone (realizing that this does not apply to the CAF and many other employers).  I'm not a fan of one side having the ability to renege.  If members  lost confidence in the partnership, there would be increasing calls for members to opt out.


----------



## FJAG

Loachman said:


> I thought that his wife sued him for the pension - she should at least have got some of it - but a quick check confirmed that he's still receiving it.



Williams' wife had martial property rights to pension splitting on separation/divorce. That is a separate legal regime which is applicable to federal pensions by virtue of the Federal "Pension Benefits Division Act". It also applies to common law arrangements.

🍻


----------



## dapaterson

FJAG said:


> Williams' wife had martial property rights to pension splitting on separation/divorce. That is a separate legal regime which is applicable to federal pensions by virtue of the Federal "Pension Benefits Division Act". It also applies to common law arrangements.
> 
> 🍻



By memory, they also shared ownership of homes in Ottawa and Tweed.  They may well have offset her claims on his pension with home equity; believe there were lawsuits associated with transfers of joint assets between them.


----------



## FJAG

dapaterson said:


> By memory, they also shared ownership of homes in Ottawa and Tweed.  They may well have offset her claims on his pension with home equity; believe there were lawsuits associated with transfers of joint assets between them.


Continuing with this hijack, yup, there were claims that her purchase of his equity in the houses was a fraudulent conveyance (i.e. one done to evade potential creditors - which makes me wonder where the $62k went she allegedly paid - in a perfect world to the lawyers ). Not sure how that ended up other than the victim case was settled for undisclosed terms. I'm just spit-balling here but my guess would have been that unless she had her own pension benefits, she would be ahead of the game with pension splitting.

During my day pension valuations were a very complex process which was being made a bit simpler once pension administrators were compelled to provide actuarial valuations. Before that it was a bit of a wild west show.

🍻


----------



## MJP

Navy_Pete said:


> And lets be honest, they do that for this one GOFO, it becomes a precedent, and then *it gets rolled out against 100s of lower deckers.*
> 
> You can't make policy when you are pissed off, and all the rules around things like what needs to be done to demote someone is to prevent abuse by GOFOs, not to protect them.


You get things like 40KM rules for IPR moves that way


----------



## dapaterson

FJAG said:


> Continuing with this hijack, yup, there were claims that her purchase of his equity in the houses was a fraudulent conveyance (i.e. one done to evade potential creditors - which makes me wonder where the $62k went she allegedly paid - in a perfect world to the lawyers ). Not sure how that ended up other than the victim case was settled for undisclosed terms. I'm just spit-balling here but my guess would have been that unless she had her own pension benefits, she would be ahead of the game with pension splitting.
> 
> During my day pension valuations were a very complex process which was being made a bit simpler once pension administrators were compelled to provide actuarial valuations. Before that it was a bit of a wild west show.
> 
> 🍻



Continuing the derail, pension "splitting" is in fact a pro-rated transfer value, with all the tax implications of a sudden influx of non-sheltered money.  Again, by memory, she was an executive with a not-for-profit and thus probably vested in another DB plan; buying out the house and abandoning claim on his pension was probably the better financial choice.


----------



## Furniture

Halifax Tar said:


> _"Schamuhn said that when he confronted Dawe about it, he acknowledged he wanted to influence sentencing and felt Hamilton was a "good guy" who deserved a break"
> 
> "It was to affect sentencing. That's precisely the reason. I'm not going to apologize for that," Dawe told Schamuhn, according to Schamuhn's notes."
> 
> "Given all that he had been subjected to in terms of his experience overseas, how frankly he was mistreated by the institution, I thought he deserved a break ..." Dawe said, according to the notes. "I certainly don't see him as a threat to society for just a second. I think on the whole he's a pretty good guy."_
> 
> Sure sounds like a "lapse in judgement" (There is sarcasm every time I use this phrase FYI).   Sounds pretty calculated to me.


In this case you're also getting only one side of the story. 

As "satisfying" as it might be to hang the guilty bastard, we need to hear the other side first. It's pretty easy for something to go from "he had been a solid soldier before his mental health issues" to "He's the best dude ever, and he shouldn't be punished" in the victims mind. How many Jr pers have you dealt with for disciplinary issues, who went and told their buddies you were just being a d!ck?

This is why the victim and the guilty are allowed to make representations. 

This is an emotionally charged issue, and we all want to see it sorted out. Suggesting witch hunts for people who are accused of being bad is not how this gets sorted. If anything the perception of a witch hunt will destroy any hope of real, lasting change.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Another tidbit from the government's I.A. on this:


> ... the military will also create a new internal organization led by Lt.-Gen. Jennie Carignan as the new chief of professional conduct and culture ...


Here's a bit of the info-machine's job description (text also attached in case link doesn't work) ...


> Chief, Professional Conduct and Culture​
> What we do​The Chief, Professional Conduct and Culture will lead a fundamental transformation in the way systemic misconduct is understood and addressed in the Department of National Defence (DND) and the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF).
> The term systemic misconduct includes sexual misconduct, hateful conduct, systemic barriers, harassment, violence, discrimination, employment inequity, unconscious biases, and abuse of power in the workplace.
> Specific tasks​The Chief, Professional Conduct and Culture team is developing a framework to:
> 
> realign policies, programs and responsibilities that address misconduct across DND and the CAF
> improve the ways systemic misconduct is reported, tracked and addressed, both within and outside of the chain of command
> give greater agency and support to those who have experienced misconduct and those affected by it
> examine the ways systemic misconduct affects and is affected by intersectionality, reprisals, member satisfaction, and retention


Bit more on LGEN Carrignan here.


----------



## ArmyRick

Furniture said:


> In this case you're also getting only one side of the story.
> 
> As "satisfying" as it might be to hang the guilty bastard, we need to hear the other side first. It's pretty easy for something to go from "he had been a solid soldier before his mental health issues" to "He's the best dude ever, and he shouldn't be punished" in the victims mind. How many Jr pers have you dealt with for disciplinary issues, who went and told their buddies you were just being a d!ck?
> 
> This is why the victim and the guilty are allowed to make representations.
> 
> This is an emotionally charged issue, and we all want to see it sorted out. Suggesting witch hunts for people who are accused of being bad is not how this gets sorted. If anything the perception of a witch hunt will destroy any hope of real, lasting change.


So I had a Corporal in my CoC convicted in a civilian court of sexual assault in 2009 (and it was shaky evidence at best, but it went through) and the CAF couldn't wait to throw him out at warp speed and the unit CO at the time (a former CANSOFCOM soldier) was absolutely disgusted and wasted no time in booting him off the base under escort. 

This character letter was BS. Does Hamilton have a legal entitlement to a character reference letter upon conviction? If no, then the CAF really showed HORRIBLE judgement.

At the end of the day, the CAF exists and serves at the pleasure and mercy of the Queen, her government and her citizens. The citizens of this great country, regardless of political stripe, are very disgusted by story after story after things from sexual misconduct right on up to rape. 

For those of you who continue to defend this character reference letter and basically ignoring the victim really need to stop thinking like a lawyer and start thinking like a person of honour, integrity and a sense of duty (like the army ethos!). Take a damn look in the mirror and ask yourself WTF am I defending? 

Yes one might argue Dawe had a sense of duty to his subordinates but what about the victim? Where is the sense of duty to her and her husband, both service members. IMO, Dawe should have declined (if he had that option) and say sorry can't do it. I do feel Dawe (remember I knew him as a Captain in the Patricias and repsected him) should resign. He is a general.


----------



## trigger324

This entire thing seems to be devolving from misconduct to corruption


----------



## rnkelly

The character references shouldn’t have been written. Dawe says he regrets it. The article mentions that he entered mediation in an attempt to correct the situation. Puckchaser said that Dawe even spoke about this situation and admitted to handling it poorly before this story broke. Does this not mitigate the mistake he made? I assume they wrongly thought the letters were owed to the criminal member due to the institution’s part in making him into a monster.


----------



## OldSolduer

People make mistakes. MGen Dawe made a mistake. Period. I’d like to think I’d do things differently but I’m not in that position.


----------



## Halifax Tar

rnkelly said:


> The character references shouldn’t have been written. Dawe says he regrets it. The article mentions that he entered mediation in an attempt to correct the situation. Puckchaser said that Dawe even spoke about this situation and admitted to handling it poorly before this story broke. Does this not mitigate the mistake he made? I assume they wrongly thought the letters were owed to the criminal member due to the institution’s part in making him into a monster.



Regret is one thing.  But that that does not forgo repercussions for ones actions.  At the very very least he should be released dishonorably, and let to fade away into the past.


----------



## Halifax Tar

SupersonicMax said:


> Are you talking about LGen Dawes, who was not found guilty of anything criminal?


Yup, you're right.  I've never maintained he was criminally guilty.  Ethically he is is tarnished and corrupted.  And in this egregious situation that shouldn't be let to go with a slap on the wrist and a continuation of service.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Furniture said:


> In this case you're also getting only one side of the story.
> 
> As "satisfying" as it might be to hang the guilty bastard, we need to hear the other side first. It's pretty easy for something to go from "he had been a solid soldier before his mental health issues" to "He's the best dude ever, and he shouldn't be punished" in the victims mind. How many Jr pers have you dealt with for disciplinary issues, who went and told their buddies you were just being a d!ck?
> 
> This is why the victim and the guilty are allowed to make representations.
> 
> This is an emotionally charged issue, and we all want to see it sorted out. Suggesting witch hunts for people who are accused of being bad is not how this gets sorted. If anything the perception of a witch hunt will destroy any hope of real, lasting change.


The LGen Admits fault here, if you read the article.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

And I'd much rather forgive and keep the guy who admits he screwed up (best lessons learned) then someone I won't name (but his initials are JV) who keeps yippin' " never happened"....

Two completely different ethical levels at play here.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> And I'd much rather forgive and keep the guy who admits he screwed up (best lessons learned) then someone I won't name (but his initials are JV) who keeps yippin' " never happened"....
> 
> Two completely different ethical levels at play here.


Why would you want to keep either of them ?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Why not just fire everyone??  Maybe even execute??

I think it was an extremely major bonehead move on his part......but by all acounts( and obviously heresy but from folks I trust) a trusted warfighter.

We still are the Armed Forces ....job one should still be to  liquidate our enemies .   Want a pencil pushing knee pad wearing yes man/ woman there instead?.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Why not just fire everyone??  Maybe even execute??
> 
> I think it was an extremely major bonehead move on his part......but by all acounts( and obviously heresy but from folks I trust) a trusted warfighter.
> 
> We still are the Armed Forces ....job one should still be to  liquidate our enemies .   Want a pencil pushing knee pad wearing yes man/ woman there instead?.


Hyperbolic much ?

Were talking about a GO/FO who wrote character references for a convicted rapist, who also physically assaulted the husband of his victim and is now in custody for for further sexual assaults.  Keep in mind this was while maintaining the convicted was a "good guy who needed a break" and while trying to "influence the sentencing."

He can regret it after the fact all he wants, but if I as PO1 can see the ethical pitfalls of that mental gymnastics a GO/FO should be resolute and steadfast in knowing that was wrong, and if they have shown they cant see that they should no longer be allowed to lead us.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> And I'd much rather forgive and keep the guy who admits he screwed up (best lessons learned) then someone I won't name (but his initials are JV) who keeps yippin' " never happened"....
> 
> Two completely different ethical levels at play here.


The unnamed mbr also blamed a bunch of corporals (who were assaulted themselves) when the party plane got out of hand even though there was a general and big shot CWO present, who ignored everything. He epitomizes our poor leadership.


----------



## Infanteer

Halifax Tar said:


> Hyperbolic much ?


Maybe ask yourself this question.  So far, you've advocated stripping him of his pension, seizing his honours and awards, and a 2a release, all measures which either are not lawful or require a service tribunal.


----------



## Haggis

dapaterson said:


> Again, by memory, she was an executive with a not-for-profit and thus probably vested in another DB plan; buying out the house and abandoning claim on his pension was probably the better financial choice.


Correct.  She was an associate director of the Heart and Stroke Foundation and was a joint defendant in a suit filed by one of William's surviving victims.  That was settled in 2016, but the terms were not disclosed.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Infanteer said:


> Maybe ask yourself this question.  So far, you've advocated stripping him of his pension, seizing his honours and awards, and a 2a release, all measures which either are not lawful or require a service tribunal.


You're right.

_"Were talking about a GO/FO who wrote character references for a convicted rapist, who also physically assaulted the husband of his victim and is now in custody for for further sexual assaults. Keep in mind this was while maintaining the convicted was a "good guy who needed a break" and while trying to "influence the sentencing."_

What do you think is appropriate ?  Continued service ?  Why not a promotion ?  Allow him to honorably release ?  I am now being hyperbolic too 

When I read things like this I put my self in the position of the victim and their husband.  How can anyone in that LGen's CoC have faith that he has their best interest at heart  ?

I was once told it takes years to build amazing reputation and career and just a single moment to ruin it all, this is a point in case if I have ever heard one.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Halifax Tar said:


> You're right.
> 
> _"Were talking about a GO/FO who wrote character references for a convicted rapist, who also physically assaulted the husband of his victim and is now in custody for for further sexual assaults. Keep in mind this was while maintaining the convicted was a "good guy who needed a break" and while trying to "influence the sentencing."_
> 
> What do you think is appropriate ?  Continued service ?  Why not a promotion ?  Allow him to honorably release ?  I am now being hyperbolic too
> 
> When I read things like this I put my self in the position of the victim and their husband.  How can anyone in that LGen's CoC have faith that he has their best interest at heart  ?
> 
> I was once told it takes years to build amazing reputation and career and just a single moment to ruin it all, this is a point in case if I have ever heard one.


HT, you have just made a good and fair point in this post, but many of your posts on this subject have been hyperbolic and have even advocated action that, in itself would be unethical or even illegal and would fail a Charter challenge.

I am not defending the convicted or MGen Dawe. I am simply stating that vigilante or revenge “justice” just compounds the situation. As well, policies created out of anger are almost always failures because they fail to take into account second and third order effects that can make the situation worse.


----------



## Kilted

Halifax Tar said:


> Regret is one thing.  But that that does not forgo repercussions for ones actions.  At the very very least he should be released dishonorably, and let to fade away into the past.


If we did that, pretty soon we wouldn't have any GO/FO left.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Kilted said:


> If we did that, pretty soon we wouldn't have any GO/FO left.


Or CPOs or P1s. Or anybody.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Halifax Tar said:


> Yup, you're right.  I've never maintained he was criminally guilty.  Ethically he is is tarnished and corrupted.  And in this egregious situation that shouldn't be let to go with a slap on the wrist and a continuation of service.


Tell me which release item you’d use (one that would lead to a dishonourable discharge).


----------



## MilEME09

At this point it's better to just leave the psst alone, instead of hanging a LGen. Instead what can we do to prevent similar situations in the future? Not allow the CoC to act as character references during sentencing if convicted of certain crimes?


----------



## FSTO

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> And I'd much rather forgive and keep the guy who admits he screwed up (best lessons learned) then *some folks* I won't name (but their initials are JV *and HS)* who keeps yippin' " never happened"....
> 
> Two completely different ethical levels at play here.


A minister of the crown needs to depart as well, but that never happens anymore.


----------



## Kilted

FSTO said:


> A minister of the crown needs to depart as well, but that never happens anymore.


Unless they are a woman.


----------



## FSTO

Kilted said:


> Unless they are a woman.


Those women have more ethics in their pinky finger than the current crop of ministers.


----------



## Halifax Tar

SeaKingTacco said:


> HT, you have just made a good and fair point in this post, but many of your posts on this subject have been hyperbolic and have even advocated action that, in itself would be unethical or even illegal and would fail a Charter challenge.
> 
> I am not defending the convicted or MGen Dawe. I am simply stating that vigilante or revenge “justice” just compounds the situation. As well, policies created out of anger are almost always failures because they fail to take into account second and third order effects that can make the situation worse.


SKT, very fair points.  I don't think my position has changed much in my posts, I have walked back my desired repercussions I would say.  Often there is something lost in electronic communications...




Kilted said:


> If we did that, pretty soon we wouldn't have any GO/FO left.



I dont think our Snr Leadership (Officer or NCM) is filled with the ethically corrupt.  Are there bad apples ?  Yes; and they should be dealt with.  Bad apples at any level must be removed from the barrel. 



SupersonicMax said:


> Tell me which release item you’d use (one that would lead to a dishonourable discharge).


Give him a trial and send him out on a 1(a), if the prosecution is successful.

If we cant get that one go for a 5(f) and let him drift into the past.

But I am not a JAG.


----------



## Haggis

FSTO said:


> A minister of the crown needs to depart as well, but that never happens anymore.


That minister is an ethnic minority in an ethnically diverse Liberal stronghold.


----------



## Good2Golf

Haggis said:


> That minister is an ethnic minority in an ethnically diverse Liberal stronghold.


Who ‘potentially’ influences lots of money coming into LPC coffers...


----------



## SupersonicMax

Halifax Tar said:


> Give him a trial and send him out on a 1(a), if the prosecution is successful.
> 
> If we cant get that one go for a 5(f) and let him drift into the past.
> 
> But I am not a JAG.


A trial for what charge?


----------



## FSTO

Haggis said:


> That minister is an ethnic minority in an ethnically diverse Liberal stronghold.


Yes, and the First Nations AG female was pretty important as well. But then again her constituency probably isn't the money machine that the MND can source.


----------



## Haggis

FSTO said:


> Yes, and the First Nations AG female was pretty important as well. But then again her constituency probably isn't the money machine that the MND can source.


She challenged the PM's authority and wishes and paid the price.  So did Jane Philipot.  The MND is playing the PM's game correctly and is likely quite safe from his ire.


----------



## OldSolduer

OldSolduer said:


> People make mistakes. MGen Dawe made a mistake. Period. I’d like to think I’d do things differently but I’m not in that position.


It is also very easy to sit at a keyboard and type your thoughts. We are all human and prone to make errors from time to time.


----------



## Blackadder1916

SupersonicMax said:


> A trial for what charge?



Taking out my long-time unused barrackroom lawyer hat, pinning on the devil's advocate badge (two horns and a pitch fork) and tossing this into the arena for discussion.

Could a case be made that MGen Dawe's (and similarly LCol MacGregor et al) action in writing a letter of reference to the court was in contravention of QR&O 19.36 - DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION OR OPINION.

It's quite a stretch I admit and would unlikely result in the laying of any charge, but there have probably been a few one way conversations over the past few days with the theme of "WTF were you thinking".  Well, maybe not.  Are there any three stars left who can have those conversations with two stars without being reminded of like boneheaded actions?

As for providing details of a serving member's military record to a civilian court - that is already dealt with in QR&Os
19.57 - OFFICER IN ATTENDANCE AT TRIAL BY CIVIL AUTHORITY
19.59 - DUTIES OF ATTENDING OFFICER PRIOR TO TRIAL
19.60 - DUTIES OF ATTENDING OFFICER DURING TRIAL


----------



## FSTO

Haggis said:


> She challenged the PM's authority and wishes and paid the price.  So did Jane Philipot.  The MND is playing the PM's game correctly and is likely quite safe from his ire.


Yes and that is what is wrong with our current concentration of power in the PMO. This makes me so cynical of our entire political process.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Blackadder1916 said:


> Taking out my long-time unused barrackroom lawyer hat, pinning on the devil's advocate badge (two horns and a pitch fork) and tossing this into the arena for discussion.
> 
> Could a case be made that MGen Dawe's (and similarly LCol MacGregor et al) action in writing a letter of reference to the court was in contravention of QR&O 19.36 - DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION OR OPINION.
> 
> It's quite a stretch I admit and would unlikely result in the laying of any charge, but there have probably been a few one way conversations over the past few days with the theme of "WTF were you thinking".  Well, maybe not.  Are there any three stars left who can have those conversations with two stars without being reminded of like boneheaded actions?
> 
> As for providing details of a serving member's military record to a civilian court - that is already dealt with in QR&Os
> 19.57 - OFFICER IN ATTENDANCE AT TRIAL BY CIVIL AUTHORITY
> 19.59 - DUTIES OF ATTENDING OFFICER PRIOR TO TRIAL
> 19.60 - DUTIES OF ATTENDING OFFICER DURING TRIAL



Even better - make him the point man for cleaning all this mess up in the CAF, to atone for his sins.

Kind of like Pte Feldman, at 23.10+


----------



## OldSolduer

FYI y'all I'm working on a document - letter whatever you want to call it. 

One of my points is "there will be a call for zero tolerance when it comes to sexual deviancy". 


Zero tolerance doesn't work and there is no such thing. We tolerate a lot of things that we say are "zero tolerance" like Domestic Violence.

Also, depending on the criteria one uses when speaking of sexual deviancy, not many of us would have graduated from basic training or BOQ. 

I have a few other thoughts on this subject.


----------



## Brad Sallows

No-one unprepared to face down the "woke" should attempt to identify anything as deviancy.  If at some future time the alleged deviancy is normalized or even merely tolerated, the past remarks may be used.


----------



## SupersonicMax

So the institution should say: “We will tolerate a bit of domestic violence or sexual deviancy (whatever that means)?”


----------



## brihard

SupersonicMax said:


> So the institution should say: “We will tolerate a bit of domestic violence or sexual deviancy (whatever that means)?”



If 'tolerate' means 'you get to keep your job', It would be reasonably honest.

I would substitute 'sexual deviancy' with 'sexual misconduct'.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Do you really expect the institution to ever say that? Do you believe it is reasonable for it to say that?There are ways we can NOT tolerate behaviours without firing people for those behaviours.  There are already process for releasing people.  The severity and rank level normally determines the consequences for a given action.


----------



## brihard

SupersonicMax said:


> Do you really expect the institution to ever say that? Do you believe it is reasonable for it to say that?There are ways we can make NOT tolerate behaviours without firing people for those behaviours.  There are already process for releasing people.  The severity and rank level normally determines the consequences for a given action.


Obviously not. I'm talking about 'practice', not 'preach'. Many members will get away with lots of shit, but CAF of course will not admit that consequences well short of release will follow some conduct that would be shocking to the public conscience.


----------



## dangerboy

Commander of Special Forces apologizes for mishandling of military couple's sexual assault case



> The commander of the Special Forces, Maj.-Gen. Peter Dawe, apologized to his members last night in an open letter for failing a major under his chain of command after his wife, who is a retired member, was sexually assaulted by another soldier. [Rest of article in link]


https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/co...s-peter-dawe-apologizes-open-letter-1.6008705


----------



## SeaKingTacco

SupersonicMax said:


> Do you really expect the institution to ever say that? Do you believe it is reasonable for it to say that?There are ways we can make NOT tolerate behaviours without firing people for those behaviours.  There are already process for releasing people.  The severity and rank level normally determines the consequences for a given action.


The bar for release is always going to be subjective because every case is different and even society’s perception of what is serious/not serious can rapidly shift, leaving us being criticized for actions taken/not taken years or decades before.


----------



## Haggis

SupersonicMax said:


> So the institution should say: “We will tolerate a bit of domestic violence or sexual deviancy (whatever that means)?”


Just use the word "variant" instead of "deviant".  It works so well with gun bans.

Public: "What's a variant"?
Liberals: "The definition of "variant" is not defined in law."
Public: "So, how can you tell if something is a variant?"
Liberals: "We'll know it when we see it."


----------



## QV

Now that the CAF has merged sexual misconduct and serious crimes of a sexual nature into one broad category, it's going to look fairly bad when they report on "sexual misconduct case" numbers.  Media coverage will only be about serious crimes as examples... but it will look like serious sex crimes are way up because distasteful jokes will be included in those overall numbers.  Well done shooting self in foot.


----------



## Navy_Pete

dangerboy said:


> Commander of Special Forces apologizes for mishandling of military couple's sexual assault case
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/co...s-peter-dawe-apologizes-open-letter-1.6008705


It's okay as he's learned from it and promises to do better.

What in the actual fuck; it's like they have a token apology generator for when they shit the bed. These are the same ass clowns that go on about loyalty to the institution etc etc. Now I'm going to have to do yet another DLN course because the big giant heads are stunned.


----------



## Good2Golf

Navy_Pete said:


> It's okay as he's learned from it and promises to do better.
> 
> What in the actual fuck; it's like they have a token apology generator for when they shit the bed. These are the same ass clowns that go on about loyalty to the institution etc etc. Now I'm going to have to do yet another DLN course because the big giant heads are stunned.


DND falling in line with the examples from the top, one might say.  The only thing lacking here is that MGen Dawe didn't shed any tears.  PCO/PMO may put him on remedial apology training.

/cynicalofalllevelsofgovernemntatthispoint


----------



## Weinie

OldSolduer said:


> FYI y'all I'm working on a document - letter whatever you want to call it.
> 
> *One of my points is "there will be a call for zero tolerance* when it comes to sexual deviancy".
> 
> 
> Zero tolerance doesn't work and there is no such thing. We tolerate a lot of things that we say are "zero tolerance" like Domestic Violence.
> 
> Also, depending on the criteria one uses when speaking of sexual deviancy, not many of us would have graduated from basic training or BOQ.
> 
> I have a few other thoughts on this subject.


US Army in the late 80's- early 90s, had a slogan that read "Zero Defects" It failed spectacularly because the US Army was made up of people, and some people have defects.


----------



## ballz

I think the MGen Dawe example illustrates why remedial measures should be public. Maybe not for a Private/Corporal but certainly at some point as you climb up the ranks and take on leadership positions you better not be afraid of accountability. If you're a Captain or higher and afraid that your mistakes/failings will be made public, 1) you're stupid because they already through gossip and 2) you've got a character flaw / lack of integrity in that you can't own your mistakes / be accountable.

The victim's husband wrote a letter to the CDS, and all he got was "well I gave them a talking to and made it clear what I expect." That leaves a gigantic vacuum of questions... "how" clear? Was the member put on a remedial measures or not? And to what extent?

If the CDS saw that and just gave them a "talking to," then he _did_ tolerate senior leadership poor judgement, and the standard we walk past is the one we get.

If, however, the CDS put him on C&P at the time, and it was public, we could see that, and everyone would know this is not acceptable. It would also be a reasonable action to take... "hey buds, you've had a great career, but that was a serious lapse in judgement, and we need GOFOs who exercise good judgement. You are one misstep away from being potentially released or demoted, because that kinda stuff is not up to the standard at the GOFO level." I bet MGen Dawe would take his lumps, learn from it, and be a better GOFO for it. And us peons would have a lot more faith in the institution that it will hold our leadership accountable. And Op HONOUR would actually have some credibility.

And, given that I suspect the CDS didn't put him on remedial measures, the current CDS who is now appraised of this could do so immediately. Given that it's "protected" info, at this juncture putting MGen Dawe on remedial measures would serve no purpose.... it doesn't help public perception, and MGen Dawe has likely already learned from the case. If it were public, it would be clear that the new CDS won't tolerate it, and would be a message to everyone in the rank and file as well as the public, and again, I think MGen Dawe would take his lumps and move forward.

Sunshine really is the best disinfectant.

Note: I know GOFOs serve at the pleasure of cabinet and that at any time they can be told they're done without going through the remedial measures process, that's not not the point. The impact of a GOFO being put on remedial measures for poor judgement would resonate with the rank and file, a lot more than this "behind the curtains" BS which just comes across, rightfully, as a lack of accountability and transparency.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Let's not worry about pesky things like labour laws...


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Let's not worry about pesky things like labour laws...


Labour laws do not necessarily apply to GOFOs. Or the CAF in general. Just sayin.


----------



## Weinie

ballz said:


> I think the MGen Dawe example illustrates why remedial measures should be public. Maybe not for a Private/Corporal but certainly at some point as you climb up the ranks and take on leadership positions you better not be afraid of accountability. If you're a Captain or higher and afraid that your mistakes/failings will be made public, 1) you're stupid because they already through gossip and 2) you've got a character flaw / lack of integrity in that you can't own your mistakes / be accountable.
> 
> The victim's husband wrote a letter to the CDS, and all he got was "well I gave them a talking to and made it clear what I expect." That leaves a gigantic vacuum of questions... "how" clear? Was the member put on a remedial measures or not? And to what extent?
> 
> If the CDS saw that and just gave them a "talking to," then he _did_ tolerate senior leadership poor judgement, and the standard we walk past is the one we get.
> 
> If, however, the CDS put him on C&P at the time, and it was public, we could see that, and everyone would know this is not acceptable. It would also be a reasonable action to take... "hey buds, you've had a great career, but that was a serious lapse in judgement, and we need GOFOs who exercise good judgement. You are one misstep away from being potentially released or demoted, because that kinda stuff is not up to the standard at the GOFO level." I bet MGen Dawe would take his lumps, learn from it, and be a better GOFO for it. And us peons would have a lot more faith in the institution that it will hold our leadership accountable. And Op HONOUR would actually have some credibility.
> 
> And, given that I suspect the CDS didn't put him on remedial measures, the current CDS who is now appraised of this could do so immediately. Given that it's "protected" info, at this juncture putting MGen Dawe on remedial measures would serve no purpose.... it doesn't help public perception, and MGen Dawe has likely already learned from the case. If it were public, it would be clear that the new CDS won't tolerate it, and would be a message to everyone in the rank and file as well as the public, and again, I think MGen Dawe would take his lumps and move forward.
> 
> Sunshine really is the best disinfectant.
> 
> Note: I know GOFOs serve at the pleasure of cabinet and that at any time they can be told they're done without going through the remedial measures process, that's not not the point. The impact of a GOFO being put on remedial measures for poor judgement would resonate with the rank and file, a lot more than this "behind the curtains" BS which just comes across, rightfully, as a lack of accountability and transparency.


I know Pete Dawe. Neither defending nor condoning his actions here, but my sense is that he is mortified from the outcome. 

The practice of CoC writing support letters for CAF pers undergoing sentencing is long established. Again, neither defending or condoning that process.  It will certainly make folks think twice for the next request.


----------



## ballz

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Let's not worry about pesky things like labour laws...



This must be a joke?


----------



## Journeyman

Good2Golf said:


> /cynicalofalllevelsofgovernemntatthispoint


Abso-fucking-lutely

Municipal, provincial, federal -- why are competence, honesty, ethics so scarce?


----------



## ballz

Weinie said:


> I know Pete Dawe. Neither defending nor condoning his actions here, but my sense is that he is mortified from the outcome.
> 
> The practice of CoC writing support letters for CAF pers undergoing sentencing is long established. Again, neither defending or condoning that process.  It will certainly make folks think twice for the next request.



He was my Brigade Commander for two years and I assume the best of him (which is exceedingly rare for me), that he knew this was a mistake before it came out like this and has and will continue to own it. Which is why I am sure he'd understand being put on C&P and I don't take him as someone who would be "offended" by it being public. In fact, he'd probably know it serves the institution and would accept that burden.

Regarding character references, I don't think CAF members should stop doing so or be told they can't. I think what's often overlooked by many is when you put your signature on something, it means something - whether it's a remedial measure, character reference, PER, or event/hospitality request you're approving - so you better be ready to stand behind what it means or don't sign it. This should hopefully wake some people up to that.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

SeaKingTacco said:


> Labour laws do not necessarily apply to GOFOs. Or the CAF in general. Just sayin.





ballz said:


> This must be a joke?


Well why don't I as Joe Citizen just call up HR and ask to look at both your pers files.
No??   Oh.....


----------



## Weinie

ballz said:


> He was my Brigade Commander for two years and I assume the best of him (which is exceedingly rare for me), that he knew this was a mistake before it came out like this and has and will continue to own it. Which is why I am sure he'd understand being put on C&P and I don't take him as someone who would be "offended" by it being public. In fact, he'd probably know it serves the institution and would accept that burden.
> 
> Regarding character references, I don't think CAF members should stop doing so or be told they can't. I think what's often overlooked by many is when you put your signature on something, it means something - whether it's a remedial measure, character reference, PER, or event/hospitality request you're approving - so you better be ready to stand behind what it means or don't sign it. This should hopefully wake some people up to that.


I completely understand your point. I also would write a character reference letter for my best friend if he killed the Dalai Lama.


----------



## ballz

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Well why don't I as Joe Citizen just call up HR and ask to look at both your pers files.
> No??   Oh.....



Pers files no, there's a lot more info in there than what we're talking about.

I see no reason my disciplinary record or a record of remedial measures shouldn't be accessible for public scrutiny, by both the rank and file as well as the general public, just like my emails are. And the higher up you go in rank, the more the public has a vested interest in accountability and standards.

They don't have as much of a vested interest in my T-CAT, MELs, course passes/fails, confidential, etc.

Regardless, this has nothing to do with "labour laws." Feel free to argue the merits of having remedial measures public or private, if there's any compelling reasons it should be private, but citing labour laws is a pretty poor argument in the only organization that can order you to run head first into a machine gun nest with a sharpened stick. If someone in a senior leadership position wants to cry about labour laws, we can get them a form for Tim Hortons.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

I knew someone would pull out that line....."only we face danger"....sigh.

Time for a grumpy old man nap....


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

The Initiating Directive for Professional Conduct and Culture has been issued - CAF folks should see a link in their DWAN. Gives a good indication of how we (the CAF) intend to tackle this. Of note, it states that "we do not possess the solutions, we intend to follow a "Listen; Learn; Act' methodology."


----------



## Furniture

Halifax Tar said:


> The LGen Admits fault here, if you read the article.


I was referring to the notes about the phone call, the part of the story where we only ever hear one side. The MGen can regret the tone of what was said, or the words themselves, but that doesn't change the fact that we shouldn't be using only the word of the aggrieved to fire people. 

If we create an environment where people can't admit to, and own mistakes without fear of being fired, we create an environment of secrecy and denial.


----------



## PuckChaser

TangoTwoBravo said:


> The Initiating Directive for Professional Conduct and Culture has been issued - CAF folks should see a link in their DWAN. Gives a good indication of how we (the CAF) intend to tackle this. Of note, it states that "we do not possess the solutions, we intend to follow a "Listen; Learn; Act' methodology."


An interesting tidbit in there is that GOFOs will be required to pass an unknown character based leader assessment, starting at GOFO (Oct 21) and moving eventually down to all promotion boards of Sgt/PO+ and Maj/LCdr+. 



mariomike said:


> But, how often do Canadians do a Banzai Charge?


Whenever Canadians require us to do so. We don't get to go on strike.

Now back on topic. Mercedes Stephenson is holding herself and the rest of the media to the fire for not keeping the pressure on the Government to fix these issues. It's fairly clear the Senior Leadership in the CAF was content to just let everything blow over, check out this Tweet series:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1387802562494009344
Extremely telling is that she got calls from senior leaders telling her she's hurting the CAF by reporting misconduct, and rightfully points out what we all know: junior ranks are hit harder for similar/equal offenses under CSD than Officers/Senior NCMs.


----------



## ballz

mariomike said:


> But, how often does the Army do a Banzai Charge?



What matters is that when the day comes to do that, that we can and do.... and the more accountability and discipline is allowed to falter, the greater chance we won't be able to take the objective when we need to.

To my knowledge, the public can find out if their doctor, lawyer, or accountant has ever been sanctioned, hell I think they can even see the complaints against them and what the profession's investigation concluded. Those are self-regulated professions and if they wish to stay self-regulated, they need to main the confidence of the public, and that level of transparency is one of the ways in which they do. I think it might also help aid them in regulating the profession, knowing that the public and their own membership can rightfully scrutinize it's leadership's decisions.


----------



## dapaterson

But will they apply the new selection tools to current GOFOs... and what if the current ones fail?


----------



## Jarnhamar

Halifax Tar said:


> He can regret it after the fact all he wants, but if I as PO1 can see the ethical pitfalls of that mental gymnastics a GO/FO should be resolute and steadfast in knowing that was wrong, and if they have shown they cant see that they should no longer be allowed to lead us.


A 5F release is still considered an honourable discharge from the CAF, when it's anoited with disability it comes with other benefits.

We release a lot of people 5F (and even 3B) who are guilty of some really aprehensible behavior.


----------



## Loachman

brihard said:


> If 'tolerate' means 'you get to keep your job', It would be reasonably honest.
> 
> I would substitute 'sexual deviancy' with 'sexual misconduct'.


"Sexual deviancy" was a military offence in the early 1970s, when I joined.

It was mainly applied to homosexuals.


----------



## Kilted

Loachman said:


> "Sexual deviancy" was a military offence in the early 1970s, when I joined.
> 
> It was mainly applied to homosexuals.


The way things are going maybe all sexual activity will be forbidden.  I know that their was one army on Game of Thrones that didn't have these problems.


----------



## Weinie

Kilted said:


> The way things are going maybe all sexual activity will be forbidden. _* I know that their was one army on Game of Thrones that didn't have these problems.*_


Are you volunteering?


----------



## Kilted

Weinie said:


> Are you volunteering?


No.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

People with "history" that they are trying to keep under wraps also become targets for hostile intelligence services. One option is a reconciliation board if the complainant/victim feels it's a worthy route and for infractions that are not very serious.


----------



## ballz

mariomike said:


> Puckchaser, I was asking for an example of this.



Why exactly? My hyperbolic example was to add emphasis to the fact that we need a higher level of accountability and discipline than your average Joe Citizen who falls under labour laws. Whether there is an example or not, the point is we have unlimited liability and that requires a higher level of accountability and discipline.

If the answer is "there is no example of this," is it your intent to conclude that we don't need a higher level of accountability and discipline?

I suspect not, so please make your point... I'll wait.


----------



## brihard

Colin Parkinson said:


> People with "history" that they are trying to keep under wraps also become targets for hostile intelligence services. One option is a reconciliation board if the complainant/victim feels it's a worthy route and for infractions that are not very serious.


This is a good point too. Kompromat...


----------



## Lumber

Holy hell guys. My eyes are bleeding from following you guys argue over unlimited liability, Canadian military history, and poetntial racially insensitive wording (it's not though).

Get back on track people.

My actual addition to the conversation: 

I once chastised @Tomahawk for claiming he didn't trust GOFOs appointed during the tenure of a Democratic US president. 

I'm starting to see his side of the coin.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Commander of Special Forces to be replaced early after apologizing for handling of sexual assault case​Link


> The commander of Canada's Special Forces will be leaving his post early after it was revealed this week that he wrote a letter in support of another soldier convicted of sexual assault and failed to support the victims.
> 
> Maj.-Gen. Peter Dawe was set to be rotated out of his current position — leading the country's elite commando unit — this summer.
> 
> The Department of National Defence announced late Friday that acting Chief of Defence Staff Lt.-Gen. Wayne Eyre has moved up the change of command to next week.
> 
> DND said Dawe will be moving into the job he was set to take after leaving his current command: director general of international security policy.


----------



## OldSolduer

Jarnhamar said:


> Commander of Special Forces to be replaced early after apologizing for handling of sexual assault case​Link


This saddens me. No matter what any of you think about MGen Dawe he had a lapse in judgement as many of us have had. Was this a proper COA? I would say yes. 
I've served in the same unit as him and the current A/CDS - I would not have wanted to be in LGen Eyre's boots.


----------



## PuckChaser

He's leaving 2 months early, into a staff position he was already going to occupy. It won't placate the folks that have the pitchforks out, but it's something.


----------



## trigger324

Jarnhamar said:


> Commander of Special Forces to be replaced early after apologizing for handling of sexual assault case​Link


Sounds fishy to me


----------



## OldSolduer

trigger324 said:


> Sounds fishy to me


please explain.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Makes me wonder what the story with Lt-Gen Mike Rouleau is and why he was moved from the VCDS after only 8 months.


----------



## trigger324

OldSolduer said:


> please explain.


Disregard. I re-read the article after and I misunderstood it the first time.


----------



## ArmyRick

Weinie said:


> I completely understand your point. I also would write a character reference letter for my best friend if he killed the Dalai Lama.



I was once tasked with a summary investigation and during the investigation, I saw a video of a good friend of mine breaking safety regulations as he was accused of doing. I was really torn about it and spoke to an experienced and well respected RCR MWO. I already knew but needed to have a moment.

Wrapping up the investigation, one of the recommendations myself and the Captain made (he was tasked to lead the investigation) was to lay charges on my good friend. It hurt and it sucked. At the end of the day, he put himself in that situation not me and I had a my obligations. 

Luckily, JAG took over on this incident (the army commander took over the investigation and turned it into a BOI) and declined to lay charges against my friend (not because they felt he didn't do it, they just saw it as such a tiny incident not worth their time).

For your scenario? If my friend killed the DL because he genuinely felt it was self defence or that the DL did some horrible injustice to him, then yes I would write a character reference. If he killed him for some greedy, vicious or selfish reason, then no, you did it, live with it. 

Mr Hamilton was convicted of raping a fellow soldier and officer. Rape is a raw attack on someone else's soul and rattles very deep into the victim.


----------



## CBH99

ArmyRick said:


> I was once tasked with a summary investigation and during the investigation, I saw a video of a good friend of mine breaking safety regulations as he was accused of doing. I was really torn about it and spoke to an experienced and well respected RCR MWO. I already knew but needed to have a moment.
> 
> Wrapping up the investigation, one of the recommendations myself and the Captain made (he was tasked to lead the investigation) was to lay charges on my good friend. It hurt and it sucked. At the end of the day, he put himself in that situation not me and I had a my obligations.
> 
> Luckily, JAG took over on this incident (the army commander took over the investigation and turned it into a BOI) and declined to lay charges against my friend (not because they felt he didn't do it, they just saw it as such a tiny incident not worth their time).
> 
> For your scenario? If my friend killed the DL because he genuinely felt it was self defence or that the DL did some horrible injustice to him, then yes I would write a character reference. If he killed him for some greedy, vicious or selfish reason, then no, you did it, live with it.
> 
> Mr Hamilton was convicted of raping a fellow soldier and officer. Rape is a raw attack on someone else's soul and rattles very deep into the victim.


I agree.

I would write a character reference for a good friend of mine, regardless of what the charges were (almost), as I feel I would know them and see them for the 'bigger picture', and could write an honest letter on their behalf.

If, however, I found out my friend had broken into someone's house and raped them - not once, but TWICE - the evidence came out at trial, and he was found guilty, that person would be dead to me.  Regardless of whatever combat experiences we've had, or what our PTSD manifests as, there is ZERO excuse to rape another human being...especially a cold, calculated act of breaking into their house & attacking them.


**I think everybody on this board is in general agreement.  We would all write a character reference for a good friend of ours, regardless of the situation, to an extent.  We would all draw the line at a cold, calculated move whereby someone enters someone else's home and rapes them - ESPECIALLY after a trial, and the person was found guilty.

I think we are all in agreement that it was in extremely bad taste, to say the least, of Dawes to write that letter under the circumstances - given what has come out so far about his conversations with the husband, and his knowledge of the events.  


The discussion is more or less whether Dawes writing that letter was a lapse in judgement, or an indicator of a bigger problem.  (As far as I've interpreted it.)

Like I suggested upthread, before I had learned of more of the facts -- I did believe it was possible that Dawes wrote that letter, not knowing the details of the case against the against.  If that was the case, and Dawes was not aware of the graphic details when he wrote the letter, I could see that simply being a matter of ignorance.

However, given the details that have come out over the last few days about this specific matter - and the recent revelations of other allegations against the senior leadership - it would seem this is very much a bigger problem.  Which is unfortunate in the most intense form, as the very last people who should be conducting themselves in these ways are the senior leadership.

0.02


----------



## Jarnhamar

Suppose a cpl or mcpl took it upon themselves to write a character reference for a pte previously guilty of rape, and who was guilty of sexually assaulting an officers wife and former officer herself to *help him get a more lenient sentence. *

Think the cpl or mcpl would have been treated differently?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Yes....it wouldn't be a media circus for one.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Agree with you Bruce. Wouldn't have got to this stage.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Unsolicited opinion before I go do something more productive.

There's a lot of good officers out there who are getting dragged through the mud (at least in name) due to the actions of their peers. Been there, sucks. Personally, I really enjoy working with checked-out and professional officers. When you have a good one they're motivating and amazing to work for. There are lots of officers on this forum who I think would just be wicked to work with/for.

I think a general consensus with troops is that reprimands for officers don't mean shit. In _some_ cases maybe they don't, but we know they can be career-ending. Especially so if you fall out of favor with the regimental mafia.

That's not fair. Officers should be allowed to make mistakes, learn from their mistakes, and carry on without a permanent stain on their record or have their whole career pigeonholed because of it.

_Because_ of that threat, especially the whole "I didn't want to hurt his career", we have a culture of not reporting/punishing/reprimanding people when they legitimately deserve it. That leads to the optics of double standards for leadership (at all levels) and members getting away with shit. And of course, this behavior isn't only seen in the officer ranks. Career obsession with NCOs is right up there.


We can fix this, but that will require moving away from our institutional career-obsession, and treating mistakes and lapses of judgment accordingly.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Jarnhamar said:


> institutional career-obsession,


That right there...…….times about a hundred.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> That right there...…….times about a hundred.


Nailed it.

We would be a long way towards fixing our leadership problems at all levels (and make no mistake- all of this unpleasantness we are currently suffering is, at its core a crisis in moral and ethical leadership), if we dropped the “careerist” mentailty, de-emphasized promotion and focussed everyone at being excellent at their jobs. No job should be considered a “ticket to punch” for the next level- especially Commanding Officer.

If we can fix leadership at the sub-unit and unit level, much of the rest of the problems will magically fix themselves.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

SeaKingTacco said:


> If we can fix leadership at the sub-unit and unit level, much of the rest of the problems will magically fix themselves.


And I really thought Afghanistan was going to solve a lot of our leadership issues.   For the first time in ages, on this large of a scale, we were going to have people move up on actual warfighting leadership.   I miscalculated badly it seems....


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

+ 100!

My father, who was a captain in a heavy anti-air artillery regiment in the 50's gave me the following pieces of advice when I told him I was switching to the officer path in the Navy:

Carry out your orders to the best of your ability!
Take care of your troops!
Don't pursue promotion. If it comes your way embrace it but don't make it a personal objective.

I tried to live by them.


----------



## daftandbarmy

SeaKingTacco said:


> Nailed it.
> 
> We would be a long way towards fixing our leadership problems at all levels (and make no mistake- all of this unpleasantness we are currently suffering is, at its core a crisis in moral and ethical leadership), if we dropped the “careerist” mentailty, de-emphasized promotion and focussed everyone at being excellent at their jobs. No job should be considered a “ticket to punch” for the next level- especially Commanding Officer.
> 
> If we can fix leadership at the sub-unit and unit level, much of the rest of the problems will magically fix themselves.



It might help if we concentrate on recruiting Officers who don't really need to rely on their military incomes to sustain themselves: a.k.a. Rich people.

There's nothing like watching a really smart, and financially independent, Captain poke holes in a much more Senior Officer's logic, in public, without having to be afraid that he might lose his job


----------



## lenaitch

Rest assured the CAF is not alone in this regard.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

And when your day is done NO ONE in the real world cares what rank you were.  Most would be more impressed with saying Sgt.    I mean there was no comic book hero called Major-_general Rock...…._


----------



## MilEME09

daftandbarmy said:


> It might help if we concentrate on recruiting Officers who don't really need to rely on their military incomes to sustain themselves: a.k.a. Rich people.
> 
> There's nothing like watching a really smart, and financially independent, Captain poke holes in a much more Senior Officer's logic, in public, without having to be afraid that he might lose his job


The problem in your statement is the senior officers should know better. That is our problem, we fail people up, and now they have gotten to high.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> And when your day is done NO ONE in the real world cares what rank you were.  Most would be more impressed with saying Sgt.    I mean there was no comic book hero called Major-_general Rock...…._


Try telling people you were a Petty Officer 1st Class lol


----------



## CBH99

Someone mentioned Gen Rouleau upthread... where did he get shuffled to after VCDS posting?  (I hadn't caught that he had left the post, with all that's been happening.  Shame, I thought he'd be a top pick for a top job!)


----------



## ModlrMike

I think an SF operator at the helm would be a bridge too far for the Liberals.


----------



## CBH99

ModlrMike said:


> I think an SF operator at the helm would be a bridge too far for the Liberals.


Hate to have an experienced guy that a vast majority of members like & support, who isn't the subject of numerous sexual misconduct or sexual assault complaints, leading the organization as it moves forwards into a very unpredictable world...  

If anything, he's exactly the kind of leader the CF needs right now as it moves forwards.  Someone experienced, likeable, full of common sense & competence, able to get things done, and who can lead an organization who's junior members could really benefit from seeing some solid leadership at the top after all of this.  

0.02


----------



## FSTO

CBH99 said:


> Hate to have an experienced guy that a vast majority of members like & support, who isn't the subject of numerous sexual misconduct or sexual assault complaints, leading the organization as it moves forwards into a very unpredictable world...
> 
> If anything, he's exactly the kind of leader the CF needs right now as it moves forwards.  Someone experienced, likeable, full of common sense & competence, able to get things done, and who can lead an organization who's junior members could really benefit from seeing some solid leadership at the top after all of this.
> 
> 0.02


Definitely not the yes man type that the PMO wants in their CDS.


----------



## MilEME09

CBH99 said:


> Hate to have an experienced guy that a vast majority of members like & support, who isn't the subject of numerous sexual misconduct or sexual assault complaints, leading the organization as it moves forwards into a very unpredictable world...
> 
> If anything, he's exactly the kind of leader the CF needs right now as it moves forwards.  Someone experienced, likeable, full of common sense & competence, able to get things done, and who can lead an organization who's junior members could really benefit from seeing some solid leadership at the top after all of this.
> 
> 0.02


It is a smart position to be in IMO, it's not well known so he can lay low until this all blows over, then positions him self to be CDS.


----------



## dapaterson

Thursday: Comd CANSOF is terrible!

Saturday: The guy who chose Comd CANSOF is great!


Ah, internet, don't ever change...


----------



## CBH99

Hadn't thought of that.  Hmmmmmmm.... may have a very valid point indeed.

Regardless, I'm still a Mike Rouleau fan.  Even if Dawes had an epic, truly epic failure in morals - that's on him, not Mike.

0.02


----------



## Brad Sallows

> So the institution should say: “We will tolerate a bit of domestic violence or sexual deviancy (whatever that means)?”



My point is that at one time, for example, homosexuality and transgenderism were widely thought of as deviant behaviours.  Neither the institution nor anyone who might even be confused with representing it should make any statements about alleged deviancy.  No-one who values his future reputation and is not prepared to defend himself based on what was widely held at the time should do so.  And I don't see how any of that ties in with any kind of violence, unless you mean the play-acting that constitutes BDSM.

The prudent course of action is to be less judgemental and more charitable.  People who were born broken* had no part in it; people who were fine and became broken* because of external stresses are not very much more responsible for the change.

*For whatever anyone chooses to see as "broken".


----------



## MilEME09

RCEME Corp has been brought down now too, allegations by a retired member that her assaulter was let off easy, and retaliation against her for making the complaint. RCEME gave out the usual post, and members at the school are apparently threatened not to support the retired member and her story. This is a disaster.....


----------



## CBH99

MilEME09 said:


> RCEME Corp has been brought down now too, allegations by a retired member that her assaulter was let off easy, and retaliation against her for making the complaint. RCEME gave out the usual post, and members at the school are apparently threatened not to support the retired member and her story. This is a disaster.....


Were the members threatened to not support the retired member?  Or were members maybe sternly told to stay out of it, and not get involved either way, given the bigger picture?  (I honestly don't know, which is why I ask.)

I could see a CoC telling the members "Due to everything happening, please shut your mouths and don't get involved.  Allow the investigations and lawyers to do their thing, we don't want anybody doing something to unintentionally make matters worse."

I can't see a CoC saying "Everybody shut up, whether you have valid evidence or not.  If anybody does have valid evidence, don't speak of it, don't even bring it up discreetly to us.  Don't support Person A no matter what, because Person B is one of our guys, and we'll support him regardless of the facts."

On the one hand, I should say I'd like to think the above wouldn't happen...but, with everything going on at the top, I may very well be wrong.  But threatening a large number of members at the RCEME school to 'don't support her' -- they would have just made matters 1000 worse, as now all of those members could go to the media & state such.  (Inadvertently having the opposite affect the CoC was aiming for.)


If the matter went to criminal court on the civilian side, that isn't on the CF.  The crown, defense lawyer, judge, etc etc - that's their court.  If the matter was handled internally within the CF, that's another matter.  Details in these situations are always very, very important.  

(I know you know that, I'm not saying that in a demeaning way towards you at all - just stating it as a general reminder.)


----------



## OldSolduer

I'm going to chime in with this bit of wisdom: We ALL have misplaced loyalties, whether it be to an alcoholic buddy, or a fire team partner who saved your ass, then went off the rails. Or to a current or  ex spouse who was abusive. Or a soldier who was instrumental in saving another one.

We don't know what is underneath the surface of most people and certainly we have no idea what they've undergone to bring them to whatever point or condition they are mentally. 

What I will say as this Hamilton fellow needs to spend a long time in secure custody - I doubt very much he will ever be rehabilitated.

Just my opinion and maybe we should not dog pile on someone who thought he was doing the right thing.


----------



## Sf2

ModlrMike said:


> I think an SF operator at the helm would be a bridge too far for the Liberals.


Mike was never an SF operator.   He was an SOA.....there is a distinction.


----------



## Good2Golf

SF2, I think ModlrMike was using the phrase as a more generic ‘operator’ vs ‘supporter’, vice SO vs Assaulter.  That’s how I took it, FWIW.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Sf2

G2g....fair enough.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Brad Sallows said:


> My point is that at one time, for example, homosexuality and transgenderism were widely thought of as deviant behaviours.  Neither the institution nor anyone who might even be confused with representing it should make any statements about alleged deviancy.  No-one who values his future reputation and is not prepared to defend himself based on what was widely held at the time should do so.  And I don't see how any of that ties in with any kind of violence, unless you mean the play-acting that constitutes BDSM.
> 
> The prudent course of action is to be less judgemental and more charitable.  People who were born broken* had no part in it; people who were fine and became broken* because of external stresses are not very much more responsible for the change.
> 
> *For whatever anyone chooses to see as "broken".


There is that saying; "You break it , you buy it" If a person starts out ok and is broken by the things they have been asked to do, then having their regiment say; "For better or worse he is part of our family, while we don't approve of what they did, but we will help them if they choose to accept what they did was wrong and try to get better".


----------



## Underway

> I can't see a CoC saying "Everybody shut up, whether you have valid evidence or not. If anybody does have valid evidence, don't speak of it, don't even bring it up discreetly to us. Don't support Person A no matter what, because Person B is one of our guys, and we'll support him regardless of the facts."



You apparently haven't worked with the army before.  I've seen something like that happen twice.

To be balanced I've also seen the best leadership that exists in the army as well.


----------



## CBH99

Underway said:


> You apparently haven't worked with the army before.  I've seen something like that happen twice.
> 
> To be balanced I've also seen the best leadership that exists in the army as well.


Apparently I was in a little bubble for my time in the Army, or I was blissfully blind and naïve to these kinds of things.  It was probably a combination of both of those things to be honest... I remember at various points throughout my career, guys would say "I thought those guys were gonna go at it!" - usually while hanging out or partying - and I hadn't noticed any tension at all.  

I have been described as a big, adorable, yet somewhat dumb teddy bear...affectionately, so they say    


I can say though, that in my own experience, I genuinely didn't witness or encounter any form of sexual misconduct towards our female members.  They were very much part of the crew, and if anything they were probably some of the best protected folks in the Army -- if anybody had said or tried anything shady with them, there would be about 100 guys there to back them up.

Any 'sexual misconduct' in the form of bad jokes of a sexual nature, or sexual threats, was typically comments that were sarcastic in nature between male members.



I guess I was just genuinely very lucky to work with the members I did, and have the CoC's that I did.


----------



## FJAG

daftandbarmy said:


> It might help if we concentrate on recruiting Officers who don't really need to rely on their military incomes to sustain themselves: a.k.a. Rich people.
> 
> There's nothing like watching a really smart, and financially independent, Captain poke holes in a much more Senior Officer's logic, in public, without having to be afraid that he might lose his job



... and we could go back to purchasing commissions and thus get rid of all that pesky ticket-punching and performance evaluation nonsense.



Oh. And this:







Brandon Sun - Breaking News, Sports, Manitoba, Canada


----------



## FSTO

CBH99 said:


> Apparently I was in a little bubble for my time in the Army, or I was blissfully blind and naïve to these kinds of things.  It was probably a combination of both of those things to be honest... I remember at various points throughout my career, guys would say "I thought those guys were gonna go at it!" - usually while hanging out or partying - and I hadn't noticed any tension at all.
> 
> I have been described as a big, adorable, yet somewhat dumb teddy bear...affectionately, so they say
> 
> 
> I can say though, that in my own experience, I genuinely didn't witness or encounter any form of sexual misconduct towards our female members.  They were very much part of the crew, and if anything they were probably some of the best protected folks in the Army -- if anybody had said or tried anything shady with them, there would be about 100 guys there to back them up.
> 
> Any 'sexual misconduct' in the form of bad jokes of a sexual nature, or sexual threats, was typically comments that were sarcastic in nature between male members.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I was just genuinely very lucky to work with the members I did, and have the CoC's that I did.


Me as well. Listening to the media, you'd think the CAF was one big Benny Hill like nightmare for women.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

FSTO said:


> Me as well. Listening to the media, you'd think the CAF was one big Benny Hill like nightmare for women.


Well, maybe we should listen to the women who have been testifying to the Parliamentary committee instead of basing our view of what they face on our own experience as presumably middle-aged men?


----------



## daftandbarmy

FSTO said:


> Me as well. Listening to the media, you'd think the CAF was one big Benny Hill like nightmare for women.



For a couple of women in my regiment, that would probably fit. 

But only as it applies to how the most senior (male) Officers behaved.


----------



## FSTO

TangoTwoBravo said:


> Well, maybe we should listen to the women who have been testifying to the Parliamentary committee instead of basing our view of what they face on our own experience as presumably middle-aged men?


Sir, please do not assume that I'm discounting the experiences of these victims at all. I'm just recounting my personal experience of being in the RCN for the past 30 years. I know of guys who had the stink of being a dirtbag but I never personally witnessed an assault by same said persons. I heard the stories of the former CMP, but once again it was all second or third hand information. My one and only experience as a leader was at a NRD when a PO1 put his hand on the knee of killick. The killick made a complaint, we went through the process of mediation between the two and it was a tough process but everyone came out stronger because of it.

My comment regarding Benny Hill was towards the media and its click bait mentality and any person who has no idea of the CAF, has never met a serving officer or rate, or never had an ancestor in a military would rightly think that any and all women who join the CAF shall be sexually assaulted within days of their enrollment. In these days of 10 second sound-bites, its very hard to express nuance.

As for the formation of another office to report and another study of "Changing the culture" I just don't know if this will work. Guys (and they are mostly guys) who have this inclination towards domination and assault and haven't figured it out that women don't want to play grab-ass by the time they are 25 are a lost cause. No amount of PPT, DLearn, working groups etc will change their behaviour. We as an institution need to have the fortitude to weed these folks out.

For the new recruits/Officer Cadets, they should be made aware from day one that the alphabet soup of impropriety will not be tolerated. That here are the avenues to report, and these are the consequences if found guilty and there is no level of rank that is immune. I think that if my mid-20's kids are any indication, that the new generation of CAF members may be in the best position to change the culture, despite the hyper-sexualization that they have been exposed to from a very early age.

It would also help if our Minister and Prime Minister would just come out and say that they royally fubard the Vance situation full stop.


----------



## Haggis

FSTO said:


> It would also help if our Minister and Prime Minister would just come out and say that they royally fubard the Vance situation full stop.


I don't need to hear another 'umm" punctuated artfully delivered "we need to do better" from the hypocritical feminist.


----------



## daftandbarmy

What's the solution? It all starts with hiring, apparently:

How Leaders Can Truly Improve Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Their Organizations​Two professors share research-backed tips for rethinking your recruiting efforts and getting the most out of diversity training.​ In many organizations, efforts to be more diverse, equitable, and inclusive are falling short. 

Perhaps senior leaders wonder why the “ideal” Black or Latinx candidate never seems to apply to an open position. Or they notice that, despite mandating diversity training for managers, employees from underrepresented groups are rarely promoted.

“I think organizations are sort of reckoning with the [reality that] feelings or desires are not enough, that there’s more that needs to be done,” says Ivuoma Onyeador, an assistant professor of management and organizations at Kellogg.

All too often, she explains, that reckoning comes only after being called out for insensitive comments or outright discriminatory behavior. “Over the last few years, several companies have faced allegations of discrimination and have had to wrestle with how to address these incidents.”

The stakes for doing better are high—for society, and for the organizations, which face reputational risks and market risks if they cannot reach an increasingly diverse base of employees and customers.

Thankfully, there are tangible things that leaders can do to promote meaningful change in their organizations.

It All Starts with Hiring​Lauren Rivera, a professor of management and organizations at Kellogg, studies “gatekeeper moments”—in her words, those “critical moments with careers and within firms where we see bias emerge and where we begin to see inequality between groups.”

She’s spent a decade studying the recruitment practices of elite firms. Rivera has found that firms tend to zero in on certain credentials—such as attending a prestigious university—so exclusively that it can be nearly impossible for other qualified applicants to even get an interview.

“One of the recruiters said, ‘I’m just being really honest: for a nontargeted application, it pretty much goes into a black hole,’” she says.

This is in part because recruiters equated a university’s prestige with the intelligence of its students. Yet, university prestige is also highly associated with factors such as wealth and race.

“By making this decision to only consider a very, very narrow segment of the population, firms are defining the pipeline in a very narrow way that’s going to limit racial diversity as well,” Rivera says.

The move is extremely shortsighted: diversity concerns aside, she explains, research suggests that there’s no relationship between school prestige and job performance. There is, however, a relationship between school prestige and turnover—with graduates of more prestigious schools tending to leave the organization more quickly than other graduates.

Rivera has also found that recruiters pay surprisingly close attention to extracurricular activities on resumes—perhaps as a proxy for a candidate’s work ethic, drive, or well-roundedness.

“A banker I interviewed said, ‘Activities are the only way to judge initiative: schoolwork is given to them,’” she says.

The problem: not all extracurriculars are equally valued. Rather, recruiters and hiring managers tend to prefer activities such as varsity sports, which require a lot of time and resources from a very young age—privileging applicants from wealthy families. Activities that involve caregiving or paid employment are less prized.

How Leaders Can Truly Improve Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Their Organizations


----------



## SeaKingTacco

daftandbarmy said:


> What's the solution? It all starts with hiring, apparently:
> 
> How Leaders Can Truly Improve Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Their Organizations​Two professors share research-backed tips for rethinking your recruiting efforts and getting the most out of diversity training.​In many organizations, efforts to be more diverse, equitable, and inclusive are falling short.
> 
> Perhaps senior leaders wonder why the “ideal” Black or Latinx candidate never seems to apply to an open position. Or they notice that, despite mandating diversity training for managers, employees from underrepresented groups are rarely promoted.
> 
> “I think organizations are sort of reckoning with the [reality that] feelings or desires are not enough, that there’s more that needs to be done,” says Ivuoma Onyeador, an assistant professor of management and organizations at Kellogg.
> 
> All too often, she explains, that reckoning comes only after being called out for insensitive comments or outright discriminatory behavior. “Over the last few years, several companies have faced allegations of discrimination and have had to wrestle with how to address these incidents.”
> 
> The stakes for doing better are high—for society, and for the organizations, which face reputational risks and market risks if they cannot reach an increasingly diverse base of employees and customers.
> 
> Thankfully, there are tangible things that leaders can do to promote meaningful change in their organizations.
> 
> It All Starts with Hiring​Lauren Rivera, a professor of management and organizations at Kellogg, studies “gatekeeper moments”—in her words, those “critical moments with careers and within firms where we see bias emerge and where we begin to see inequality between groups.”
> 
> She’s spent a decade studying the recruitment practices of elite firms. Rivera has found that firms tend to zero in on certain credentials—such as attending a prestigious university—so exclusively that it can be nearly impossible for other qualified applicants to even get an interview.
> 
> “One of the recruiters said, ‘I’m just being really honest: for a nontargeted application, it pretty much goes into a black hole,’” she says.
> 
> This is in part because recruiters equated a university’s prestige with the intelligence of its students. Yet, university prestige is also highly associated with factors such as wealth and race.
> 
> “By making this decision to only consider a very, very narrow segment of the population, firms are defining the pipeline in a very narrow way that’s going to limit racial diversity as well,” Rivera says.
> 
> The move is extremely shortsighted: diversity concerns aside, she explains, research suggests that there’s no relationship between school prestige and job performance. There is, however, a relationship between school prestige and turnover—with graduates of more prestigious schools tending to leave the organization more quickly than other graduates.
> 
> Rivera has also found that recruiters pay surprisingly close attention to extracurricular activities on resumes—perhaps as a proxy for a candidate’s work ethic, drive, or well-roundedness.
> 
> “A banker I interviewed said, ‘Activities are the only way to judge initiative: schoolwork is given to them,’” she says.
> 
> The problem: not all extracurriculars are equally valued. Rather, recruiters and hiring managers tend to prefer activities such as varsity sports, which require a lot of time and resources from a very young age—privileging applicants from wealthy families. Activities that involve caregiving or paid employment are less prized.
> 
> How Leaders Can Truly Improve Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Their Organizations


Hey...we only hire people to be Officers if they have a degree or we are going to give them a degree....


----------



## brihard

MGen Dawe has been relieved immediately, and placed on paid leave pending determination of 'what's next?'

Not sure if this is an advantageous-optics way of simply making him burn off a ton of accrued leave before he proceeds with his next planned posting at the planned date, or if his future is now actually in doubt...



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/special-forces-commander-on-leave-1.6011036


----------



## dangerboy

I know what they mean but how many times are we going to hear "We must do better". The statement is starting to sound very hollow, and no I don't have the answer to what the solution is.


----------



## brihard

dangerboy said:


> I know what they mean but how many times are we going to hear "We must do better". The statement is starting to sound very hollow, and no I don't have the answer to what the solution is.


Frankly it’s sounded hollow for quite some time now.

“must do better”. Got it. So do better.


----------



## Haggis

dangerboy said:


> I know what they mean but how many times are we going to hear "We must do better". The statement is starting to sound very hollow, and no I don't have the answer to what the solution is.


If it's delivered in a sincere, heartfelt manner with the appropriate number of Shatner-esque dramatic pauses and strategically lowered eyes, would you believe it (again)? Most Canadians would.  That's what we can expect from this government and MGen Dawe's apology letter reeks of exactly that.

A new study to revisit the ignored recommendations of the previous study, coupled with a new L1 Chief to influence other L1 Chiefs to "do better" is not what we need.


----------



## PuckChaser

Haggis said:


> If it's delivered in a sincere, heartfelt manner with the appropriate number of Shatner-esque dramatic pauses and strategically lowered eyes, would you believe it (again)? Most Canadians would.


Then again, even if you do that and follow up with "It doesn't matter what the complaint was about" when your CDS was accused of sexual misconduct in 2018 and you failed to act for 3 years until the complainant went to the media, seems pretty hollow.

Sajjan says nature of Vance complaint 'does not matter,' the steps taken afterward do


----------



## OldSolduer

dangerboy said:


> I know what they mean but how many times are we going to hear "We must do better". The statement is starting to sound very hollow, and no I don't have the answer to what the solution is.


“We must do better” is not a plan.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

WE MUST DO BETTER!!.   Seems to the public as "I want those bodies dug a lot deeper next time".


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Holy cow....could this guy be any fuller of bullshit???   I reiterate my above post with 'do better' really means bury the bodies deeper.









						Sajjan says nature of Vance complaint 'does not matter,' the steps taken afterward do
					

The federal defence minister says what was known in March 2018 about the nature of the complaint levied against former defence chief Gen. Jonathan Vance "does not matter."



					www.ctvnews.ca


----------



## McG

Did he really think through that statement? We all know he did not take any relevant steps after receiving the complaint.


----------



## OldSolduer

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Holy cow....could this guy be any fuller of bullshit???   I reiterate my above post with 'do better' really means bury the bodies deeper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sajjan says nature of Vance complaint 'does not matter,' the steps taken afterward do
> 
> 
> The federal defence minister says what was known in March 2018 about the nature of the complaint levied against former defence chief Gen. Jonathan Vance "does not matter."
> 
> 
> 
> www.ctvnews.ca


And Charlie Manson was misunderstood


----------



## Kilted

daftandbarmy said:


> It might help if we concentrate on recruiting Officers who don't really need to rely on their military incomes to sustain themselves: a.k.a. Rich people.
> 
> There's nothing like watching a really smart, and financially independent, Captain poke holes in a much more Senior Officer's logic, in public, without having to be afraid that he might lose his job


I know that this has been said, but that is how it was done for hundreds of years when commissions were purchased.  That came with it's own issues.  I'm sure this would be easy to fill the officer positions in the reserves, but may not be easy in the reg force unless pay rates were increased.  Not that I am saying that we should do this.


----------



## dapaterson

Kilted said:


> I know that this has been said, but that is how it was done for hundreds of years when commissions were purchased.  That came with it's own issues.  I'm sure this would be easy to fill the officer positions in the reserves, but may not be easy in the reg force unless pay rates were increased.  Not that I am saying that we should do this.



Good news!  Officers are already in the top family income in Canada (non-specialist occupations, IPC basic, no allowances or benefits included).

LGen: Top 1% of family income
BGen: Top 5% of family income
LCol: Top 10% of family income
Capt: Top 50% of family income


----------



## Kilted

dapaterson said:


> Good news!  Officers are already in the top family income in Canada (non-specialist occupations, IPC basic, no allowances or benefits included).
> 
> LGen: Top 1% of family income
> BGen: Top 5% of family income
> LCol: Top 10% of family income
> Capt: Top 50% of family income


I think that their expectations in this circumstance would be based on what their outside income would have been, not the average Canadian.


----------



## ModlrMike

Because we need officers who have even less in common with those they lead.


----------



## suffolkowner

Blackadder1916 said:


> Though the Armed Forces Council "diversity" photo wasn't a "political" shot.
> 
> View attachment 64845
> 
> And the Armed Forces Council doesn't include any politicians . . .  well . . . not the civilian kind.
> 
> View attachment 64846



Does anyone have a running total of the number of GOFO's that are facing allegations of sexual misconduct/assault? Last count I had was at 6 of the 136 GOFO's in total and 6 out of the 24 members of the Armed Forces Council.  In cases like this I think it would be helpful to look at the hiring/promoting policies. Why it would be impossible to eliminate these cases entirely in any organization/society it is very concerning that the opposite appears to be happening. It seems questionable whether the current acting CDS Wayne Eyre survives this latest issue as well, further adding to the turmoil.


----------



## MilEME09

suffolkowner said:


> Does anyone have a running total of the number of GOFO's that are facing allegations of sexual misconduct/assault? Last count I had was at 6 of the 136 GOFO's in total and 6 out of the 24 members of the Armed Forces Council.  In cases like this I think it would be helpful to look at the hiring/promoting policies. Why it would be impossible to eliminate these cases entirely in any organization/society it is very concerning that the opposite appears to be happening. It seems questionable whether the current acting CDS Wayne Eyre survives this latest issue as well, further adding to the turmoil.


136 is more then our organization needs, does an organization of under 100k need that many GOFOs? I think not, that's 136 people who make over 200k a year, or about 27 million in pay just for our generals, not including benefits, pension, etc....


----------



## Takeniteasy

I am curious as to how people would respond to the below statements made to a member submitting a formal complaint/grievance? (Context would be it falls under what OP Honour was addressing and the member is junior to all)

1. (CO) LCol **** "I expect you to divorce yourself from the incident and let the CoC take care of it." 
2. (CO) LCol **** "If you proceed with a formal complaint things would come out, are you ok with that?"
3. (CO) LCol **** "I need to assess mental state in case I need to send you home."
4. Admin O **** "Previous incident was not dealt with due to time and resources." (Command did not have a Grievance Officer for the past year)
5. Incident review by Capt **** to (CO) LCol email "It meets all the criteria for Harassment and Discrimination, hopefully it was just someone who did not realize the callousness comment and comes forward with an apology, the person could have no ill feelings towards the member, the comment when spoken between friends could be considered as harmless."
6. Capt **** (former CWO MP) "they are stalling (CoC) their response in hopes it goes away."
7. CCWO **** (context - discussion on Grievance submission and expectations) "You need to know your place."


----------



## Walt

IRONMAN3 said:


> I am curious as to how people would respond to the below statements made to a member submitting a formal complaint/grievance? (Context would be it falls under what OP Honour was addressing and the member is junior to all)
> 
> 1. (CO) LCol **** "I expect you to divorce yourself from the incident and let the CoC take care of it."
> 2. (CO) LCol **** "If you proceed with a formal complaint things would come out, are you ok with that?"
> 3. (CO) LCol **** "I need to assess mental state in case I need to send you home."
> 4. Admin O **** "Previous incident was not dealt with due to time and resources." (Command did not have a Grievance Officer for the past year)
> 5. Incident review by Capt **** to (CO) LCol email "It meets all the criteria for Harassment and Discrimination, hopefully it was just someone who did not realize the callousness comment and comes forward with an apology, the person could have no ill feelings towards the member, the comment when spoken between friends could be considered as harmless."
> 6. Capt **** (former CWO MP) "they are stalling (CoC) their response in hopes it goes away."
> 7. CCWO **** (context - discussion on Grievance submission and expectations) "You need to know your place."



Dawe should be fired. Full stop. He's "tarnished brass". I, as a Canadian tax payer, don't want to waste another penny to employ him. He's useless as a leader, and has most likely lost the confidence of those within his chain of command. He fucked up and should now suffer the consequence. What a waste.


----------



## MilEME09

Walt said:


> Dawe should be fired. Full stop. He's "tarnished brass". I, as a Canadian tax payer, don't want to waste another penny to employ him. He's useless as a leader, and has most likely lost the confidence of those within his chain of command. He fucked up and should now suffer the consequence. What a waste.


This can't be solved by forcing one general to retire, we need change from the top down. Minister first


----------



## dimsum

__
		https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadianForces/comments/n3cink

Can anyone say "social media briefings" from now on?


----------



## Walt

This can't be solved by forcing one general to retire, we need change from the top down. Minister first

Dawe is very near "the top". He was most likely "in line" to become a future CDS. Firing him will be a . Although I sadly agree that Sajjan is another problem, given the optics of


----------



## Walt

MilEME09 said:


> This can't be solved by forcing one general to retire, we need change from the top down. Minister first


The journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step.


----------



## suffolkowner

Walt said:


> This can't be solved by forcing one general to retire, we need change from the top down. Minister first
> 
> Dawe is very near "the top". He was most likely "in line" to become a future CDS. Firing him will be a . Although I sadly agree that Sajjan is another problem, given the optics of



Why stop with Dawe though. Has not the current acting CDS Lieutenant-General Wayne Eyre shown some serious poor judgement in supporting him. Given the issues and the climate one would have expected more discretion


----------



## OldSolduer

Walt said:


> Dawe should be fired. Full stop. He's "tarnished brass". I, as a Canadian tax payer, don't want to waste another penny to employ him. He's useless as a leader, and has most likely lost the confidence of those within his chain of command. He fucked up and should now suffer the consequence. What a waste.





Walt said:


> Dawe should be fired. Full stop. He's "tarnished brass". I, as a Canadian tax payer, don't want to waste another penny to employ him. He's useless as a leader, and has most likely lost the confidence of those within his chain of command. He fucked up and should now suffer the consequence. What a waste.


If we fired everyone who fucked up there wouldn’t be a CAF

spare me your outrage. Put away the pitchfork and torch


----------



## Jarnhamar

suffolkowner said:


> Given the issues and the climate one would have expected more discretion



_He's a good guy._


----------



## OldSolduer

Ok smart guys. Step up and put your names in the hat to become the CDS. If the CDS was held accountable for every fuck up in the military no one would want the job.
Put away the torches and pitchforks


----------



## Walt

OldSolduer said:


> If we fired everyone who fucked up there wouldn’t be a CAF
> 
> spare me your outrage. Put away the pitchfork and torch


 spare me your outrage. Put away the pitchfork and torch

If you say so. Go tell what you have written to Kevin Schamuhn and his wife Annalise.


----------



## OldSolduer

It wasn’t him I was referring to, it was your call for the head of the A/CDS.


----------



## Underway

Walt said:


> spare me your outrage. Put away the pitchfork and torch
> 
> If you say so. Go tell what you have written to Kevin Schamuhn and his wife Annalise.


You mean Captain Annalise Schamuhn and her husband.  Victims come first.  Every time.


----------



## OldSolduer

Underway said:


> You mean Captain Annalise Schamuhn and her husband.  Victims come first.  Every time.


Actually both are victims but yes I agree - she was the primary victim.


----------



## Jarnhamar

The CDS initial action was to treat this with the seriousness many CAF members have now come to expect from the senior command. 

Not to mention the CDS's "full confidence" changed pretty quick.


----------



## Walt

If we fired everyone who fucked up there wouldn’t be a CAF

Dawe supported a member who was charged with a criminal offense. A huge difference between a mistake and a fuck up.


----------



## PuckChaser

MilEME09 said:


> This can't be solved by forcing one general to retire, we need change from the top down. Minister first


Yep, especially after the inaction on Vance. How do we expect Senior CAF Leaders or any sort of culture change when the MND is part of the old boys club too?


suffolkowner said:


> Why stop with Dawe though. Has not the current acting CDS Lieutenant-General Wayne Eyre shown some serious poor judgement in supporting him. Given the issues and the climate one would have expected more discretion


LGen Rouleau was Comd CANSOFCOM at the time Dawe wrote the letter. Presumably he was aware, so maybe we should fire him too. Did CO JTF2 at the time write a letter in support of the victim as it seems like her spouse was in his unit? If not, he should be released as well.

If we're going on a witch hunt, don't do it half assed. Fire everyone, that leadership vacuum will definitely allow top-tier folks to be promoted and affect change...


----------



## OldSolduer

Walt said:


> If we fired everyone who fucked up there wouldn’t be a CAF
> 
> Dawe supported a member who was charged with a criminal offense. A huge difference between a mistake and a fuck up.


Spare me your outrage, again put the pitchfork away. You’ll only hurt yourself


----------



## Jarnhamar

PuckChaser said:


> Yep, especially after the inaction on Vance.


Directive promised by Vance doesn't appear to exist​Kevin Schamuhn complained about the handling of his case in 2017 to the chief of the defence staff at the time, Gen. Jonathan Vance. In a letter viewed by CBC News, Vance wrote that he had looked into the matter and found Schamuhn's objection "has merit" and was "inconsistent" with his efforts to stamp out sexual misconduct in the military.

Vance wrote that action would be taken so that "incidents of this nature will not be repeated without severe repercussions." He promised to include direction and training materials explaining how support should be provided to military members awaiting trial and sentencing for sexual misconduct. 

However, when CBC News asked for a copy of that directive, the Department of National Defence said it does not "have a copy of a directive or any other information to provide at this time," suggesting Vance didn't follow through with the promise.
Link





PuckChaser said:


> LGen Rouleau was Comd CANSOFCOM at the time Dawe wrote the letter. Presumably he was aware, so maybe we should fire him too.


LGen Rouleau was quietly moved out of the VCDS position after only 8 months with no explanation.


----------



## Walt

OldSolduer said:


> Spare me your outrage, again put the pitchfork away. You’ll only hurt yourself


Pitchfork & outrage. Instead of insulting me, offer a solution.


----------



## dangerboy

Jarnhamar said:


> LGen Rouleau was quietly moved out of the VCDS position after only 8 months with no explanation.​


The CAF created a new position, Strategic Advisor to the CDS on future capabilities. Now what exactly that means I don't know but I don't think it was a form of punishment or because the CAF/Government has lost faith in him.


----------



## OldSolduer

Walt said:


> Pitchfork & outrage. Instead of insulting me, offer a solution.


Ok. Here’s a possible solution. Deep background checks including interviews with peers and former subordinates. Their identities would need to be protected but if they could speak frankly without fear of reprisals it may help. It would be done by an outside agency- not DND or the NIS.


----------



## suffolkowner

PuckChaser said:


> Yep, especially after the inaction on Vance. How do we expect Senior CAF Leaders or any sort of culture change when the MND is part of the old boys club too?
> 
> LGen Rouleau was Comd CANSOFCOM at the time Dawe wrote the letter. Presumably he was aware, so maybe we should fire him too. Did CO JTF2 at the time write a letter in support of the victim as it seems like her spouse was in his unit? If not, he should be released as well.
> 
> If we're going on a witch hunt, don't do it half assed. Fire everyone, that leadership vacuum will definitely allow top-tier folks to be promoted and affect change...


It's a bit of a witch hunt for sure, but if half the witches we are burning at the stake are actually witches, then there is a serious problem.  So far there is nothing to suggest in all this that the CF are capable of recognizing good leadership and management to say nothing of being decent, good people. We are talking about alleged criminal behaviour and at least turning a blind eye to it. If all this coming to light is the result of the current promotion policies, then I think we need to look harder at how individuals are being identified and maybe just do the opposite (this is said only slightly tongue in cheek). Much stricter vetting can only do so much, obviously it is a start, but sociopaths are adept at social manipulation and hiding in plain site. In any country that took its military seriously this would be a much bigger scandal


----------



## PuckChaser

Depending on how they implement the character leader assessments, that'll go a long way. The elephant in the room is the toxic culture that seems to be emanating from the NCR, and perhaps the Officer corps in general. Mercedes Stephenson mentioning she was getting calls from Senior CAF Leaders about how she was "ruining the CAF" about reporting on sexual misconduct and their inaction on supporting individuals. That sounds like a parasitic element trying to protect itself instead of people willing to seek and accept responsibility for the failing culture.


----------



## ModlrMike

OldSolduer said:


> Ok. Here’s a possible solution. Deep background checks including interviews with peers and former subordinates. Their identities would need to be protected but if they could speak frankly without fear of reprisals it may help. It would be done by an outside agency- not DND or the NIS.


You mean similar to the Senate confirmation of US GOFOs?


----------



## Haggis

ModlrMike said:


> You mean similar to the Senate confirmation of US GOFOs?


And not like the selection process for the last GG?


----------



## OldSolduer

ModlrMike said:


> You mean similar to the Senate confirmation of US GOFOs?


If that’s what it takes


----------



## SeaKingTacco

OldSolduer said:


> If that’s what it takes


Yeah, because there is no possibility at all that that would become politicized...


----------



## Jarnhamar

dangerboy said:


> The CAF created a new position, Strategic Advisor to the CDS on future capabilities. Now what exactly that means I don't know but I don't think it was a form of punishment or because the CAF/Government has lost faith in him.


I hope so.


----------



## MilEME09

SeaKingTacco said:


> Yeah, because there is no possibility at all that that would become politicized...


To be fair the senate defense committee actually has time to study the issues and releases decent reports. Might not be a terrible idea for us


----------



## PuckChaser

ModlrMike said:


> You mean similar to the Senate confirmation of US GOFOs?


I don't think we need to go that far, but the process that vetted and chose David Johnston should be used for the CDS. That way, the CDS isn't beholden his/her job to the governing party, and that process was widely seen as non-partisan and produced a fantastic GG.

There are 2 US systems I think we need to pick up, one being the cooling off period for former CAF members before they can become the MND, and the second being the promotion board system where a member is literally provided an opportunity for a job interview. The 1st issue prevents the old boys club promulgating to the civilian check to the military as well as mitigating someone with an axe to grind taking over MND. The promotion board system would be able to start asking open-ended questions on leadership, culture, etc to see if the member is truly ready for senior leadership in the CAF and isn't just great at hockey or drinks with the CO.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

suffolkowner said:


> It's a bit of a witch hunt for sure, but if half the witches we are burning at the stake are actually witches, then there is a serious problem.  So far there is nothing to suggest in all this that the CF are capable of recognizing good leadership and management to say nothing of being decent, good people. We are talking about alleged criminal behaviour and at least turning a blind eye to it. If all this coming to light is the result of the current promotion policies, then I think we need to look harder at how individuals are being identified and maybe just do the opposite (this is said only slightly tongue in cheek). Much stricter vetting can only do so much, obviously it is a start, but sociopaths are adept at social manipulation and hiding in plain site. In any country that took its military seriously this would be a much bigger scandal


And my fear is that all we are doing is creating an ever more clever sociopath, by Darwinian evolution.


----------



## little jim

OldSolduer said:


> Ok smart guys. Step up and put your names in the hat to become the CDS. If the CDS was held accountable for every fuck up in the military no one would want the job.
> Put away the torches and pitchforks


One of the things that strikes me, and has me hostile surprised at some of the backlash, is perhaps a reflection of the socialization of our leaders. 

What I am getting at is how many times as a pl/tp Comd do you provide evidence supporting a ‘guilty’ soldier in a summary proceeding, harassment compliant, or even having provided a character statement in civilian court? How many times as a sub-unit commander or unit XO are you expected to write ‘reference letters’ for releasing members?

Given the info we have, Dawe wrote the letter back when he was Deputy Comd and before buddy went to court (I could be wrong). Did he give it as much thought as anyone who has been asked to write a reference letter at any rank level? How busy can the deputy Comd of a command be while they are in the midst of expansion?

Sort of torn now in terms of how to respond to any requests for current or former subordinates in the face of the court of social media. Yeah I understand when you get the out of the blue call from some potential employer about a reference for a former subordinate whom you held a low opinion of to give a neutral review, but it doesn’t really sit well that the safest option now is no comment.

i am not doubting that there are issues with the appearance of lack of support for the victims family in this case, but am guessing there might be one or two other leaders between the former Captain and the Dep that we aren’t tracking. It just strikes me as out of character having served under him numerous times in the past, and been on the receiving end of some very positive leadership examples from him (yes I heard about the Dawe Death March in Pet, but it sounded identical to the retreat from Stalingrad march of shame 1CMBG did in late 99 under Leslie).

Keep in mind this is a guy (me) who got injuries domestically, spent a year as an invalid, then another in recovery while fighting a 3B release, and not one leader from the vaulted regiment contacted to see if me, my wife, or infant son, needed support.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

PuckChaser said:


> I don't think we need to go that far, but the process that vetted and chose David Johnston should be used for the CDS. That way, the CDS isn't beholden his/her job to the governing party, and that process was widely seen as non-partisan and produced a fantastic GG.
> 
> There are 2 US systems I think we need to pick up, one being the cooling off period for former CAF members before they can become the MND, and the second being the promotion board system where a member is literally provided an opportunity for a job interview. The 1st issue prevents the old boys club promulgating to the civilian check to the military as well as mitigating someone with an axe to grind taking over MND. The promotion board system would be able to start asking open-ended questions on leadership, culture, etc to see if the member is truly ready for senior leadership in the CAF and isn't just great at hockey or drinks with the CO.


As to your first point about a cooling off period for a potential MND with previous service- I can think of no legal way doing that. A Minister of the Crown is recommended to the GG by the PM. I can’t see how you can pass a law that would limit who the PM can recommend or who the GG can approve.

On your second point, I think there is merit to this approach, if done well. Keeping in mind any system that can be gamed, will be gamed.


----------



## Walt

OldSolduer said:


> It wasn’t him I was referring to, it was your call for the head of the A/CDS.


You have totally missed the point of my opinion. Witch hunt NOT......assuming responsibility YES. Can you imagine, while you are away from your home, someone illegally entering your house, and crawling into bed with your wife? Dawe was "on guard " to offer his confidence to this perpetrator.  How would you react.?? If a similar activity occurred within your chain of command, would you turn a blind eye, and chalk it up to "testosterone, or boys will be boys" ??? Dawes reputation has been ruined, and his days as a "leader" are over.


----------



## PuckChaser

SeaKingTacco said:


> As to your first point about a cooling off period for a potential MND with previous service- I can think of no legal way doing that. A Minister of the Crown is recommended to the GG by the PM. I can’t see how you can pass a law that would limit who the PM can recommend or who the GG can approve.


Obviously it would take a lot of legal scholars to make it happen, but there's also no law that a Cabinet Minister must be a member of Parliament (from a quick Wikipedia search) either. It would take cross-party support, and then numerous applications to turn it into a common-law convention. Not a quick process by any means.



Walt said:


> You have totally missed the point of my opinion. Witch hunt NOT......assuming responsibility YES. Can you imagine, while you are away from your home, someone illegally entering your house, and crawling into bed with your wife? Dawe was "on guard " to offer his confidence to this perpetrator.  How would you react.?? If a similar activity occurred within your chain of command, would you turn a blind eye, and chalk it up to "testosterone, or boys will be boys" ??? Dawes reputation has been ruined, and his days as a "leader" are over.


Do you have a copy of the letter he wrote? I think you're making accusations as to the content and intent of that letter that you cannot back up.


----------



## lenaitch

MilEME09 said:


> To be fair the senate defense committee actually has time to study the issues and releases decent reports. Might not be a terrible idea for us



No doubt that any process involving politicians has the potential to become, well, political, but at least some sort of confirmation hearing, one that has actual weight and is not just a show, would at least take the matter out of the hands of the unelected handlers in the PMO.


----------



## Walt

PuckChaser said:


> Obviously it would take a lot of legal scholars to make it happen, but there's also no law that a Cabinet Minister must be a member of Parliament (from a quick Wikipedia search) either. It would take cross-party support, and then numerous applications to turn it into a common-law convention. Not a quick process by any means.
> 
> 
> Do you have a copy of the letter he wrote? I think you're making accusations as to the content and intent of that letter that you cannot back up.


Puckchaser,

I don't post that which "I cannot back up".

From the Ottawa Citizen:

"Dawe acknowledged to Schamuhn that he wanted to influence the sentence the soldier would receive and that he felt the sex offender was a “good guy” who deserved a break, the CBC reported. A judge cited the supportive letters from Dawe and the Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry regiment in his sentencing decision. The soldier was sentenced to three years of probation, instead of jail time."

Do I have the "paper"?, no. If you can prove him (Dawe) as being innocent, let me know.


----------



## QV

Lumber said:


> Holy hell guys. My eyes are bleeding from following you guys argue over unlimited liability, Canadian military hist
> 
> My actual addition to the conversation:
> 
> I once chastised @Tomahawk for claiming he didn't trust GOFOs appointed during the tenure of a Democratic US president.
> 
> I'm starting to see his side of the coin.





dimsum said:


> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadianForces/comments/n3cink
> 
> Can anyone say "social media briefings" from now on?



Saw this post from that link:

_“Here, I’m no longer in and idgaf who reads this:

Peter Dawe is a xxxxx.

He has the gall to write that his intentions were “purely motivated” when all he was doing was trying to help a convicted sex offender, who sexually assaulted a former officer AND physically assaulted a serving officer, receive a lighter sentence. There is sweet fuck all that is “pure” in that.

Kev’s notes from telcon with Dawe are telling. That xxxxx Dawe was lacking self-awareness at such a stunning level. The pathetic irony in trying to secure a light sentence for Hamilton because he had been “mistreated by the institution” while actively helping the “institution” mistreat Kev and Annalise was, apparently, completely fucking lost on Dawe.

Let alone the stunning ignorance in stating that somebody who committed B&E x 2, sexual assault x2, and simple assault x 2, not to mention a later conviction for another unrelated sexual assault, was “not a threat to society.” That’s exactly what Hamilton was. It’s clear Dawe has all the skill of a fucking steaming pile of dogshit when it comes to telling the good guys from the bad guys.

Apparently nobody ever told this xxxx that two wrongs don’t make a right.

This man either lacks the intelligence, morality or both to lead and I’m glad he’s been rooted out now.”_

I edited to remove the main insults.  But this poster has made solid points.  I just can’t believe someone of Dawe’s caliber would make such a mistake of this magnitude which was so easily recognizable.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Walt said:


> Puckchaser,
> 
> I don't post that which "I cannot back up".
> 
> From the Ottawa Citizen:
> 
> "Dawe acknowledged to Schamuhn that he wanted to influence the sentence the soldier would receive and that he felt the sex offender was a “good guy” who deserved a break, the CBC reported. A judge cited the supportive letters from Dawe and the Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry regiment in his sentencing decision. The soldier was sentenced to three years of probation, instead of jail time."
> 
> Do I have the "paper"?, no. If you can prove him (Dawe) as being innocent, let me know.


Innocent of what crime exactly?


----------



## SupersonicMax

So, in people’s opinion, should guilty parties be allowed to receive character references for sentencing?  Should the CAF be involved in this (good or bad)?


----------



## Walt

Walt said:


> Puckchaser,
> 
> I don't post that which "I cannot back up".
> 
> From the Ottawa Citizen:
> 
> "Dawe acknowledged to Schamuhn that he wanted to influence the sentence the soldier would receive and that he felt the sex offender was a “good guy” who deserved a break, the CBC reported. A judge cited the supportive letters from Dawe and the Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry regiment in his sentencing decision. The soldier was sentenced to three years of probation, instead of jail time."
> 
> Do I have the "paper", no. If you can prove him (Dawe) as being innocent, let me know.





SupersonicMax said:


> Innocent of what crime exactly?


 From the CBC:

Dawe apologized to the members under his command last night for failing a *major* under his chain of command after* his wife,* who is a retired member, was* sexually assaulted* by another soldier.


----------



## Brad Sallows

There isn't much need for character references for innocent parties; I'm hard-pressed to think of an example in which a person not thought to be guilty was about to be sentenced.  So, yes to character references.  And a character reference is more useful if the person providing it establishes the context in which it is relevant, which for people in the forces means other people in the forces referring to the convict's previous conduct and behaviour.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Walt said:


> From the CBC:
> 
> Dawe apologized to the members under his command last night for failing a *major* under his chain of command after* his wife,* who is a retired member, was* sexually assaulted* by another soldier.


What crime did Dawe commit?  You claimed that we need to prove Dawe’s innocence.  In order to prove his innocence, he needs to be charged of a crime.  He is not the one that raped a woman.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Brad Sallows said:


> There isn't much need for character references for innocent parties; I'm hard-pressed to think of an example in which a person not thought to be guilty was about to be sentenced.  So, yes to character references.  And a character reference is more useful if the person providing it establishes the context in which it is relevant, which for people in the forces means other people in the forces referring to the convict's previous conduct and behaviour.


I specifically said for guilty parties.  Character references can be good or bad for sentencing (mitigating vs aggravating factors).


----------



## Brad Sallows

Yes, but why the qualifier "guilty"?  Obviously the person is guilty or sentencing would not be imminent.  Asking whether a guilty party should be allowed to receive mitigation references is kind of salting the question.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Brad Sallows said:


> Yes, but why the qualifier "guilty"?  Obviously the person is guilty or sentencing would not be imminent.  Asking whether a guilty party should be allowed to receive mitigation references is kind of salting the question.


Just to be clear, nothing more.


----------



## Walt

SupersonicMax said:


> What crime did Dawe commit?  You claimed that we need to prove Dawe’s innocence.  In order to prove his innocence, he needs to be charged of a crime.  He is not the one that raped a woman.


I never stated that Dawe committed a crime. He, though, defended a criminal. Open your eyes, and realize that this is the issue. I don't mean to seem rude or disrespectful............just  expressing my feeling Sir!


----------



## SupersonicMax

Walt said:


> Do I have the "paper"?, no. If you can prove him (*Dawe*) as being *innocent*, let me know.


Quoting you again.  You want PuckChaser to prove Dawe’s innocence. To do so implies Dawe’s is suspected of having committed a crime or an offense.

Your comment and tone shows an emotional, knee jerk reaction.  I am all for accountability but there needs to be processes to be followed otherwise, it is merely a which hunt.  Did he have a lapse in judgement?  Yep. Should it cost him his career and reputation?  I am not convinced yet.  I do not know enough about the case (all sides) to have an informed opinion. I suspect that neither do you.


----------



## ballz

One thing that just dawned on me... if Dawe thought Hamilton was hard-done by by the institution, what did he ever do about it? Did he ever stick his neck out to fight for the guy when he was running into these issues? Its not like he didn't have much influence.

Hard to be credible telling the courts about how the institution left this guy behind when for a lot of us, guys like Dawe are "the institution," and may have done nothing?

I'm just thinking out loud here, I'd love to ask him / get an answer to that. It would provide a lot of colour to his character reference for me anyway.


----------



## Walt

SupersonicMax said:


> Quoting you again.  You want PuckChaser to prove Dawe’s innocence. To do so implies Dawe’s is suspected of having committed a crime or an offense.
> 
> Your comment and tone shows an emotional, knee jerk reaction.  I am all for accountability but there needs to be processes to be followed otherwise, it is merely a which hunt.  Did he have a lapse in judgement?  Yep. Should it cost him his career and reputation?  I am not convinced yet.  I do not know enough about the case (all sides) to have an informed opinion. I suspect that neither do y


I never implied that Dawe committed a crime. Nothing "knee jerk" about my reaction, nor my tone (aside from your opinion). I have simply stated facts. If this is beyond your realm of acceptance, I'm truly sorry.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Well, criminal or not, it seems the A/CDS thinks he did something (4 years ago) worth  a little more than a wrist slap, I think:

Special Forces commander put on leave as acting top soldier apologizes for handling of situation​The country's top soldier has placed the commander of Canada's Special Forces on leave indefinitely with pay following revelations that he wrote a letter in support of a soldier found guilty of sexual assault.

Amid mounting anger, Lt.-Gen. Wayne Eyre, acting chief of the defence staff, apologized for his handling of the situation and said Maj.-Gen. Peter Dawe will immediately turn his command over to the Special Forces unit's deputy commander and proceed on leave, according to a statement released Sunday.

Eyre said a "sense of betrayal" was intensifying the suffering of many in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF).

"It has become increasingly clear to me that MGen Peter Dawe's actions four years ago around sending a character reference are causing division and anger within the CAF," Eyre said.

"I apologize for increasing this pain."

The move comes just days after Eyre announced Dawe would be rotated out of his role leading the Canadian Special Operations Forces Command (CANSOFCOM) next week, in advance of his original departure date this summer.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/special-forces-commander-on-leave-1.6011036#:~:text=The acting chief of the,of sexual assault in 2017.


----------



## Walt

daftandbarmy said:


> Well, criminal or not, it seems the A/CDS thinks he did something (4 years ago) worth  a little more than a wrist slap, I think:
> 
> Special Forces commander put on leave as acting top soldier apologizes for handling of situation​The country's top soldier has placed the commander of Canada's Special Forces on leave indefinitely with pay following revelations that he wrote a letter in support of a soldier found guilty of sexual assault.
> 
> Amid mounting anger, Lt.-Gen. Wayne Eyre, acting chief of the defence staff, apologized for his handling of the situation and said Maj.-Gen. Peter Dawe will immediately turn his command over to the Special Forces unit's deputy commander and proceed on leave, according to a statement released Sunday.
> 
> Eyre said a "sense of betrayal" was intensifying the suffering of many in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF).
> 
> "It has become increasingly clear to me that MGen Peter Dawe's actions four years ago around sending a character reference are causing division and anger within the CAF," Eyre said.
> 
> "I apologize for increasing this pain."
> 
> The move comes just days after Eyre announced Dawe would be rotated out of his role leading the Canadian Special Operations Forces Command (CANSOFCOM) next week, in advance of his original departure date this summer.
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/special-forces-commander-on-leave-1.6011036#:~:text=The acting chief of the,of sexual assault in 2017.


The country's top soldier has placed the commander of Canada's Special Forces on leave indefinitely with pay following revelations that he wrote a letter in support of a soldier found *guilty of sexual assaul*_t_.

Eyre said a "sense of betrayal" was intensifying the suffering of many in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF).

"It has become increasingly clear to me that MGen Peter Dawe's actions four years ago around sending a character reference are causing division and anger within the CAF," Eyre said.

"I apologize for increasing this pain."

This statement reinforces my point. In order to satisfy some on this forum, I can't provide a hard paper copy as proof. However, a public admission and apology by the A/CDS speaks volumes. But.........who am I to say.  Perhaps Gen Eyre's reply was an "emotional knee jerk reaction". Thanks to Daftandbarmy for your post.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Had to delete above post due to Site Guidelines. 
Article can be read in tge Ottawa Citizen


----------



## Halifax Tar

I'm glad to see the machine seems to have recognized that Dawe, while regretful he claims, made a severe error of judgement and his ability to lead further needs to scrutinized and judged.  

It's no secret how I feel, and I think this is a move in the right direction. 



Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Had to delete above post due to Site Guidelines.
> Article can be read in tge Ottawa Citizen



Gah!  Sorry Bruce, I didn't look at the author.


----------



## Kilted

So do we now have an Acting Commander of CANSOFCOM, who was appointed by an Acting Chief of Defence Staff, who was appointed by someone acting in the GG's role?


----------



## SupersonicMax

Walt said:


> I never implied that Dawe committed a crime. Nothing "knee jerk" about my reaction, nor my tone (aside from your opinion). I have simply stated facts. If this is beyond your realm of acceptance, I'm truly sorry.


You did, by using the word “innocence” in Dawe’s incident context.  Words have meaning.




Walt said:


> This statement reinforces my point. In order to satisfy some on this forum, I can't provide a hard paper copy as proof. However, a public admission and apology by the A/CDS speaks volumes. But.........who am I to say.  Perhaps Gen Eyre's reply was an "emotional knee jerk reaction". Thanks to Daftandbarmy for your post.


The statement from the A/CDS doesn’t say anything about a crime or an offence.  It speaks of a commander (the A/CDS) losing confidence in one of his subordinate commanders and relieving him from Command.  This is a command imperative.  This is well short of firing him (for which could happen with due process), stripping him of his decorations or his pension (both of which have no legal basis), as some suggested should be done.


----------



## Kilted

SupersonicMax said:


> You did, by using the word “innocence” in Dawe’s incident context.  Words have meaning.
> 
> 
> 
> The statement from the A/CDS doesn’t say anything about a crime or an offence.  It speaks of a commander (the A/CDS) losing confidence in one of his subordinate commanders and relieving him from Command.  This is a command imperative.  This is well short of firing him (for which could happen with due process), stripping him of his decorations or his pension (both of which have no legal basis), as some suggested should be done.


My guess is that he will quietly retire. If the letter was used as part of sentencing, it is public knowledge. The fact that the military didn't take action at the time should prevent any administrative action being taken now. Then again, apparently the military is actually controlled by the media lately.


----------



## Good2Golf

Kilted said:


> So do we now have an Acting Commander of CANSOFCOM, who was appointed by an Acting Chief of Defence Staff, who was appointed by someone acting in the GG's role?


Depends.  He may just take full command early. The default shouldn’t be it’s a negative.  BGen Boivin is a very capable leader in his own right, and why the plan was for him (Boivin) to succeed MGen Dawe as fully appointed Comd CANSOFCOM, prior to Dawe’s reference letter coming to light.

Regards
G2G


----------



## QV

SupersonicMax said:


> So, in people’s opinion, should guilty parties be allowed to receive character references for sentencing?  Should the CAF be involved in this (good or bad)?



Depends... in this case Hamilton committed serious crime*s* against another person (members under the same command no less). This isn’t like a scenario where, due to PTSD he went on a bender then drove a car and crashed and injured someone. There is a scale and this one is so off the charts.


----------



## Haggis

SupersonicMax said:


> So, in people’s opinion, should guilty parties be allowed to receive character references for sentencing?  Should the CAF be involved in this (good or bad)?


Everyone found guilty of an offence has the right to ask for a character reference or to have one offered up for them.  Everyone asked to provide a character reference has the obligation to weigh the request objectively, given the totality of the situation.  I would expect that anyone who would volunteer to provide a character reference would do the same.  On rare occasions, I have refused to provide employment and character references in the past.


----------



## Eaglelord17

Kilted said:


> My guess is that he will quietly retire. If the letter was used as part of sentencing, it is public knowledge. The fact that the military didn't take action at the time should prevent any administrative action being taken now. Then again, apparently the military is actually controlled by the media lately.


The military is controlled by the public. We prefer to try and keep the CAF as low a profile as possible to avoid any public backlash. In recent years due to our own internal failings its become harder and harder to keep a low profile, and the stuff they are bringing to light really exemplifies how far off the rails we are coming. Which results in public outrage and having to take weak action when confronted with the evidence.

Some on here have said what crime has been committed by Dawe, and the answer is none except possibly some service offences such as disgraceful conduct, abuse of subordinates, or even scandalous conduct by officers. But even if those don't apply, what he did was categorically wrong in the actions he took and how he took them. If they weren't, the public outrage that exists wouldn't be there.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Eaglelord17 said:


> If they weren't, the public outrage that exists wouldn't be there.


The 'public' could hardly give a frig.....


----------



## OldSolduer

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> The 'public' could hardly give a frig.....


There is very little public outrage.


----------



## Good2Golf

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> The 'public' could hardly give a frig.....


CAF Redditors do and some groups on FB, but there is little hue and cry amongst the masses it would appear.


----------



## FSTO

I follow a blog that talks about architecture that has a very robust political section. Not one word about the CAF and the issues we face. Covid trumps all today but I doubt that even if there was no covid, the general public would still take zero notice.


----------



## dimsum

Good2Golf said:


> CAF Redditors do and some groups on FB, but there is little hue and cry amongst the masses it would appear.


That is a pretty small group though - folks who are in, some who want to join (maybe fewer now...) and some who have left but still want to keep in touch.  Plus folks who want to see memes, I guess.

I would hazard a guess that if I went around a typical Canadian city asking people if they knew who Russell Williams was, most people would just give me a blank look.


----------



## daftandbarmy

OldSolduer said:


> There is very little public outrage.



And perhaps that's an even bigger issue. Getting civilians more interested and engaged in the workings of the CAF might actually be our salvation.

_"La guerre! C’est une chose trop grave pour la confier à des militaires." - Clemenceau_


----------



## QV

The public takes zero notice because for the most part what has been going on in the CAF (the misconduct) isn’t any better or worse than what happens in our society.  The media has amplified it and with the help of the CAF shooting self in foot it is made to look bigger, like a convenient distraction, but most people probably think that’s nothing new.


----------



## Halifax Tar

It doesn't matter if the public is paying attention or not.  Their scrutiny should not be the deciding factor in doing the right thing.


----------



## Jarnhamar

SupersonicMax said:


> So, in people’s opinion, should guilty parties be allowed to receive character references for sentencing?  Should the CAF be involved in this (good or bad)?


How would the CoC treat a troop who provided a character reference for his buddy the racist neo-nazi in the unit? Do you think the CoC would have words for him because of the optics of it?


----------



## Blackadder1916

Haggis said:


> Everyone found guilty of an offence has the right to ask for a character reference or to have one offered up for them.  Everyone asked to provide a character reference has the obligation to *weigh the request objectively*, given the totality of the situation.  I would expect that anyone who would volunteer to provide a character reference would do the same.  On rare occasions, I have refused to provide employment and character references in the past.



"weigh the request objectively"  -  that's the rub.  How does one, especially one in a senior command position, weigh a personal empathy for an individual who previously served under you well in combat and still bears the physical and psychological scars of that service against the scars (physical and psychological) that said individual inflicted on fellow members of the military family.  By all appearances MGen Dawe failed to do that.  If he had been able to properly weigh both obligations what would such a letter look like.

Maybe something like this:

_I have been asked by Major ********* to provide a character reference for the sentencing phase of his trial.  You should have already been provided with a brief summary of his past military conduct by the Attending Officer as required by QR&O though a copy of his conduct sheet that lists any previous convictions and any decorations received would not likely provide a true sense of the officer who I have known for XX years and with whom I served in combat.  He was a good officer who rose to the rare challenge leading soldiers in war and did it well, so much so that he was awarded a Mention in Dispatches for his actions on XX XXX XXXX in Afghanistan.  He still bears the scars from wounds received there, both physical and psychological.  It thus surprised me when he committed the offences for which he has been found guilty.

The victims of his crimes are also members of the military family and that makes this a difficult letter to write.  We soldiers hold the regimental family dear, or at least we should.  Our commitment to serving Canada should be mirrored in keeping safe and secure our own families and those of our fellow soldiers.  It is a bitter betrayal of our ideals when one takes advantage of the absence on duty of a comrade to prey on his family.

Major ******** has had some difficulty coping following his tours in Afghanistan and he may not have fully taken advantage of the services the Canadian Forces have in place for those suffering from psychological trauma.  Should his problems absolve him from his crimes - no.  Would I have any reservations in having him under my command again?  Yes, I would.  Major ********'s military career is over.  He will never regain the trust of soldiers who may have to depend on him for their lives.  He will likely be administratively released from the CAF shortly following his sentencing.  He will also likely be ostracized by many with whom he served, fought and lived and may have considered friends.  All of which we soldiers find acceptable since we hold ourselves to high personal standards.

I trust this letter may be somewhat helpful as you deliberate on an appropriate sentence for Major ********.  Despite any empathy or sympathy that I may have for the plight in which he finds himself, I am unable, either personally or officially, to request that any leniency be considered based on his previous military service._

Red pens ready?

It would be interesting to see the letter that MGen Dawe actually wrote and whether he had it reviewed by his JAG before submitting it to the court.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Blackadder1916 said:


> "weigh the request objectively"  -  that's the rub.  How does one, especially one in a senior command position, weigh a personal empathy for an individual who previously served under you well in combat and still bears the physical and psychological scars of that service against the scars (physical and psychological) that said individual inflicted on fellow members of the military family.  By all appearances MGen Dawe failed to do that.  If he had been able to properly weigh both obligations what would such a letter look like.
> 
> Maybe something like this:
> 
> _I have been asked by Major ********* to provide a character reference for the sentencing phase of his trial.  You should have already been provided with a brief summary of his past military conduct by the Attending Officer as required by QR&O though a copy of his conduct sheet that lists any previous convictions and any decorations received would not likely provide a true sense of the officer who I have known for XX years and with whom I served in combat.  He was a good officer who rose to the rare challenge leading soldiers in war and did it well, so much so that he was awarded a Mention in Dispatches for his actions on XX XXX XXXX in Afghanistan.  He still bears the scars from wounds received there, both physical and psychological.  It thus surprised me when he committed the offences for which he has been found guilty.
> 
> The victims of his crimes are also members of the military family and that makes this a difficult letter to write.  We soldiers hold the regimental family dear, or at least we should.  Our commitment to serving Canada should be mirrored in keeping safe and secure our own families and those of our fellow soldiers.  It is a bitter betrayal of our ideals when one takes advantage of the absence on duty of a comrade to prey on his family.
> 
> Major ******** has had some difficulty coping following his tours in Afghanistan and he may not have fully taken advantage of the services the Canadian Forces have in place for those suffering from psychological trauma.  Should his problems absolve him from his crimes - no.  Would I have any reservations in having him under my command again?  Yes, I would.  Major ********'s military career is over.  He will never regain the trust of soldiers who may have to depend on him for their lives.  He will likely be administratively released from the CAF shortly following his sentencing.  He will also likely be ostracized by many with whom he served, fought and lived and may have considered friends.  All of which we soldiers find acceptable since we hold ourselves to high personal standards.
> 
> I trust this letter may be somewhat helpful as you deliberate on an appropriate sentence for Major ********.  Despite any empathy or sympathy that I may have for the plight in which he finds himself, I am unable, either personally or officially, to request that any leniency be considered based on his previous military service._
> 
> Red pens ready?
> 
> It would be interesting to see the letter that MGen Dawe actually wrote and whether he had it reviewed by his JAG before submitting it to the court.



If I was Dawe and the letter I wrote anything like what you posted above I would want it made public and would want this out everyone's consumption, I would also probably maintain that while it was a character reference it wouldn't help the convicted with leniency from the court.

If not, I would probably admit what I did was wrong, at least now that everyone knows, and be as quiet as possible, while not causing any fuss with a hope of just leaving the CAF quietly.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Jarnhamar said:


> How would the CoC treat a troop who provided a character reference for his buddy the racist neo-nazi in the unit? Do you think the CoC would have words for him because of the optics of it?



Coincidentally, I had one of those guys in my rifle company. 

Funny, no one asked me for a reference while they were kicking him out of the CAF. Not that I would have provided one anyways.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> He, though, defended a criminal.



So what?  The country has a few professions and several organizations which defend criminals.


----------



## Walt

Halifax Tar said:


> It doesn't matter if the public is paying attention or not.  Their scrutiny should not be the deciding factor in doing the right thing.


Very well stated. Thank you.


----------



## TCM621

I'm still looking to see what was in the letter. I figured it would be public record as part of sentencing but I can't find the decision for Hamilton either in the Courts Martial Database or CANLII. The context matters a great deal here.

If he said, "Major Hamilton was a great guy before he suffered from PTSD and his behaviour has changed in X, Y, Z ways since then. I think he should receive more help than punishment" or something to that effect then I think it is perfectly legitimate. However if he said "Major Hamilton is a great guy who suffers from PTSD and I think you should go easy on him because he just made a mistake" that is clearly not legitimate. 

IAW the Criminal Code of Canada, judges are supposed to take into account mitigating factors such as mental illness during sentencing. As the cause of his mental illness in this case, Hamilton has a right to receive a letter on his behalf from the CAF. This is to affect sentencing only and has no bearing on the guilt or innocence of the offender. I can 't think of any way to do that, in a manner that meets the responsibilities to both members, except to have it written by a higher HQ. Assuming the tone is correct, I don't think Dawe did anything wrong. I do find it odd that the CO of the Regiment is getting a pass here while everyone focuses on Dawe.


----------



## Underway

Brad Sallows said:


> So what?  The country has a few professions and several organizations which defend criminals.


True.  But that's not our job. Our job is to defend the victims.  Especially when the victims are your ship/squadmates.  

By committing the crimes such as sexual assault one is stating that their own selfish desires were more important than the organization, Canada or Canadians.  That person has rejected their responsibilities as a member of the CAF.  And as such, they are not entitled to get our help anymore, no matter how much of a "good guy" they were.


----------



## Walt

Underway said:


> True.  But that's not our job. Our job is to defend the victims.  Especially when the victims are your ship/squadmates.
> 
> By committing the crimes such as sexual assault one is stating that their own selfish desires were more important than the organization, Canada or Canadians.  That person has rejected their responsibilities as a member of the CAF.  And as such, they are not entitled to get our help anymore, no matter how much of a "good guy" they were.


Underway, thank you for your very insightful comment. You are correct in stating that the "organization" needs to step up, and be accountable to the victims, rather than wasting time & dollars to defend the irresponsible. To Oldsolduer, Supersonicmax, and Puckchaser, thank you for your written spars.


----------



## Loachman

Walt said:


> Puckchaser,
> 
> I don't post that which "I cannot back up".
> 
> From the Ottawa Citizen:
> 
> "Dawe acknowledged to Schamuhn that he wanted to influence the sentence the soldier would receive and that he felt the sex offender was a “good guy” who deserved a break, the CBC reported. A judge cited the supportive letters from Dawe and the Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry regiment in his sentencing decision. The soldier was sentenced to three years of probation, instead of jail time."
> 
> Do I have the "paper"?, no. If you can prove him (Dawe) as being innocent, let me know.



Did the Ottawa Citizen print the whole letter?

If not, you have not backed anything up.


----------



## Walt

Loachman said:


> Did the Ottawa Citizen print the whole letter?
> 
> If not, you have not backed anything up.


Yep. You're right. I posted "fake news".


----------



## TCM621

Underway said:


> True.  But that's not our job. Our job is to defend the victims.  Especially when the victims are your ship/squadmates.
> 
> By committing the crimes such as sexual assault one is stating that their own selfish desires were more important than the organization, Canada or Canadians.  That person has rejected their responsibilities as a member of the CAF.  And as such, they are not entitled to get our help anymore, no matter how much of a "good guy" they were.


Is it our job to defend the victims? Aside from supporting your subordinates being a hall mark of good leadership there is nothing inherent in the military that requires defending victims of crimes. There are plenty of organizations that do that and do it better than the military ever could.  The same goes for the offender.

We do have a duty to support our members through good and bad. In this case we have two members who require support, for different reasons and in different ways. PTSD can mess people up to the point they do things like kill and rape, it is well documented. It is exacerbated by drug and alcohol abuse that often result from PTSD. None of that absolves them of their responsibility (generally) but it is certainly relevant in how one is handled after a crime is committed. It is very reasonable to have the CAF support a member dealing with the consequences of his behavior when it is, or could be, related to a medical condition related to service. 

This doesn't mean the CAF is absolved of its responsibility to the victim either, quite the contrary. The CAF just has to do both things and do it in a manner that is fair to both members. It's hard but if they wanted easy jobs they should have joined the military or accepted senior officer rank. I think a lot of this could have been solved by better communication and some sort of SOP. For example, if it was SOP to task the DComd of the higher HQ to support the offender while the rest of the CoC supported the victim, and it was communicated in such a way as to assure the victim that the CoC was there for them, there would be less of a chance the victim felt ignored or unsupported. For example, the Brigade commander could have written a statement regarding the effect the offender's actions had on the military as well as the victim.

I think the issue comes down to how they handled it and communicated it. It seems like the victim was not supported to the level she deserved and, because of that, it seems inappropriate to support he offender at all. If the victim had received adequate support, and the intent of the letters properly communicated, I don't see this letter being a big issue unless there are specific details of the letter that were a problem.


----------



## Loachman

Jarnhamar said:


> How would the CoC treat a troop who provided a character reference for his buddy the racist neo-nazi in the unit? Do you think the CoC would have words for him because of the optics of it?



I cannot say, but I would hope that the reference was an accurate and honest portrayal and that he should suffer no consequences for having provided one.

In this case, he should state his buddy was a racist neo-nazi - plus any positive characteristics and deeds in his favour.

In the case at hand, we have not seen the letter. Not knowing what , exactly, word-for-word, was written, it *cannot* be judged, no matter what has been said and written about it. I will make my judgement when I have had the opportunity to *read and consider it*, and not before. 

As long as it presented an accurate and honest portrayal of the offender as he was prior to his crimes - which I shall not defend, as they are indefensible - then I would expect to find little of substance to criticize.

I presume that there was nothing in the offender's history to indicate any tendency to break into people's houses and viciously assault them. That, to me, *should* be taken into account for sentencing purposes as distinct from a serial rapist.

I presume that he would not have even thought to commit such an act were he not in a dark place as a result of his service experiences. That, to me, *should* be taken into account for sentencing purposes as distinct from somebody who had spoken, written, or posted about violent rape fantasies.

His service record and reputation prior to the offences, including his mental wounds, *should* be put before the judge, and an MPRR does not do that.

An accused is *entitled* to a fair trial. A convict is *entitled* to a fair sentence, considering the gravity of the offence and his/her previous history.

I have been carefully considering two men whom I have known, and respected, a long time ago.

I found out that one had been beating his wife on a fairly regular basis, each time after coming home drunk. She told me one day, and I was extremely surprised, as she'd never let on, he "did not seem like the type", and they appeared to be the average happy couple with a young daughter in public. Not a hint of trouble.

So what should I think of him, and/or do, considering that, for a few more weeks after finding out, I had to maintain a professional relationship? There was the professional side of him, which I respected, and the personal side that I knew. It was not easy to match those up to the dark side that had just been revealed. I was posted, so I did not have to think about it for long and I don't think that I ever saw him again. I did see his wife a few times over the following few years, and was invited to her second, and much happier, wedding. Had anything gone to court and I'd been asked to provide a character reference I would have done so, dispassionately and honestly, and stated what I thought of him up to the point when I became aware of what he had been doing. I would also have, just as dispassionately and honestly, testified, in a trial, what I'd more recently learned that he had been doing. I would feel that it was my duty, both as an Officer and a Human Being, to do both. Justice would not have been served otherwise, in my mind. Just as there is a prosecution and a defence in the trial, there are victim impact statements and information about the recently-convicted in the sentencing. Balance and fairness, like it or not.

The other one had been an Instructor of mine on my Basic Jet Course in Moose Jaw. He was a truly outstanding Instructor in every way - not just flying skills, he cared very much about his students and did everything that he could to get them through the course. I never saw him again after I left, but heard, several years later, that he had been abusing his wife (whom I did not know). I do not actually know if he did or did not, so do not know what to think in that case. How would I act if we ever ran into each other somewhere? "Well, what a surprise! Long time, no see. Is it true that you beat your wife? No? First round's on me, then/Yes? Fuck off and die, then."

If MGen Dawe provided a dispassionate, accurate, and honest portrayal of the offender's character as had been known (widely, it seems) prior to his attack, I would not - and do not - see anything wrong with that and would support such a reference. That does *not* mean that I am defending the offender.

And, yes, such statements are very much intended to influence sentencing. That is the reason behind them.

It is up to the judge to consider *all* such information in his or her sentencing deliberations, just as it is up to the jury to consider all available information and argument put forth by both prosecution and defence when it is deciding between "Guilty" and "Not guilty".

Fortunately for me, I have never had any close friends or close colleagues that have put me in such a position.

And neither have most of you.

I wonder, though, if you would be saying the same things about MGen Dawe were you ever to be as unfortunate as to find yourselves in the same unenviable position.

I am not confident that you would.

There is good reason why jurors exist, and why they are not provided with pitchforks and torches, or tar and feathers, prior to being seated.


----------



## Loachman

Walt said:


> Yep. You're right. I posted "fake news".


I did not say that it was fake news, just incomplete information.


----------



## Loachman

TCM621 said:


> If he said, "Major Hamilton was a great guy before he suffered from PTSD and his behaviour has changed in X, Y, Z ways since then. I think he should receive more help than punishment" or something to that effect then I think it is perfectly legitimate. However if he said "Major Hamilton *is* a great guy who suffers from PTSD and I think you should go easy on him because he just made a mistake" that is clearly not legitimate.
> 
> IAW the Criminal Code of Canada, judges are supposed to take into account mitigating factors such as mental illness during sentencing. As the cause of his mental illness in this case, Hamilton has a right to receive a letter on his behalf from the CAF. *This is to affect sentencing only and has no bearing on the guilt or innocence of the offender.* I can 't think of any way to do that, in a manner that meets the responsibilities to both members, except to have it written by a higher HQ. Assuming the tone is correct, I don't think Dawe did anything wrong. I do find it odd that the CO of the Regiment is getting a pass here while everyone focuses on Dawe.



I concur, and have emphasized one key word in the first paragraph above.

If MGen Dawe said "is", then that is *not* defensible.

If he said "was, up until the point of committing his crimes", then it *is*.

But we *do not know* what was said or *how it was said*, and may never know.

For those who wish to fire a fine Officer for one mistake - and a minor one, in and of itself - it must be nice to be free of errors, omissions, and imperfections yourselves.

Or have others forgiven you for having made mistakes in your pasts, and you have simply forgotten?


----------



## Brad Sallows

Part of "your job" is to also stand by the people who have been damaged by service (or at least claim to be).  I suppose I missed something by not reading closely enough: the long history of sexual assault that preceded the events leading to Dawe's letter.  I also suppose that with citizens/taxpayers opining who they would like to see out of the CAF, I will add mine: all of those who turn like savage animals against formerly acceptable members of the pack/flock.


----------



## QV

Perhaps if it doesn’t come across as protecting the “old boys club” and the crimes aren’t so wretched as committing sex offences against a deployed comrade‘s spouse. You can stand by your people, but there is a line not to cross.  Based on what is publicly known, Dawe crossed that line IMO.  In this case if you’re standing by the convicted, how can you even stand by the victims?


----------



## Loachman

QV said:


> Perhaps if it doesn’t come across as protecting the “old boys club” and the crimes aren’t so wretched as committing sex offences against a deployed comrade‘s spouse. You can stand by your people, but there is a line not to cross.  Based on what is publicly known, Dawe crossed that line IMO.  In this case if you’re standing by the convicted, how can you even stand by the victims?


Depending upon the actual wording in the yet-unseen letter, it's not "standing by the convicted" as much as it's providing information to the judge to better ensure a fair and balanced sentence.

And a judge should not be in that position if he/she were not competent to fully and properly take all such submissions into account and render a fair and reasonable sentence.


----------



## Brad Sallows

If a "crazed vet runs amok with axe" story surfaces about some guy who had trouble processing his experiences, I expect the institution and its leaders to stand with him.  And murder is about as awful as it gets.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Brad Sallows said:


> If a "crazed vet runs amok with axe" story surfaces about some guy who had trouble processing his experiences, I expect the institution and its leaders to stand with him.  And murder is about as awful as it gets.



Do you know something we don't?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Brad Sallows said:


> If a "crazed vet runs amok with axe" story surfaces about some guy who had trouble processing his experiences, I expect the institution and its leaders to stand with him.  And murder is about as awful as it gets.


Really ? Why ?


----------



## Jarnhamar

Loachman said:


> I cannot say, but I would hope that the reference was an accurate and honest portrayal and that he should suffer no consequences for having provided one.
> 
> In this case, he should state his buddy was a racist neo-nazi - plus any positive characteristics and deeds in his favour.


Thoughtful post thank you.

Maybe it's overly cynical of me but I think the unit adj and RSM would be looking for what they could charge said member with. That certainly has been my experience.



Loachman said:


> In the case at hand, we have not seen the letter. Not knowing what , exactly, word-for-word, was written, it *cannot* be judged, no matter what has been said and written about it. I will make my judgement when I have had the opportunity to *read and consider it*, and not before.


That's a good point.  I honestly can't imagine reading that letter and changing my opinion so I'm biased that way but maybe it would happen. 

I think it's telling that when confronted by the husband of the victim (and victim himself) General Dawe was apparently unapologetic and unsupportive. 
Entitled to his beliefs but perhaps indicative of our institution's overall unsupportive attitude towards victims of sexual misconduct (assault).




Loachman said:


> Fortunately for me, I have never had any close friends or close colleagues that have put me in such a position.
> 
> And neither have most of you.
> 
> I wonder, though, if you would be saying the same things about MGen Dawe were you ever to be as unfortunate as to find yourselves in the same unenviable position.
> 
> I am not confident that you would.


Someone referenced it up thread. General Dawe justified supporting a criminal saying he felt bad because the institution let him down, while being unsupportive of a victim of sexual assault shortly after a national initiative pointing out how the institution systematically let down victims of sexual misconduct. 
I want to feel bad for the position he was in, that phone call makes me feel otherwise.




Loachman said:


> There is good reason why jurors exist, and why they are not provided with pitchforks and torches, or tar and feathers, prior to being seated.



Maybe the CAF needs civilian jurors .


----------



## McG

Brad Sallows said:


> If a "crazed vet runs amok with axe" story surfaces about some guy who had trouble processing his experiences, I expect the institution and its leaders to stand with him.  And murder is about as awful as it gets.


If PTSD is a mitigating factor from which is triggered an institutional obligation to support convicted veterans & members through the sentencing phase of a trial, do we really believe that support should be in the form of GOFOs & senior arms officers speaking as a representative of the institution? If there really is an institutional obligation, then would it not be more appropriate that a medical officer provide an impact assessment of the PTSD?

How do we maintain discipline within the institution if the same offices which are responsible to uphold discipline are known to be writing apology letters for equal or more egregious offences that were handled outside the institution?  What's the perspective of junior ranks when they see senior officers, through the authority of their rank and position, hand out convictions and punishment at summary trial and then those junior ranks turn around to see senior officers, leveraging the authority of their rank and position, to make apologies for the criminal behavior of one of their own?


----------



## FJAG

Jarnhamar said:


> ...
> Maybe the CAF needs civilian jurors .


That somewhat does away with the "right to be tried by your peers" concept and also blackens the entire military as being untrustworthy to deliver a fair judgement if properly instructed by a judge. 

Court members can be challenged for cause in appropriate circumstances. Your suggestion merely replaces one group with perceived biases with another group with different perceived biases. That's not progress. Where does the desire to find a "right-thinking" jury end.

🍻


----------



## daftandbarmy

McG said:


> If PTSD is a mitigating factor from which is triggered an institutional obligation to support convicted veterans & members through the sentencing phase of a trial, do we really believe that support should be in the form of GOFOs & senior arms officers speaking as a representative of the institution? If there really is an institutional obligation, then would it not be more appropriate that a medical officer provide an impact assessment of the PTSD?
> 
> How do we maintain discipline within the institution if the same offices which are responsible to uphold discipline are known to be writing apology letters for equal or more egregious offences that were handled outside the institution?  *What's the perspective of junior ranks when they see senior officers, through the authority of their rank and position, hand out convictions and punishment at summary trial and then those junior ranks turn around to see senior officers, leveraging the authority of their rank and position, to make apologies for the criminal behavior of one of their own?*



As an Officer I used to see a variety of examples of mutual 'ass kissing and covering' amongst those 'above my station', including for those who had been convicted of sexual assault, and I _could _tell you how I felt. 

But, you know, that kind of language is frowned upon outside of mule driving circles  

And, to be fair, it wasn't everyone/ all the time/everywhere, but just enough to creep me out to the point that I wasn't that sad when it came time to retire.


----------



## Jarnhamar

FJAG said:


> That somewhat does away with the "right to be tried by your peers" concept and also blackens the entire military as being untrustworthy to deliver a fair judgement if properly instructed by a judge.
> 
> Court members can be challenged for cause in appropriate circumstances. Your suggestion merely replaces one group with perceived biases with another group with different perceived biases. That's not progress. Where does the desire to find a "right-thinking" jury end.
> 
> 🍻


What's the low/high rank at a court-martial?

Holding up Canada's "top soldier" for the last 6 years as a role model, and everything else going on, _trustworthy institution _doesn't come to mind. I'd give us a weak 50/50 maybe.


----------



## Halifax Tar

McG said:


> If PTSD is a mitigating factor from which is triggered an institutional obligation to support convicted veterans & members through the sentencing phase of a trial, do we really believe that support should be in the form of GOFOs & senior arms officers speaking as a representative of the institution? If there really is an institutional obligation, then would it not be more appropriate that a medical officer provide an impact assessment of the PTSD?
> 
> How do we maintain discipline within the institution if the same offices which are responsible to uphold discipline are known to be writing apology letters for equal or more egregious offences that were handled outside the institution?  What's the perspective of junior ranks when they see senior officers, through the authority of their rank and position, hand out convictions and punishment at summary trial and then those junior ranks turn around to see senior officers, leveraging the authority of their rank and position, to make apologies for the criminal behavior of one of their own?



Agree.  Shouldn't that responsibility rest with the elected GOC and the people of thr country as a whole ?  The CAF doesn't decide to go into harms way, we are sent there not by GO/FOs; but by our elected members of parliament, civilians.  Hence the reason Veterans Affairs it part of DND/CAF.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> Really ? Why ?



If the institution orders a well-adjusted person into a situation and circumstances which cause him to become maladjusted, I expect the institution to take responsibility.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Brad Sallows said:


> If the institution orders a well-adjusted person into a situation and circumstances which cause him to become maladjusted, I expect the institution to take responsibility.


Which institution the GOC or CAF ?


----------



## Brad Sallows

> If PTSD is a mitigating factor from which is triggered an institutional obligation to support convicted veterans & members through the sentencing phase of a trial, do we really believe that support should be in the form of GOFOs & senior arms officers speaking as a representative of the institution



Support should be in the form of whoever can provide references; if they happen to be GOFO/senior, that is just the way things are.



> How do we maintain discipline within the institution if the same offices which are responsible to uphold discipline are known to be writing apology letters for equal or more egregious offences that were handled outside the institution?



Start by explaining that they are not apology letters, and continue by explaining what purpose they serve.



> What's the perspective of junior ranks when they see senior officers, through the authority of their rank and position, hand out convictions and punishment at summary trial and then those junior ranks turn around to see senior officers, leveraging the authority of their rank and position, to make apologies for the criminal behavior of one of their own?



Probably a poor one, if they don't get the same benefit during sentencing.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> Which institution the GOC or CAF ?



For support in general, both; but for character references, the people writing letters about serving/former members are more likely to be serving/former members.


----------



## OldSolduer

Halifax Tar said:


> Which institution the GOC or CAF ?


Short answer is both. The CAF doesn't declare wars or head of on missions on its own initiative. The GoC has to declare war or order the CAF to undertake a mission. 

The CAF provides support for the member until released then VAC should take over. We all have heard the horror stories.


----------



## MilEME09

Opposition blasts Liberals after debate to call PM's top aide on Vance cancelled
					

OTTAWA — Opposition parties are up in arms after a parliamentary committee meeting in which members were planning to continue debating whether to call Prime…




					ottawacitizen.com
				




Another day in cover up land


----------



## PuckChaser

It's hilarious, the opposition is giving the government an out by placing the blame on the PMs COS, but they won't take it. Maybe someone should tell them if you want to get out of the hole you're digging for yourself, start digging up as its a lot longer of a way out if you keep digging down.

The parasites in the CAF wanting to fight change must be loving this, they have political top cover for the status quo.


----------



## MilEME09

John Ivison: It's clear that the military sexual misconduct crisis is Sajjan’s mess
					

The Conservatives should resist the temptation to score cheap political points by going after Telford and, focus on the national interest – the removal of…




					nationalpost.com
				




Best one yet, the CAF is now its own worst enemy, and become a national security risk to it self.


----------



## CBH99

Brad Sallows said:


> If the institution orders a well-adjusted person into a situation and circumstances which cause him to become maladjusted, I expect the institution to take responsibility.


I'd like to clarify right off the bat, that I don't disagree with any of your posts in this thread so far.  I've found them to be moderate, well worded, down to earth, etc etc - and *I don't disagree with the post that is quoted above*.

I do agree that if the organization orders a well-adjusted person into a situation - even if that situation is the person's job that they joined to do & are trained to do - we do have an obligation to take care of those members if they become 'maladjusted', injured, or what I will delicately yet respectfully label as broken in some way, shape, or form.  

A military needs to take care of it's members when those members suffer physical or psychological/mental challenges throughout the course of their duties.




However, in this particular case, what that member did is not consistent with some sort of injury or whatnot.  This wasn't a member who had experienced anxiety in a crowded place, couldn't escape, and ended up getting physical with someone during some sort of breakdown - or anything of the sort.

This member targeted a female member he found attractive.  Found out where she lived.  Obviously did some sort of research on his target to know when her husband would not be home.  Then proceeded to break into her house and rape her.  And if that wasn't horrible enough, he went ahead and followed up by doing it a 2nd time.

So while I think almost everybody does agree with you that our organization does have an obligation to take care of members who become 'maladjusted' throughout the course of their duties, I don't believe this is a case of that.  Him blaming his actions on PTSD is - in my humble opinion - just a cop out, an excuse he hoped would have a beneficial affect on his case or his sentencing.  

(I am not a professional psychologist, and no I am not some sort of labelled expert on the subject by any means.)



While we do have an obligation to our members who serve honourably, we also have an obligation to pursue without mercy an individual who does what he did, and prosecute him fully.  

The citizenry, especially potential recruits, should not view the military as an organization where "If you get caught doing something shady, they'll support you regardless as long as you are open to accepting the help."  When it comes to a premeditated sexual assault in which a female member is raped in her own home, twice - the military should be the organization throwing this member to the f**king wolves after they have had a fair hearing, and is found guilty.  


*To be clear, I know the context of your post, and know what you meant.  That's why I wanted to clearly say I do agree with that you said.  I just wanted to clarify this flip side of the coin, as my own 0.002.  I apologize beforehand if I misunderstood the context of your post or if it was a response to someone else's post -- busy discussion thread, I may have missed something!*


----------



## MilEME09

A new low for the CAF that someone released to the media a fake document claiming Lt. Cmdr. Raymond Trotter was convicted of sexual assault in British Columbia. DND has confirmed its fake, but someone altered the original document and then released to the media. Absolutely despicable that people wear the uniform and think that's okay


----------



## OldSolduer

MilEME09 said:


> A new low for the CAF that someone released to the media a fake document claiming Lt. Cmdr. Raymond Trotter was convicted of sexual assault in British Columbia. DND has confirmed its fake, but someone altered the original document and then released to the media. Absolutely despicable that people wear the uniform and think that's okay


Reprehensible. I certainly hope this is investigated.

Whatever happened to all those ethics we are supposed to have?


----------



## FSTO

MilEME09 said:


> A new low for the CAF that someone released to the media a fake document claiming Lt. Cmdr. Raymond Trotter was convicted of sexual assault in British Columbia. DND has confirmed its fake, but someone altered the original document and then released to the media. Absolutely despicable that people wear the uniform and think that's okay


What idiot would think that this COA  would fly? Some real rocket scientists in our organization.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> However, in this particular case, what that member did



I don't share a certainty that there are only some kinds of ways people can change behaviour as a result of trauma.  Was there a history of sexual misconduct, yes or no?  If no, then what changed?

What is "pursue without mercy" meant to express?  To be literally "without mercy" is to be inhumane.

A people and a nation may be judged by the way it treats its misfits and criminals.

I suppose the CAF and its members have an interest in exercising compassion.  Who wants to join up and throw the dice on being the guy with the ill luck to witness horrors, suffer a breakdown, "break bad", and then be thrown to the wolves?


----------



## CBH99

Brad Sallows said:


> I don't share a certainty that there are only some kinds of ways people can change behaviour as a result of trauma.  Was there a history of sexual misconduct, yes or no?  If no, then what changed?
> 
> What is "pursue without mercy" meant to express?  To be literally "without mercy" is to be inhumane.
> 
> A people and a nation may be judged by the way it treats its misfits and criminals.
> 
> I suppose the CAF and its members have an interest in exercising compassion.  Who wants to join up and throw the dice on being the guy with the ill luck to witness horrors, suffer a breakdown, "break bad", and then be thrown to the wolves?


Again, I don't disagree with anything you've wrote here.  I think we are looking at this with a slightly different interpretation, which is bound to happen in discussions forums or text (without tone of voice or anything to convey the context.)

-  You are right, I imagine there are plenty of ways people can change as a result of trauma.  And I am nowhere near qualified to comment on any specifics of that.  However - PTSD or not - breaking into someone's home and sexually assaulting them is inexcusable, in my opinion.


- When I say that we, as an organization,  have an obligation to help and support our members who are hurting or suffering in some way/shape/form, and we should 'pursue without mercy' those who cross the line - it is not meant to be inhumane.  I'm not advocating for a literal pitchforking of any kind.  Perhaps I should rephrase it so it sounds less aggressive, but the underlying point remains - certain types of behaviour can't be tolerated.  

The military should stand for certain morals and ethics, and a code of conduct which is distinct from the average citizen in a few important ways.  If one of our members makes a deliberate choice to go against everything we stand for (and everything most people stand for) - _as an organization, we should stand by our values as well, and ensure that member is held accountable._ 

While I will openly admit, I have zero insight into this individual or his mindset - given the facts we do have, it seems like this was a very deliberate choice.  He chose a victim, learned her address, did some research to see when she would be home alone, broke into her house, and raped her.  More than once.  It was not a crime of passion or a lack of judgement, it was a calculated choice in which he deliberately victimized someone.

So yes, I do agree with you very much so that we do have a moral obligation to support, rehabilitate, and stand by our members who experience physical or psychological trauma.  Absolutely, 100%.  But I do believe we have an obligation to stand by our morals and ethics, and take a firm stance against immorality when that member chooses to do something like the above.

One of our greatest recruiting tools, and one of the reasons why the public has faith in us (albeit that faith may be on very thin ice in some ways now), and one of the things that makes the military a very separate department & experience for it's members is that we should be holding our members to a higher standard.  That's one of the appeals of the organization.  And while supporting our members is an important part of that, holding our members accountable is also an important part of that.  


- _A people and a nation may be judged by the way it treats its misfits and criminals.  _

I also very much agree.  _That is why I made the point of stating that after the member has received a fair trial, if they are subsequently found guilty_, to what extent do we as an organization go to continue supporting that member in the context of what this member did?

I know there are members who are good people, who end up broken or struggling, who end up in trouble with the law.  By no means am I suggesting we abandon them or throw them to the wolves, at all.

Again, however, where do we as an organization find the balance of where our obligation to our ethics outweighs our obligation to a member?  

And again, in the context of this case, we seem to focus on Dawes and Hamilton so much that we forget our organization - which we agree has an obligation to support our members - very much needs to support our member who was victimized in a very extreme way.  I would argue that our obligation to support her is infinite times more necessary than to support the individual who violated her.  


- I suppose the CAF and its members have an interest in exercising compassion. Who wants to join up and throw the dice on being the guy with the ill luck to witness horrors, suffer a breakdown, "break bad", and then be thrown to the wolves?

Again, I think we are agreeing on almost everything here, but reading the context of the post differently.

We do need to exercise compassion.  We do need to support our members who witness horrors, suffer a breakdown, and require help.  Like I said above, we 100% owe our members our loyalty.

Nobody is talking about throwing them to the wolves.  Someone who breaks into someone's home and sexually assaults a female member, and then repeats it again?  I wouldn't put this individual into the same category as the members mentioned above.



Overall, like I said, I agree with you.  Compassion and loyalty to our members is extremely important.  But so is accountability when a member chooses to rape someone, especially more than once.  (I know you didn't disagree with that, I'm just clarifying.)  

And just for the sake of an extreme, yet somewhat relatable example... what about Colonel Russell Williams?  Obviously his actions were even more extreme.  But they were also cold, calculated, sexual in nature, and repeated.  Was he a broken member that we should stand behind while they heal and pull it together?  Or was he someone who, after due process and a fair trial, was found guilty of some horrific things, and subsequently we need to distance ourselves from him?  (I realize this is mostly rhetorical)


I realize I'm rambling around a point that I may not be doing a very good job of clearly defining.  I guess my own humble, and very much useless/personal opinion is that - we do have an obligation to members who are damaged, while they heal and move forwards, even if they have the odd misstep or fall away for a little while from what we need to stand for as an organization.  That obligation ends when - after due process, evidence, and a fair trial - that member is found guilty of sexually assaulting another, repeatedly.


0.02


----------



## Underway

CBH99 said:


> He chose a victim, learned her address, did some research to see when she would be home alone, broke into her house, and raped her.



Little though experiment.

There was another guy who did this.  Then he escalated into murder. We stripped him of his rank, titles, awards, burned his uniform and tried to take away his pension. 

The military has no problem throwing out criminals and walking away.  Maybe Hamilton didn't threaten the institution enough to warrant that response.

Let's suppose he was caught before that escalation.   Who's going to write the nice character reference for that guy?  Because until we found out he was a psychopath he was the golden boy. 

I don't give two craps about whether or not someone was suffering from PTSD.  That's a partial reason, not an excuse.  Give them the help to improve but they can get it under controlled conditions of a jail cell or a psychiatric institute.  Victims come first, and that includes not re-victimizing them with letting the one who was convicted of raping them get off with a lighter sentence, because they garnered the support of a Regiment and their CoC.


----------



## Good2Golf

Underway said:


> I don't give two craps about whether or not someone was suffering from PTSD.  That's a partial reason, not an excuse.  Give them the help to improve but they can get it under controlled conditions of a jail cell or a psychiatric institute.  Victims come first, and that includes not re-victimizing them with letting the one who was convicted of raping them get off with a lighter sentence, because they garnered the support of a Regiment and their CoC.


^ This SHOULD be Canadian society’s default. Care for the victim should be desired AND demonstrated with far greater commitment than that afforded to the rehabilitation of a criminal.


----------



## TCM621

CBH99 said:


> I'd like to clarify right off the bat, that I don't disagree with any of your posts in this thread so far.  I've found them to be moderate, well worded, down to earth, etc etc - and *I don't disagree with the post that is quoted above*.
> 
> I do agree that if the organization orders a well-adjusted person into a situation - even if that situation is the person's job that they joined to do & are trained to do - we do have an obligation to take care of those members if they become 'maladjusted', injured, or what I will delicately yet respectfully label as broken in some way, shape, or form.
> 
> A military needs to take care of it's members when those members suffer physical or psychological/mental challenges throughout the course of their duties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, in this particular case, what that member did is not consistent with some sort of injury or whatnot.  This wasn't a member who had experienced anxiety in a crowded place, couldn't escape, and ended up getting physical with someone during some sort of breakdown - or anything of the sort.
> 
> This member targeted a female member he found attractive.  Found out where she lived.  Obviously did some sort of research on his target to know when her husband would not be home.  Then proceeded to break into her house and rape her.  And if that wasn't horrible enough, he went ahead and followed up by doing it a 2nd time.
> 
> So while I think almost everybody does agree with you that our organization does have an obligation to take care of members who become 'maladjusted' throughout the course of their duties, I don't believe this is a case of that.  Him blaming his actions on PTSD is - in my humble opinion - just a cop out, an excuse he hoped would have a beneficial affect on his case or his sentencing.
> 
> (I am not a professional psychologist, and no I am not some sort of labelled expert on the subject by any means.)
> 
> 
> 
> While we do have an obligation to our members who serve honourably, we also have an obligation to pursue without mercy an individual who does what he did, and prosecute him fully.
> 
> The citizenry, especially potential recruits, should not view the military as an organization where "If you get caught doing something shady, they'll support you regardless as long as you are open to accepting the help."  When it comes to a premeditated sexual assault in which a female member is raped in her own home, twice - the military should be the organization throwing this member to the f**king wolves after they have had a fair hearing, and is found guilty.
> 
> 
> *To be clear, I know the context of your post, and know what you meant.  That's why I wanted to clearly say I do agree with that you said.  I just wanted to clarify this flip side of the coin, as my own 0.002.  I apologize beforehand if I misunderstood the context of your post or if it was a response to someone else's post -- busy discussion thread, I may have missed something!*


As I have already mentioned, PTSD often as an inability to properly handle anger, and poor impulse control among other things. This often can lead to violence and, in extreme cases, can lead to murder and rape. The person is still responsible for their behaviour but it is behaviour that likely would never have surfaced if it wasn't for the PTSD.

The reason that it is important is that punishment is only one aspect of sentencing. The others include rehabilitation and protecting the public from a dangerous offender. A person who is suffering from a treatable mental illness doesn't need the same levels of incarceration as someone who doesn't.

In the case of a veteran, the reason they are in that situation is because of unlimited liability. They were put in a situation by the Crown that was the catalyst which set them down this road. The CAF, and the GoC has a responsibility to support that member. If the CAF only supports you for easy stuff, then it ain't worth shit. As I said before, deal with the situation like the one here is hard but so what. Everything about the military is hard, especially at the executive decision making levels. If we can't trust out Senior leadership to handle a complex situation like this, competently, during peace time how can we entrust hundreds or thousands lives them in wartime?




Underway said:


> Little though experiment.
> 
> There was another guy who did this.  Then he escalated into murder. We
> 
> The military has no problem throwing out criminals and walking away.  Maybe Hamilton didn't threaten the institution enough to warrant that response.
> 
> Let's suppose he was caught before that escalation.   Who's going to write the nice character reference for that guy?  Because until we found out he was a psychopath he was the golden boy.
> 
> I don't give two craps about whether or not someone was suffering from PTSD.  That's a partial reason, not an excuse.  Give them the help to improve but they can get it under controlled conditions of a jail cell or a psychiatric institute.  Victims come first, and that includes not re-victimizing them with letting the one who was convicted of raping them get off with a lighter sentence, because they garnered the support of a Regiment and their CoC.


Russell Williams' situation is not analogous to this one. That was a man that repeatedly committed heinous acts of an extended period of time. In fact, he hit all the hallmarks of a serial killer.  Lionel Desmond, who killed his wife and daughter before committing suicide, is a slightly better comparison. To my knowledge we did not "[strip] him of his rank, titles, awards,[or] burned his uniform".

There is a huge hang up in this thread with people thinking PTSD is being used an excuse, it's not, it is being used as an example of a mitigating factor. Judges are to consider both aggravating and mitigating factors when deciding sentencing.  One of the reasons, I think, we leave sentencing to the judge is that they are supposed to dispassionately look at the factors and give a fair sentence. Rape is the most visceral of crimes, we would be more willing to forgive a man who killed a woman than one who raped a woman. For some reason, we see rape as an unredeemable crime in a way we don't for other crimes. Judges are supposed to gather all the information and give an appropriate sentence, that we may or may not agree is sufficient.


----------



## Loachman

Jarnhamar said:


> Maybe it's overly cynical of me but I think the unit adj and RSM would be looking for what they could charge said member with. That certainly has been my experience.


Attempting to charge somebody for providing a character reference in a court (martial) case?

I cannot see any justification for that. It strikes me as unjust, unfair, and outright mean.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> Let's suppose he was caught before that escalation.   Who's going to write the nice character reference for that guy?  Because until we found out he was a psychopath he was the golden boy.



Scenario 1: the accused was a golden boy, and nothing came out at trial to reveal he was a deceitful psychopath who successfully concealed his flaws.  I would write a reference, believing my judgement of his character to not be based on false impressions.

Scenario 2: the accused was a golden boy, and things came out at trial to reveal he was a deceitful psychopath who successfully concealed his flaws.  I would not write a reference, believing my judgement of his character to demonstrably be in error.


----------



## McG

The fact that somebody was convicted of preying upon another human is not enough for you question that your positive judgment may have been in error?


----------



## QV

McG said:


> The fact that somebody was convicted of preying upon another human is not enough for you question that your positive judgment may have been in error?


And not just once...


----------



## OldSolduer

Loachman said:


> Attempting to charge somebody for providing a character reference in a court (martial) case?
> 
> I cannot see any justification for that. It strikes me as unjust, unfair, and outright mean.


Not to mention illegal.


----------



## SupersonicMax

OldSolduer said:


> Not to mention illegal.


Someone could probably find something to charge someone with but I am pretty sure those charges would be tossed out quickly.


----------



## Loachman

McG said:


> The fact that somebody was convicted of preying upon another human is not enough for you question that your positive judgment may have been in error?


The former Colonel had not suffered life-altering mental wounds in combat. He is what he is, a base and loathsome predator who did what he did - including taking photographs of himself in his victims' lingerie (and, for those who have not seen those photographs, I recommend against looking for them) - purely for jollies.

He acted in accordance with his nature and cannot be rehabilitated, although he could well fake it. He will remain a threat if released. If for public protection alone, he needs to be kept locked up.

In this case, the offender should be given whatever therapy that may help him correct himself while serving his sentence and post-release as assault and rape did not appear to be part of his original nature.

He has been rightfully tried and convicted and will serve his sentence. He still deserves treatment, and the public at large will also be well-served if it is successful.

One is malevolence personified.

The other was broken by his service.


----------



## Loachman

SupersonicMax said:


> Someone could probably find something to charge someone with but I am pretty sure those charges would be tossed out quickly.


I would hope, but lack complete confidence that they would.


----------



## Haggis

Loachman said:


> I cannot see any justification for that. It strikes me as unjust, unfair, and outright mean.


That's why it's called the Code of Service *Discipline*.  Justice has nothing to do with it (yes, I'm dating myself with that statement).

Seriously, the only service offence that I believe might fit would be NDA 129 and that would be a hard sell.  I would not go there.


----------



## Loachman

Brad Sallows said:


> If a "crazed vet runs amok with axe" story surfaces about some guy who had trouble processing his experiences, I expect the institution and its leaders to stand with him.  And murder is about as awful as it gets.


"Stand with him" is open to interpretation.

He should be provided with appropriate treatment as soon as possible, which should begin immediately, especially if he was not receiving treatment already.

He should be charged and tried and, if found guilty, sentenced appropriately.

And he should be provided with testimony regarding his service and character prior to commission of the crime, at either or both of the trial and sentencing stages as appropriate.


----------



## Loachman

Haggis said:


> That's why it's called the Code of Service *Discipline*.  Justice has nothing to do with it (yes, I'm dating myself with that statement).


Yes, I know, but unjustified punishments do not exactly improve discipline.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Loachman said:


> The other was broken by his service.



You think.  I wouldn't be suprise if we found out this Maj had done this previously.  

Look I feel for anyone struggling with PTSD.  But that does not condon or excuse and criminal acts committed.  And with an act this grievous, in my mind, it shouldn't even been a mitigating factor.  

The man terrorized a family.  Raping the wife and assaulting the husband. 

The Maj ceased being the victim when he committed those acts and for me looses all sympathy to his plight.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> The fact that somebody was convicted of preying upon another human is not enough for you question that your positive judgment may have been in error?



Not if I'm attesting to behaviour preceding a change in behaviour.


----------



## Loachman

Halifax Tar said:


> You think.  I wouldn't be suprise if we found out this Maj had done this previously.
> 
> Look I feel for anyone struggling with PTSD.  But that does not condon or excuse and criminal acts committed.  And with an act this grievous, in my mind, it shouldn't even been a mitigating factor.
> 
> The man terrorized a family.  Raping the wife and assaulting the husband.
> 
> The Maj ceased being the victim when he committed those acts and for me looses all sympathy to his plight.


On what do you base your assumption that he had committed similar crimes before these two?

I have not claimed that his mental wounds condone or excuse his crimes. He committed them, and, ultimately, is responsible.

It is the judge's place to decide whether or not any potentially-mitigating factors should be considered and what weight, if any, should be given to them. He or she cannot make a full and fair decision if any are held back from him or her, nor can he or she consider what weight, if any, should should be given to any aggravating factors.

The trial is solely to determine guilt or innocence.

The sentencing phase is to determine the punishment to be imposed.

To prevent a convicted individual from having mitigating factors presented in the sentencing phase is equivalent to depriving him or her of a full and fair defence in the trial phase.

No matter how heinous the crime, the accused is entitled to a fair and proper trial and, if convicted, an appropriate and just punishment.

Nothing more, and nothing less.


----------



## McG

Brad Sallows said:


> Not if I'm attesting to behaviour preceding a change in behaviour.


Could someone not drop the same statement to justify backing Russell Williams if they decided he at some point had showed a change in behaviour?
Are you qualified to make informed representations on mental health impacts contributing to specific behaviours on individuals?
Do you think the typical non-medical GOFO or senior officer is so qualified?


----------



## ballz

McG said:


> Could someone not drop the same statement to justify backing Russell Williams if they decided he at some point had showed a change in behaviour?
> Are you qualified to make informed representations on mental health impacts contributing to specific behaviours on individuals?
> Do you think the typical non-medical GOFO or senior officer is so qualified?



Did MGen Dawe provide a medical opinion?

There's a big difference between providing a background on someone's previously known character and/or behaviour patterns, and making "representations on mental health impacts." You seem to have created a straw man to argue with here.

I'm enjoying the conversation, but we're losing a grip on what the argument is about here.

It's for the judge to make judgements on how to weigh a person's previously known character and behaviours should impact sentencing. A medical expert can tell the judge about how things like mental illness may have impacted them, but only someone who has known them for a long time prior to the offence is going to be able to "make informed representations" about the person's character.

A medical expert providing a character reference about someone they don't know / have only treated medically is as stupid as an Infantry Officer providing a medical opinion.

EDIT: The speculation about the letter is causing this to drag on. Whether it's good or bad, making it public would help this conversation move along a lot faster. There's something off about the fact that it's not been published with all this heat and light.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Loachman said:


> On what do you base your assumption that he had committed similar crimes before these two?



I don't have an assumption.  I said I wouldn't be surprised.  In my experience sexual abusers rarely just do it a couple of times and generally have a wake of destruction behind them.  My experience is I am a victim of sexual abuse, and I have a father who spent his life in the corrections system winding up as a warden and this is what he told me.



Loachman said:


> I have not claimed that his mental wounds condone or excuse his crimes. He committed them, and, ultimately, is responsible.



I agree.



Loachman said:


> It is the judge's place to decide whether or not any potentially-mitigating factors should be considered and what weight, if any, should be given to them. He or she cannot make a full and fair decision if any are held back from him or her, nor can he or she consider what weight, if any, should should be given to any aggravating factors.
> 
> The trial is solely to determine guilt or innocence.
> 
> The sentencing phase is to determine the punishment to be imposed.
> 
> To prevent a convicted individual from having mitigating factors presented in the sentencing phase is equivalent to depriving him or her of a full and fair defence in the trial phase.
> 
> No matter how heinous the crime, the accused is entitled to a fair and proper trial and, if convicted, an appropriate and just punishment.
> 
> Nothing more, and nothing less.


And he received a trial and a sentence.  A couple by the sounds of it.  Both found him guilty.  Not an ounce of sympathy from me,  I couldn't give two hoots if this guy was in Seal Team Six when they caught OBL,  everything he did previously was nullified when he committed those acts, in my eyes.

And yes if my best friend in the whole world was this guy, I would write him/her off just as easily.


----------



## OldSolduer

Halifax Tar said:


> You think.  I wouldn't be suprise if we found out this Maj had done this previously.


I'd venture to guess this wasn't his first offence of that nature.

Read any book on criminal profiling - John Douglas wrote a few as did Robert Ressler, both from the Behavioral Sciences Unit of the FBI.

He has the hallmarks of a serial offender. His military history - postings, courses etc should be closely examined to see if there are any unsolved B& Es and rapes in those areas. I know its circumstantial but its a start point.


----------



## OldSolduer

Loachman said:


> On what do you base your assumption that he had committed similar crimes before these two?


I can answer that - sort of.

You probably won`t wake up tomorrow morning and decide to become a serial rapist or killer. 

This sort of crime has its roots in childhood. I would not be surprised if he was a bully or he had a reputation in high school of forcing himself on teen age girls.


----------



## Loachman

Halifax Tar said:


> I don't have an assumption.  I said I wouldn't be surprised.  In my experience sexual abusers rarely just do it a couple of times and generally have a wake of destruction behind them.



But even a serial rapist has a first time.

I see no reason to believe that this particular offender has a history.

No, I would likely not be surprised if he had, but would be equally unsurprised if he hadn't.



Halifax Tar said:


> Not an ounce of sympathy from me


 Nor, for his crimes, from me.

As a human being who was severely damaged as a result of his service to his Country, however, I have.

And, like anybody who has done his time, he deserves to be re-admitted to society upon eventual release from custody.

And treatment for his wounds.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> Could someone not drop the same statement to justify backing Russell Williams if they decided he at some point had showed a change in behaviour?



Sure.  Almost nothing is error-proof.



> Are you qualified to make informed representations on mental health impacts contributing to specific behaviours on individuals?



No.  So what?  My layman's opinion on someone's character and whether it changed would not need a medical basis.  Presumably judges are capable of weighing opinions.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> This sort of crime has its roots in childhood. I would not be surprised if he was a bully or he had a reputation in high school of forcing himself on teen age girls.



It's possible, but until those with the burden of proof prove it, it's irrelevant.


----------



## McG

ballz said:


> Did MGen Dawe provide a medical opinion?


A Colonel or GOFO speaking/writing as a representative of the CAF (or any part of it) is unable to present a " layman's opinion on someone's character" - that colonel or GOFO is presenting the institution's opinion. In making the representation, their words are carried not by the authority of the speaker but by the authority of the institution. If the idea is presented that major rapist was a really good guy who was broken by the service and PTSD has changed him, that is a medical opinion for which the CAF has qualified professionals to develop. 

From another perspective: If one believes (as some are arguing here) that the CAF is obliged or not obliged to provide character references based upon whether or not service attributable PTSD was a factor, then the act of giving a statement of character support on behalf of the institution would imply a medical opinion on behalf of he institution. 

As I have said previously, if someone wants to provide a character reference then they can take off the rank and uniform to provide that reference as an individual. But if that opinion is going to be offered with the weight of the institution, then it needs to have been confirmed by the competent authorities of the institution.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Loachman said:


> But even a serial rapist has a first time.
> 
> I see no reason to believe that this particular offender has a history.
> 
> No, I would likely not be surprised if he had, but would be equally unsurprised if he hadn't.
> 
> 
> Nor, for his crimes, from me.
> 
> As a human being who was severely damaged as a result of his service to his Country, however, I have.
> 
> And, like anybody who has done his time, he deserves to be re-admitted to society upon eventual release from custody.
> 
> And treatment for his wounds.


He did it twice by the time he got caught the first time, so he was establishing a history.

He got probation here, went on to sexually assault someone else, and went to jail for that.

My cup runneth over with a big glass of 'f that guy'. (which might be a fun embroidery I guess)

So Dawe provided him a character witness statement that helped get him probation, which Hamilton took advantage of to reoffend, while not supporting the original victims under his command. Oops. And to top it all off, Vance said he reviewed it, agreed it was the wrong call, said he fixed it by providing clear direction to avoid a repeat, and apparently did SFA.

So far all I'm learning is that nothing actually happens unless it's in the papers, then we learn from it and pledge to do better. Also we are so interested in being fair that it is almost impossible to get relieved of command; probably a happy medium between our approach and the American one.

This was a really poor decision, with a really poorly done review of said decision, that is being really poorly defended by the big giant heads. Takes a big steaming crap all over all the really competent, dedicated senior people who never make the papers, but makes it a challenge to just put my head down and plow on with all the work that needs done to keep the proverbial wheels on.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Part of the point of a character reference is the standing of the person writing it.  "Here is a reference from just some guy" isn't much use. I see no value to going through an elaborate theatrical performance to pretend no-one knows the rank and position of someone writing a reference.  If the author doesn't express something along the lines of "As a official representative of the CAF, I...", then it's just him.

The assumption that a character reference has to be medically grounded is unfounded.  "This is the soldier I knew" can be expressed without speculating on causes of behavioural change.

Not everyone is caught the first time they go bad, but there was still a starting event.


----------



## Loachman

McG said:


> A Colonel or GOFO speaking/writing as a representative of the CAF (or any part of it) is unable to present a " layman's opinion on someone's character" - that colonel or GOFO is presenting the institution's opinion. In making the representation, their words are carried not by the authority of the speaker but by the authority of the institution. If the idea is presented that major rapist was a really good guy who was broken by the service and PTSD has changed him, that is a medical opinion for which the CAF has qualified professionals to develop.
> 
> From another perspective: If one believes (as some are arguing here) that the CAF is obliged or not obliged to provide character references based upon whether or not service attributable PTSD was a factor, then the act of giving a statement of character support on behalf of the institution would imply a medical opinion on behalf of he institution.
> 
> As I have said previously, if someone wants to provide a character reference then they can take off the rank and uniform to provide that reference as an individual. But if that opinion is going to be offered with the weight of the institution, then it needs to have been confirmed by the competent authorities of the institution.


If the writer of the character reference is somebody who has known, worked with, led, and/or fought beside, regardless of rank, how can that considered to be "presenting the institution's opinion"? The writer is simply stating his opinion of the offender's pre-offence character as he *personally* knew it. And that observation, in this case, would also outline the offender's observed behaviour and performance both pre- and post-service-related mental injury. It doesn't take a professional to link observations with a specific series of events.

I've observed significant behavioural changes in people. One, in the old days before we understood operational stress injuries as much as we do now (still not well enough) and began providing supports and treatments (still not well enough), was a friend and colleague who returned from a thirteen-month UNMO tour in a southeast Asian country with both physical and mental wounds. The latter were the most significant. Lacking any other method of escaping or controlling his mental trauma, he frequently sought solace in alcohol. He would generally appear to be perfectly normal, with the exception of a few occasional minor and brief unprovoked outbursts, but even a small amount of alcohol would lead him down a very dark path. This eventually cost him both career and family. With distinctly different pre-Cambodia and post-Cambodia behaviour, it was not hard for non-doctor me to make the obvious causal link.

No medical professional would be able to speak about an individual's pre-traumatic-event behaviour, unless he or she knew the offender well. A mental assessment could be made, but not a character assessment.

Were I to be asked to write a character reference for him in a hypothetical court case, I most certainly would, and I would lay out everything that I had observed, including the nature of our professional and private relationships.

That would not be me "presenting the institution's opinion", it would be me presenting my *own*. And that holds for anybody else who writes one, regardless of rank, which, for such a purpose, would be irrelevant.

Writing one on *official letterhead*, however, could *certainly* give an institutional impression but I doubt that that would sway a judge.

I wouldn't necessarily abandon him, either, regardless of any crime committed, not would I anybody in need of help.

In this case, he cut off all contact with everybody and disappeared. I have no idea where he is today, almost thirty years later.

I do not see that "the CAF is obliged or not obliged to provide character references based upon whether or not service attributable PTSD was a factor" in the case at hand. The Armed Forces, *as an institution*, does not know this particular offender outside of PERs and such, and is in *no* position to assess character. His (possibly former) friends and colleagues, however, do, and they *chose* to write character references, and no, that does *not* "imply a medical opinion on behalf of he institution."

"As I have said previously, if someone wants to provide a character reference then they can take off the rank and uniform to provide that reference as an individual". Who, other than them, knows what they were or were not wearing when they wrote these letters? They seem to have been very much writing as individuals, but, again, *none of us here have seen the actual letters*. Regardless, in the process of writing them, they would have to describe the nature of their professional and private relationships which were, in at least some cases, as superior officers describing a subordinate. And their ranks would be known, anyway.

These opinions were not "offered with the weight of the institution", and, even if they were, who would be the "competent authority" qualified to "confirm" these opinions better than colleagues and superior officers who had known the offender for years?

Some sort of psychologist - maybe even a pack of them, possibly even speaking on behalf of both defence *and* prosecution - may well have provided testimony and/or assessments in either or both trial and sentencing phase, but they would not be competent to discuss pre-offence character or behaviour, only an assessment of the offender in the state in which they examined him.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Sajjan open to 'far greater' changes to military's handling of sexual misconduct​Link



> The defence minister *testified before a parliamentary committee in April that he had followed up several times for information* about the allegation that had been referred to the Privy Council Office, which subsequently abandoned it.
> 
> Sajjan had *previously told committee members he had not followed up on the investigation* in order to avoid interfering in it.




At least General Dawe owned up to making a bad decision. The MNDs first reaction was to apparently lie.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Maybe we won't hear about senior leaders in the news for a while


Head of Canadian military intelligence school removed amid misconduct probe​Link


> The commandant of the Canadian Forces School of Military Intelligence is under investigation over alleged misconduct and has been temporarily removed from the role.


----------



## Loachman

Navy_Pete said:


> He did it twice by the time he got caught the first time, so he was establishing a history.



A history of twice.

Not that that is good, at all, but people who believe that he may have committed similar offences before these two have nothing concrete to go on.



Navy_Pete said:


> He got probation here, went on to sexually assault someone else, and went to jail for that.
> 
> So Dawe provided him a character witness statement that helped get him probation, which Hamilton took advantage of to reoffend, while not supporting the original victims under his command.



We do not know exactly what was written, nor what statements to the contrary were or were not made, nor the weight that each was given, if any. The judge, however, examined *all* of the information presented to him in trail and sentencing phases and made *his* decision, for whatever reasons.

Should the offender have been denied such references? Lawyers here don't seem to think so. Such happens in other cases as well.

If he *should* have been denied such references, should he also have been denied an effective defence in the trial phase?

What if MGen Dawe was called as a witness in the trial phase? Should he not have testified to the character of the (then-) accused had he been questioned about it?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Jarnhamar said:


> Maybe we won't hear about senior leaders in the news for a while
> 
> 
> Head of Canadian military intelligence school removed amid misconduct probe​Link









At what point do we disband the wardroom ?  <ducks from high classed snorts and flying tea cups thrown with pinky fingers>


----------



## dimsum

Not sure about the choice of celeb to drive that point home  😬


----------



## McG

Loachman said:


> "As I have said previously, if someone wants to provide a character reference then they can take off the rank and uniform to provide that reference as an individual". Who, other than them, knows what they were or were not wearing when they wrote these letters?


I can’t tell if you really don’t understand the figurative here, so I will spell it out. “Take the uniform off” would mean not using CAF or regimental letterhead and not using any official signature blocks.



Loachman said:


> Writing one on *official letterhead*, however, could *certainly* give an institutional impression but I doubt that that would sway a judge.
> 
> ….
> 
> They seem to have been very much writing as individuals, but, again, *none of us here have seen the actual letters*. Regardless, in the process of writing them, they would have to describe the nature of their professional and private relationships which were, in at least some cases, as superior officers describing a subordinate. And their ranks would be known, anyway.


Yes, official letterheads and rank titles will sway civilian judges who don’t understand CAF structures. But, did you read the news articles? Really? Here is one for you: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-sexual-assault-1.6004040

We know these letters had influence because the judge  mentions the  character  references from senior officers in the court documents. We know at least one was written from a regiment (not as an individual in anyway).  You keep observing that none of us have read the letters themselves, but you are stitching your arguments together like you have not even looked at what is available in public knowledge.


----------



## Weinie

Jarnhamar said:


> Maybe we won't hear about senior leaders in the news for a while
> 
> 
> Head of Canadian military intelligence school removed amid misconduct probe​Link


And the Night of the Long Knives begins anew.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Weinie said:


> And the Night of the Long Knives begins anew.


The night of long knives or are chickens coming home to roost ?


----------



## dapaterson

Halifax Tar said:


> The night of long knives or are chickens coming home to roost ?



Nah, it's the School of Military Intelligence, not The RCR Battle School.


----------



## Weinie

Halifax Tar said:


> The night of long knives or are chickens coming home to roost ?


Is your disbelief in the integrity and ethics of senior officers so jaded that you cannot see any way forward other than to believe that we are all compromised/unethical?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Weinie said:


> Is your disbelief in the integrity and ethics of senior officers so jaded that you cannot see any way forward other than to believe that we are all compromised/unethical?


I've been doing this job for 21 years.  Taking sexual misconduct out of the conversation I've never met a more pampered and entitled group of people on my life. 

Having said the above, the gates are open now and abuses will now have a light shon on them.  Good.  Maybe now we can separate the wheat from the chafe.

My last Freddy deployment sealed the deal for me.  We were literally blocked from our families so GO/FOs could blather on and and get seen by the press.


----------



## Good2Golf

Halifax Tar said:


> My last Freddy deployment sealed the deal for me.  We were literally blocked from our families so GO/FOs could blather on and and get seen by the press.



By “blather”, do you mean ‘explain to the Canadian public the crash of STALKER 22 and loss of six aviators and sailors?’


----------



## Weinie

Halifax Tar said:


> I've been doing this job for 21 years.  Taking sexual misconduct out of the conversation I've never met a more pampered and entitled group of people on my life.
> 
> Having said the above, the gates are open now and abuses will now have a light shon on them.  Good.  Maybe now we can separate the wheat from the chafe.
> 
> My last Freddy deployment sealed the deal for me.  We were literally blocked from our families so GO/FOs could blather on and and get seen by the press.


I have been doing this job for 38 years, including time in the ranks. I have never been pampered or entitled. No degree, and unilingual, worked hard to get where I am, and never thought as an Officer, the CAF owed me something.

I don't know what your last deployment has anything to do with this. Separating wheat from the chaff, I offer the latest CM schedule link below.  The stats speak for themselves.

Upcoming courts martial - Canada.ca


----------



## Halifax Tar

Good2Golf said:


> By “blather”, do you mean ‘explain to the Canadian public the crash of STALKER 22 and loss of six aviators and sailors?’


Which happened three months previous and was well reported in the press, rightfully so.

Why stand in a battered crew's way for a further hour + ?

You know what would have impressed me ?  If they let the crew go and kept the command triad back for that dog an pony show.  You wanna lead ?  Take the hit so the unwashed masses can go on.  That might have put some faith back into us.

Lets not even talk about no families on jetty mean while it's packed with every media thirsty person in the dockyard.



Weinie said:


> I have been doing this job for 38 years, including time in the ranks. I have never been pampered or entitled. No degree, and unilingual, worked hard to get where I am, and never thought as an Officer, the CAF owed me something.
> 
> I don't know what your last deployment has anything to do with this. Separating wheat from the chaff, I offer the latest CM schedule link below.  The stats speak for themselves.
> 
> Upcoming courts martial - Canada.ca


Congrats you're the wheat.

I sure hope the CM schedule is weighted in favor of the NCMs.  There are is something like 140 GO/FOs if they had more upcoming CMs than the NCMs we'd really be in trouble...


----------



## Weinie

Halifax Tar said:


> Which happened three months previous and was well reported in the press, rightfully so.
> 
> Why stand in a battered crew's way for a further hour + ?
> 
> You know what would have impressed me ?  If they let the crew go and kept the command triad back for that dog an pony show.  You wanna lead ?  Take the hit so the unwashed masses can go on.  That might have put some faith back into us.
> 
> Lets not even talk about no families on jetty mean while it's packed with every media thirsty person in the dockyard.
> 
> 
> *Congrats you're the wheat.*


Then I suggest, if that is your response, that you need to get out of the CAF as soon as you possibly can. The problems in the CAF will not be rectified by your suggestions that leadership is the poison.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Halifax Tar said:


> I've been doing this job for 21 years.  Taking sexual misconduct out of the conversation I've never met a more pampered and entitled group of people on my life.


Concrete examples or just a perception?


----------



## Loachman

McG said:


> I can’t tell if you really don’t understand the figurative here, so I will spell it out. “Take the uniform off” would mean not using CAF or regimental letterhead and not using any official signature blocks.



I agree that official letterhead was inappropriate, and an official signature block may well have been as well - but signing in accordance with his position would not provide any more influence than what may have been in the text of the letter itself wherein the writer's connection to the offender was outlined.



McG said:


> Yes, official letterheads and rank titles will sway civilian judges who don’t understand CAF structures. But, did you read the news articles? Really? Here is one for you: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-sexual-assault-1.6004040



Yes, I read that a few days ago, and just re-read it. My postings conform with my initial and current re-reading and interpretation of what was written therein with the exception of the judge's statements, which I had forgotten.

I am sure, though, that had any medical experts have testified in the trial or written statements for sentencing purposes they, too, would have used their official stationery and signature block with a whole bunch of letters behind their names.

I also may well have missed "Schamuhn obtained a copy of the character reference letter, written on the regiment's behalf by Lt.-Col. Scott MacGregor, and shared it with CBC News". I was focussed mainly on MGen Dawe, whom I knew, and paid much less attention to LCol MacGregor, whom I do not. I also noted Col Adair because, although I have never met him, I knew and worked with his ex-wife, also a serving member.



McG said:


> We know these letters had influence because the judge references character  from senior officers in the court documents. We know at least one was written but from a regiment (not as an individual in anyway).  You keep observing that none of us have read the letters themselves, but you are stitching your arguments together like you have not even looked at what is available in public knowledge.



I have looked, and read what others have posted, some of which I agree with, and some of which I do not.

"In a written statement sent to CBC News, Dawe said he never condoned the serious offences of which Hamilton was convicted. He said he sent the letter at Hamilton's request to describe for the court his 'military accomplishments, including while deployed on combat operations.'

"'The letter also attempted to provide a sense of the member's struggles stemming from injuries - both physical and emotional - sustained as a result of his duties', Dawe wrote."

All appropriate.

"'That said, I had a responsibility to recognize all persons who were impacted by the events leading to the conviction. And in supporting one, I lost sight of the complete needs of the victim and the victim's spouse, both of whom deserved my support.'

"Dawe said he went through mediation sessions with Schamuhn and 'personally addressed' his 'lack of support' with his subordinates. He said it's clear to him now that he should have 'acknowledged the significant burden the victims were carrying and would continue to carry ...'"

A mistake that he came to recognize and admitted.

"Schamuhn said he was deeply troubled by Dawe's decision to get involved in the sentencing phase.

"'Gen. Dawe was in my chain of command,' he said. 'For him to support a violent criminal who had violated my wife, I didn't know what to do. I was shocked.'"

I have have tons of sympathy for him and his wife. They were both violated. That does not change my view that an accused - any accused - has the right to a fair trial and a fair sentencing process, wherein *all* relevant factors are considered.

Feelings, however, cannot be allowed to overwhelm a trial and sentence, else every offender would serve nothing less than a life sentence with daily floggings.

"'It was to affect sentencing. That's precisely the reason. I'm not going to apologize for that,' Dawe told Schamuhn, according to Schamuhn's notes."

An honest admission, with no apology required, because, as others have also explained here, influencing a sentence is *precisely* why these statements are accepted by the courts, just as testimony on behalf of the accused is also accepted by the courts. Any pertinent statements against a convicted person are also accepted. Testimony regarding previous crimes is generally *inadmissable* during a trial because it is *irrelevant* to determining guilt or innocence in the matter of the crime for which the accused is charged. That can be brought out in the sentencing phase, also for the purpose of *influencing* the sentence.

One cannot have one without the other.

"Dawe told Schamuhn that he'd had a long personal relationship with Hamilton, who worked for him when he was a commanding officer in Afghanistan, according to Schamuhn's notes."

Yes, which is why it was* entirely* appropriate for him to write one of the references in question.

"The notes quote Dawe saying he wasn't happy about what Hamilton had done and 'felt in some respects very bad' for Schamuhn and Annalise - but he felt Hamilton deserved a chance to not 'have his life completely thrown down the toilet' after 'the tough go he'd been through.'"

And I agree with that.

I would, most likely, feel a need to do the same.

I can despise somebody's actions, but still treat him fairly.

"'Given all that he had been subjected to in terms of his experience overseas, how f*rankly he was mistreated by the institution*, I thought he deserved a break ...' Dawe said, according to the notes. 'I certainly don't see him as a threat to society for just a second. I think on the whole he's a pretty good guy.'"

I have no idea, beyond that statement, how he was "mistreated by the institution", but will accept it coming from somebody that I knew and respect. Appropriate punishment, yes, because of the crimes that he committed. I cannot pretend to understand what torments go on in the heads of OSI sufferers - I've only had mild twinges caused over several decades - but, from what I have personally seen as well as heard and read about - I have to accept that they are powerful and sometimes drive people to do things that they never would have done otherwise.

I am glad that we now recognize this as an illness resulting from injury and not as inherent weakness and cowardice, but there is still progress to be made there.

And that needs to be done for the benefit of those who suffer directly, and those who suffer as a result of the actions of the injured person as well.

There were no winners in this case, nor could there be. Every single person lost something. There were no perfect outcomes to be had, and no perfect actions to be taken.


----------



## Harris

McG said:


> Yes, official letterheads and rank titles will sway civilian judges who don’t understand CAF structures. But, did you read the news articles? Really? Here is one for you: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-sexual-assault-1.6004040


I witnessed a judge offer one of my soldiers two choices when found guilty of domestic abuse: Probation or Volunteer to go to Afghanistan.  I was like "What?!?!?"  Sure enough, the next training night (He was a reservist) I received a memo volunteering to go to Afghanistan.  I declined to recommend him to the CO, but he took my minuted response and submitted it to the courts as proof he had volunteered.


----------



## Loachman

Weinie said:


> I have been doing this job for 38 years, including time in the ranks. I have never been pampered or entitled. No degree, and unilingual, worked hard to get where I am, and never thought as an Officer, the CAF owed me something.



I did it for 43 years, including time in the ranks. I was not pampered or entitled. No degree, and unilingual, worked hard to stay where I got, and never thought as an Officer, the CF owed me anything.

I put a fair amount of effort into what I did, and got far more out of it than I put in. I had a blast right up until I ran out of birthdays and was punted. The term "retired" offends me.

I'd do it all over again if I could.

But the Tac Hel community is a small one, and largely - but not perfectly - very supportive of its people.

I cannot speak for the Navy, but I am well aware of Sir Winston's appraisal of its customs.


----------



## Halifax Tar

SupersonicMax said:


> Concrete examples or just a perception?


Dude I watched a general demand that he had diet Pepsi and Oreos in his private bar fridge at all times during a parking lot field ex where the regiment couldn't go home but he did, every night.

This same guy had 2 signallers go into my SQ and build fake TVs out of triwall tops with pictures of soldiers and tank so he could pretend he had real TVs in his TOC.

One of the best I dealt with was Vance.  The man slept in a sleeping bag on the ground under a bug net because that's how his boys were living.  When he could have had a real bed and a warm shower.  Shame, I liked him.

That's just a couple of examples. Any Snr NCO with more than 3 haircuts in rank could fill a multi page thread in support of my supposition.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Halifax Tar said:


> Dude I watched a general demand that he had diet Pepsi and Oreos in his private bar fridge at all times during a parking lot field ex where the regiment couldn't go home but he did, every night.
> 
> This same guy had 2 signallers go into my SQ and build fake TVs out of triwall tops with pictures of soldiers and tank so he could pretend he had real TVs in his TOC.
> 
> One of the best I dealt with was Vance.  The man slept in a sleeping bag on the ground under a bug net because that's how his boys were living.  When he could have had a real bed and a warm shower.  Shame, I liked him.
> 
> Any Snr NCO with more than 3 haircuts in rank could fill a multi page thread in support of my supposition.


So, you had a bad experience with one GOFO and that paints every officer, from OCdt/NCdt to General/Admiral?

For Vance, very reliable sources painted a very different picture.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Weinie said:


> I offer the latest CM schedule link below.  The stats speak for themselves.
> 
> Upcoming courts martial - Canada.ca


I would argue this isn't taking into consideration the very real "didn't want to ruin his career" we know happens.


----------



## Loachman

I've had mostly good COs. Some were excellent. Some were not so excellent. One was downright toxic. My flight commander at the time - another truly excellent Officer - and I used to argue about which of us despised him more. For that one, the term "ignoranus" (simultaneously an incompetent and an asshole) could have been coined


----------



## Loachman

Jarnhamar said:


> I would argue this isn't taking into consideration the very real "didn't want to ruin his career" we know happens.



I like to hope that we will see less of that as more comes out.

I doubt that we'll ever reach the point that we should, though, because of human nature and its imperfections.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Halifax Tar said:


> The man terrorized a family. Raping the wife and assaulting the husband.



I thought he "tried to have sex with her", not raped her.  Not that the tried part isn't bad enough...but the other one is far worse, and the probation that came out of that case seemed lenient, to me, with the 'tried' aspect.


----------



## lenaitch

Harris said:


> I witnessed a judge offer one of my soldiers two choices when found guilty of domestic abuse: Probation or Volunteer to go to Afghanistan.  I was like "What?!?!?"  Sure enough, the next training night (He was a reservist) I received a memo volunteering to go to Afghanistan.  I declined to recommend him to the CO, but he took my minuted response and submitted it to the courts as proof he had volunteered.



A civilian court judge?   I thought those days were long past.  Then again, I've often witnessed judges make rulings that aren't in the book - the primary goal is to clear the docket.


----------



## TCM621

Halifax Tar said:


> I've been doing this job for 21 years.  Taking sexual misconduct out of the conversation I've never met a more pampered and entitled group of people on my life.
> 
> Having said the above, the gates are open now and abuses will now have a light shon on them.  Good.  Maybe now we can separate the wheat from the chafe.
> 
> My last Freddy deployment sealed the deal for me.  We were literally blocked from our families so GO/FOs could blather on and and get seen by the press.


So we get to the root of the issue it seems. This seems to be driven by your hatred of officers  (or at least their behaviour) rather than the facts as presented. Is it the fact that a letter describing his character (which everyone has assumed is positive without evidence) or the fact that it was one officer doing it for another officer? 

I have met officers who were amazing at their job and amazing people. I have met officers whose best use would have been holding the anchor down. They are people and just like all people they vary in character and competence. This was handled wrong regardless of you think the letter was appropriate or not. As I have said, if this is properly communicated it is likely not a problem. The victim may not like it but at least they would know what was done and why instead of guessing as to their motives. More importantly for the institution, when the media gets a hold of it you have a clear message regarding what was done, why it was done and how the rights/needs of the victim were respected.


----------



## PuckChaser

Weinie said:


> I offer the latest CM schedule link below.  The stats speak for themselves.
> 
> Upcoming courts martial - Canada.ca


Had a good conversation at work today, and I'll mention what I brought up there. I submit that to actually have an effect at reducing sexual misconduct incidents, we need to see lots of Courts Martials for the next 5-10 years. 

A vast majority (80-95%) of sexual assaults in the greater Canadian population go unreported. An increasing number of Courts Martials shows that CAF members are comfortable coming forward knowing that it will be investigated. We absolutely need more charges laid, and for that number to stay high for years. I say years because we are not going to change the CAF overnight, that's completely unrealistic, nor will we ever remove sexual misconduct altogether until Canadian society achieves that goal. That'll take generations, and CAF Culture change won't have concrete results for at least 5 years (kinda makes you wish we had leaders with spine to start us down the road in 2016).

So don't thumb your nose at increasing numbers of charges to deal with this, we absolutely need those numbers where they are or even higher. It'll have a dual impact of encouraging victims to come forward, and show those individuals who would attempt to abuse another member of the CAF that they'll either be caught, or they're not welcome here. The agents of change are doing their BMQ or at RMC right now, not the 35 year MWO in NDHQ or the streamer Col plotting their next succession planned posting.


----------



## Halifax Tar

TCM621 said:


> So we get to the root of the issue it seems. This seems to be driven by your hatred of officers  (or at least their behaviour) rather than the facts as presented. Is it the fact that a letter describing his character (which everyone has assumed is positive without evidence) or the fact that it was one officer doing it for another officer?
> 
> I have met officers who were amazing at their job and amazing people. I have met officers whose best use would have been holding the anchor down. They are people and just like all people they vary in character and competence. This was handled wrong regardless of you think the letter was appropriate or not. As I have said, if this is properly communicated it is likely not a problem. The victim may not like it but at least they would know what was done and why instead of guessing as to their motives. More importantly for the institution, when the media gets a hold of it you have a clear message regarding what was done, why it was done and how the rights/needs of the victim were respected.


To be clear here I was referring  to GO/FOs.  And I was speaking in generalities.  I work with 2 really good keen young LT(N)s right now, it's a shame neither want to do more than their basic required engagement. My XO on Freddy was amazing  and I have high hope's for her.

No one convicted of the crimes Hamilton was convicted of should be given a character reference, not because they legally shouldnt but because I'd like to think any serving  member would see the moral pitfalls in authoring such a letter. 

I embrace this.  And I see it as a way to shed the bad people we shouldnt want in our ranks.  We need to concentrate  on victim support  and investigation of all allegations.


----------



## Halifax Tar

PuckChaser said:


> Had a good conversation at work today, and I'll mention what I brought up there. I submit that to actually have an effect at reducing sexual misconduct incidents, we need to see lots of Courts Martials for the next 5-10 years.
> 
> A vast majority (80-95%) of sexual assaults in the greater Canadian population go unreported. An increasing number of Courts Martials shows that CAF members are comfortable coming forward knowing that it will be investigated. We absolutely need more charges laid, and for that number to stay high for years. I say years because we are not going to change the CAF overnight, that's completely unrealistic, nor will we ever remove sexual misconduct altogether until Canadian society achieves that goal. That'll take generations, and CAF Culture change won't have concrete results for at least 5 years (kinda makes you wish we had leaders with spine to start us down the road in 2016).
> 
> So don't thumb your nose at increasing numbers of charges to deal with this, we absolutely need those numbers where they are or even higher. It'll have a dual impact of encouraging victims to come forward, and show those individuals who would attempt to abuse another member of the CAF that they'll either be caught, or they're not welcome here. The agents of change are doing their BMQ or at RMC right now, not the 35 year MWO in NDHQ or the streamer Col plotting their next succession planned posting.


Excellent post.


----------



## Weinie

PuckChaser said:


> Had a good conversation at work today, and I'll mention what I brought up there. I submit that to actually have an effect at reducing sexual misconduct incidents, we need to see lots of Courts Martials for the next 5-10 years.
> 
> A vast majority (80-95%) of sexual assaults in the greater Canadian population go unreported. An increasing number of Courts Martials shows that CAF members are comfortable coming forward knowing that it will be investigated. We absolutely need more charges laid, and for that number to stay high for years. I say years because we are not going to change the CAF overnight, that's completely unrealistic, nor will we ever remove sexual misconduct altogether until Canadian society achieves that goal. That'll take generations, and CAF Culture change won't have concrete results for at least 5 years (kinda makes you wish we had leaders with spine to start us down the road in 2016).
> 
> So don't thumb your nose at increasing numbers of charges to deal with this, we absolutely need those numbers where they are or even higher. It'll have a dual impact of encouraging victims to come forward, and show those individuals who would attempt to abuse another member of the CAF that they'll either be caught, or they're not welcome here. The agents of change are doing their BMQ or at RMC right now, not the 35 year MWO in NDHQ or the streamer Col plotting their next succession planned posting.


Wasn't thumbing my nose. It was an actual representation of where the majority of sexual assault CM's are derived from in a rebuttal of a previous post.


----------



## MilEME09

Are any charges like sexual assault automatically a  court martial? Or can they be summery trials? If so perhaps they need to automatically court martial offenses. Once we have an independent reporting entity l, I hope the have it's own investigation arm, and the ability to charge members.


----------



## Blackadder1916

MilEME09 said:


> Are any charges like sexual assault automatically a  court martial? Or can they be summery trials? If so perhaps they need to automatically court martial offenses. Once we have an independent reporting entity l, I hope the have it's own investigation arm, and the ability to charge members.



See QR&O 108.07



> 108.07 – JURISDICTION – OFFENCES​(1) A commanding officer may try an accused person by summary trial in respect of the offences set out in paragraphs (2) and (3).
> 
> (2) The offences under the _National Defence Act_ that a commanding officer may try by summary trial are those contrary to the following provisions:
> . . .
> [whole bunch of service offences - deleted here for brevity]
> . . .
> 
> 129 (_Conduct to the Prejudice of Good Order and Discipline_), subject to paragraph (4) of this article,
> 
> 130 (_Service Trial of Civil Offences_), but only in respect of a civil offence referred to in paragraph (3) of this article.
> 
> (3) The civil offences punishable under section 130 of the _National Defence Act_ that a commanding officer may try by summary trial are those contrary to the following provisions of the _Criminal Code_ and the _Controlled Drugs and Substances Act_:
> 
> (_a_) in respect of the _Criminal Code_ (_Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, Chapter C-46_):
> 
> 129 (_Offences Relating to Public or Peace Officer_),
> 
> 266 (_Assault_),
> 
> 267 (_Assault with a Weapon or Causing Bodily Harm_),
> 
> 270 (_Assaulting a Peace Officer_),
> 
> 334 (_Punishment for Theft_), where the value of what is stolen does not exceed five thousand dollars,
> 
> 335 (_Taking Motor Vehicle or Vessel Without Consent_),
> 
> 430 (_Mischief_), except mischief that causes actual danger to life,
> 
> 437 (_False Alarm of Fire_); and
> 
> (_b_) in respect of the _Controlled Drugs and Substances Act _(_Statutes of Canada, 1996, Chapter 19_):
> 
> 4(1) (_Possession of Substance_).


----------



## SeaKingTacco

MilEME09 said:


> Are any charges like sexual assault automatically a  court martial? Or can they be summery trials? If so perhaps they need to automatically court martial offenses. Once we have an independent reporting entity l, I hope the have it's own investigation arm, and the ability to charge members.


See Blackadder’s response.

Cole’s Notes- sexual assault cannot be tried at a Summary Trial.


----------



## brihard

I had no idea a CO could try crim code offences summarily. Can a member elect court martial for those or, hypothetically, could they be forced to summary trial within a unit for criminal offences?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

brihard said:


> I had no idea a CO could try crim code offences summarily. Can a member elect court martial for those or, hypothetically, could they be forced to summary trial within a unit for criminal offences?


Only those listed in Sec 130 and it would come with a right to elect court martial for the accused. There are only five offences in the NDA that do not have a right to elect. Alternately, on the Presiding Officer side, if evidence exists that an issue of mental impairment is in play on the part of the accused or the Presiding Officer’s powers of punishment might be inadequate for the alleged offence, it is best to refer the whole thing to Court Martial.

Did I get that right, FJAG?


----------



## FJAG

brihard said:


> I had no idea a CO could try crim code offences summarily. Can a member elect court martial for those or, hypothetically, could they be forced to summary trial within a unit for criminal offences?



Yes he can but an accused can elect out of that.  See QR&O 108.17 which provides for elections and limits which offences a CO can try without an election.



> 108.17 – ELECTION TO BE TRIED BY COURT MARTIAL
> 1) An accused person triable by summary trial in respect of a service offence has the right to be tried by court martial unless:
> 
> (_a_) the offence is contrary to one of the following provisions of the _National Defence Act_:
> 
> 85 (_Insubordinate Behaviour_),
> 
> 86 (_Quarrels and Disturbances_),
> 
> 90 (_Absence Without Leave_),
> 
> 97 (_Drunkenness_),
> 
> 129 (_Conduct to the Prejudice of Good Order and Discipline_), but only where the offence relates to military training, maintenance of personal equipment, quarters or work space, or dress and deportment; and
> 
> (_b_) the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence are sufficiently minor in nature that the officer exercising summary trial jurisdiction over the accused concludes that a punishment of detention, reduction in rank or a fine in excess of 25 per cent of monthly basic pay would not be warranted if the Accused person were found guilty of the offence.


Note that while s 129 is an exception it is only an exception with respect to very minor and limited matters.

🍻


----------



## FJAG

SeaKingTacco said:


> Only those listed in Sec 130 and it would come with a right to elect court martial for the accused. There are only five offences in the NDA that do not have a right to elect. Alternately, on the Presiding Officer side, if evidence exists that an issue of mental impairment is in play on the part of the accused or the Presiding Officer’s powers of punishment might be inadequate for the alleged offence, it is best to refer the whole thing to Court Martial.
> 
> Did I get that right, FJAG?


Both yes and no. S 130 doesn't list any laws but in fact incorporates all Federal laws which have a punishment provision over and above the CCC. Narcotics falls into that. Also don't forget s 132 of the NDA which allows laying a charge under any foreign law where the offence takes place. This used to be a standard for drunk driving in Germany. The intent of this section is to allow Canada to take jurisdiction over offences where the CSD wouldn't apply. In large part this is to meet SOFA requirements and facilitates keeping Canadian soldiers out of foreign courts and jails.

🍻


----------



## SeaKingTacco

FJAG said:


> Both yes and no. S 130 doesn't list any laws but in fact incorporates all Federal laws which have a punishment provision over and above the CCC. Narcotics falls into that. Also don't forget s 132 of the NDA which allows laying a charge under any foreign law where the offence takes place. This used to be a standard for drunk driving in Germany. The intent of this section is to allow Canada to take jurisdiction over offences where the CSD wouldn't apply. In large part this is to meet SOFA requirements and facilitates keeping Canadian soldiers out of foreign courts and jails.
> 
> 🍻


Thanks- I forgot all about 132.


----------



## ballz

SupersonicMax said:


> Concrete examples or just a perception?



Working in finance, I've got quite a few. I'd tell you about the RCAF Comd who wanted a $107k Change of Command ceremony 3 years ago, but I can't post it due to site guidelines. It's a quick google search if you're interested, you might also find an interesting story about a certain LFAA Commander who did do a $100k Change of Command, and a really juicy quote from his Chief of Staff at the time, at the bottom of the article you'll probably find, and how said LFAA Commander was hired as mentor for a course on about "leadership and ethics" after he retired.

Which kind of brings me back to a thought that struck me when @Weinie was talking about with his experience... I have anecdotally noticed a lot of this crazy stuff we see in the news always involves someone in a Command position.... I don't think it's a coincidence. Don't know Weinie, his rank, positions, etc.... it just kinda dawned on me when reading it to wonder about his Command positions and to what extent that influences people as they develop.



MilEME09 said:


> Are any charges like sexual assault automatically a  court martial? Or can they be summery trials? If so perhaps they need to automatically court martial offenses. Once we have an independent reporting entity l, I hope the have it's own investigation arm, and the ability to charge members.



Worth noting that this is being brought up by victims as a weak point for the CAF system, that a lot of things that should be sexual assault end up being summary trials for drunkenness, NDA 129s, etc. I have zero knowledge of whether this is true or not, but it has come up in the media recently.


----------



## Vincere_Hostem

Head of Canadian military intelligence school removed amid misconduct probe​








						Head of Canadian military intelligence school removed amid misconduct probe - National | Globalnews.ca
					

The Canadian military is facing what experts call an institutional crisis over sexual misconduct in its ranks after Global News first reported on high-level allegations on Feb. 2.




					globalnews.ca


----------



## daftandbarmy

Vincere_Hostem said:


> Head of Canadian military intelligence school removed amid misconduct probe​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Head of Canadian military intelligence school removed amid misconduct probe - National | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> The Canadian military is facing what experts call an institutional crisis over sexual misconduct in its ranks after Global News first reported on high-level allegations on Feb. 2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> globalnews.ca


----------



## OldSolduer

Vincere_Hostem said:


> Head of Canadian military intelligence school removed amid misconduct probe​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Head of Canadian military intelligence school removed amid misconduct probe - National | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> The Canadian military is facing what experts call an institutional crisis over sexual misconduct in its ranks after Global News first reported on high-level allegations on Feb. 2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> globalnews.ca


Are you effing serious? This just gets worse every day. 🤦‍♂️


----------



## SeaKingTacco

ballz said:


> Working in finance, I've got quite a few. I'd tell you about the RCAF Comd who wanted a $107k Change of Command ceremony 3 years ago, but I can't post it due to site guidelines. It's a quick google search if you're interested, you might also find an interesting story about a certain LFAA Commander who did do a $100k Change of Command, and a really juicy quote from his Chief of Staff at the time, at the bottom of the article you'll probably find, and how said LFAA Commander was hired as mentor for a course on about "leadership and ethics" after he retired.
> 
> Which kind of brings me back to what @Weinie was talking about with his experience... I have anecdotally noticed a lot of this crazy stuff we see in the news always involves someone in a Command position.... I don't think it's a coincidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Worth noting that this is being brought up by victims as a weak point for the CAF system, that a lot of things that should be sexual assault end up being summary trials for drunkenness, NDA 129s, etc. I have zero knowledge of whether this is true or not, but it has come up in the media recently.


On your last point- not in my personal experience (recognizing fully that others will have seen different things).

Keep in mind, the AJAG reviews all UDIs and helps draft the charges at a Summary Trial level. In my experience, if there is a whiff of sexual assault, NIS is brought in and it is off to a court martial (Or maybe civvie court- depends on the nexus/circumstances).

Also keep in mind that if NIS cannot find grounds to proceed, maybe all that is left to a unit CO is that drunkenness or  that 129 charge. Would everyone be happier if no charges at all got laid, which would certainly be the case on civvie street?

Sometimes, what might appear to a casual observer or a victim as an accused “getting it easy, by summary trial” might actually be a Unit trying to get at least something to stick to an accused, which is a lot better than nothing. I admit it is less than satisfactory to say this, but sometimes bad things happen and the evidence just does not exist such that reasonable prospect of conviction will occur and an accused will walk. Real life is not like crime dramas on TV.


----------



## ballz

SeaKingTacco said:


> On your last point- not in my personal experience (recognizing fully that others will have seen different things).
> 
> Keep in mind, the AJAG reviews all UDIs and helps draft the charges at a Summary Trial level. In my experience, if there is a whiff of sexual assault, NIS is brought in and it is off to a court martial (Or maybe civvie court- depends on the nexus/circumstances).
> 
> Also keep in mind that if NIS cannot find grounds to proceed, maybe all that is left to a unit CO is that drunkenness or  that 129 charge. Would everyone be happier if no charges at all got laid, which would certainly be the case on civvie street?
> 
> Sometimes, what might appear to a casual observer or a victim as an accused “getting it easy, by summary trial” might actually be a Unit trying to get at least something to stick to an accused, which is a lot better than nothing. I admit it is less than satisfactory to say this, but sometimes bad things happen and the evidence just does not exist such that reasonable prospect of conviction will occur and an accused will walk. Real life is not like crime dramas on TV.



My initial thought when I heard it on the news was along those lines... it's not uncommon in civilian courts either that they go with a lesser charge because they actually have the ability to prosecute it successfully, and the victim is the one left feeling short-changed as a result. Plea bargains are a necessary part of the justice system as well. Just thought it was worth bringing up given what the question was.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Ottawa Citizen article this morning CDS was top guy in regiment that provided a character reference for Hamilton.

See @Bruce Monkhouse I'm learning! No link lol


----------



## Eye In The Sky

PuckChaser said:


> The agents of change are doing their BMQ or at RMC right now



On target, fire for effect.

Ref the 35 years-in-the-mob MWO...I come close to representing that group.  32 years in this summer, 3 trades, WO, 50 years old.   I think you are able to influence that groups _behaviour_, but some will not change their _thinking.  _The CD2 crowd might be there for the shot release....but not likely there for the required follow thru you're speaking to, 5+ years downrange.

The start of the culture change, truly, is likely with the Jnr NCO and Officers who will realize they are the 'break in the cycle' opportunity.  They will be the Coy/Flt/Divisional Comds and Warrant/Petty Officers who will secure the 'new ops normal' that is needed.  And, clearly, it is needed.

I echo a few posters who've said these events with our most senior leadership (Vance and fwd from there) have me looking at GO/FO and Snr Officers with a critical eye.   CDS, A/CDS, CMP...the list is just far to fuckin' long.

We need leaders, at all levels, to say "no".  Leaders, at all levels (including politicians), need to hold to account those who cover up or fail to hold to account their subordinates for known transgressions.   NCM or Officer, it doesn't matter.  It's plain as day in the QR & O that we have a duty to "*become acquainted with, observe and enforce all regulations, rules, orders and instructions that pertain to the performance of our duties*" "*promote the welfare, efficiency and good discipline of all subordinates*" and "*report to the proper authority any infringement of the pertinent statutes, regulations, rules, orders and instructions governing the conduct of any person subject to the Code of Service Discipline*".

Start using those to get rid of those who don't conduct themselves accordingly.  We have the tools needed now to solve these problems ourselves...start bloody well using them.

Personally, as the 30+ year Warrant Officer, I'm wondering why we're not seeing some of these charges.





__





						QR&O: Volume II – Chapter 103 – Service Offences - Canada.ca
					

Queen's Regulations and Orders - QR&O - Chapter 103 - Service Offences




					www.canada.ca
				








__





						QR&O: Volume II – Chapter 103 – Service Offences - Canada.ca
					

Queen's Regulations and Orders - QR&O - Chapter 103 - Service Offences




					www.canada.ca
				




Last point - there will be some who say "_but innocent NCOs/WO-POs/Officers are going to be accused of things and be seen as guilty until proven innocent_".

Here's my advice;  don't be stupid!  Don't put yourself in a situation where you might end up in that predicament.  Christ, it's not hard.  I've been away with crews all over the northern hemisphere.  People drink and act stupid when they're away from their postal code...and I avoided that stupidity, especially with the opposite sex because (1) I am aware of the current climate (2) I am married and just because my wife trusts me doesn't mean I need to exercise that trust everytime I'm away with a green passport.  Guess what...I never get in shit on deployments.  Magical!

Don't want to deal with wrongful allegations...don't put yourself into stupid situations.  (Bad) adult decisions come with (bad) adult consequences.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Eye In The Sky said:


> On target, fire for effect.
> 
> Ref the 35 years-in-the-mob MWO...I come close to representing that group.  32 years in this summer, 3 trades, WO, 50 years old.   I think you are able to influence that groups _behaviour_, but some will not change their _thinking.  _The CD2 crowd might be there for the shot release....but not likely there for the required follow thru you're speaking to, 5+ years downrange.
> 
> The start of the culture change, truly, is likely with the Jnr NCO and Officers who will realize they are the 'break in the cycle' opportunity.  They will be the Coy/Flt/Divisional Comds and Warrant/Petty Officers who will secure the 'new ops normal' that is needed.  And, clearly, it is needed.
> 
> I echo a few posters who've said these events with our most senior leadership (Vance and fwd from there) have me looking at GO/FO and Snr Officers with a critical eye.   CDS, A/CDS, CMP...the list is just far to fuckin' long.
> 
> We need leaders, at all levels, to say "no".  Leaders, at all levels (including politicians), need to hold to account those who cover up or fail to hold to account their subordinates for known transgressions.   NCM or Officer, it doesn't matter.  It's plain as day in the QR & O that we have a duty to "*become acquainted with, observe and enforce all regulations, rules, orders and instructions that pertain to the performance of our duties*" "*promote the welfare, efficiency and good discipline of all subordinates*" and "*report to the proper authority any infringement of the pertinent statutes, regulations, rules, orders and instructions governing the conduct of any person subject to the Code of Service Discipline*".
> 
> Start using those to get rid of those who don't conduct themselves accordingly.  We have the tools needed now to solve these problems ourselves...start bloody well using them.
> 
> Personally, as the 30+ year Warrant Officer, I'm wondering why we're not seeing some of these charges.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QR&O: Volume II – Chapter 103 – Service Offences - Canada.ca
> 
> 
> Queen's Regulations and Orders - QR&O - Chapter 103 - Service Offences
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.canada.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QR&O: Volume II – Chapter 103 – Service Offences - Canada.ca
> 
> 
> Queen's Regulations and Orders - QR&O - Chapter 103 - Service Offences
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.canada.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last point - there will be some who say "_but innocent NCOs/WO-POs/Officers are going to be accused of things and be seen as guilty until proven innocent_".
> 
> Here's my advice;  don't be stupid!  Don't put yourself in a situation where you might end up in that predicament.  Christ, it's not hard.  I've been away with crews all over the northern hemisphere.  People drink and act stupid when they're away from their postal code...and I avoided that stupidity, especially with the opposite sex because (1) I am aware of the current climate (2) I am married and just because my wife trusts me doesn't mean I need to exercise that trust everytime I'm away with a green passport.  Guess what...I never get in shit on deployments.  Magical!
> 
> Don't want to deal with wrongful allegations...don't put yourself into stupid situations.  (Bad) adult decisions come with (bad) adult consequences.


I said it earlier in this threat that we let the "small things slide" and we have gotten out of the habit of taking discipline seriously in our every day conduct of business.  I see leaders at all levels walk past faults and every time this happens its makes it a little worse.  It also makes those of us who pick up faults and provide guidance or direction on the correction seem like tyrants.  

I remember as a MS (Master Seaman in those days) at a field unit getting scolded by my Sgt for holding a kit inspection on my section before going to the field.  I wasn't yelling or screaming just making sure everyone had the RSMs kit list and that it was in good order, while giving a week or so to correct any deficiencies.


----------



## Good2Golf

Halifax Tar said:


> I remember as a MS (Master Seaman in those days) at a field unit getting scolded by my Sgt for holding a kit inspection on my section before going to the field.  I wasn't yelling or screaming just making sure everyone had the RSMs kit list and that it was in good order, while giving a week or so to correct any deficiencies.


This is unfortunate!  Especially for a SNCO to chastise you for by all marks a profession ANd quite appropriate/professional measure to take.

Good point about being professional about even the smallest things...then the foundation of other actions is based on solid professionalism, not on something to be made more professional ‘when the time’s right’ (always is right).

Regards
G2G


----------



## daftandbarmy

Halifax Tar said:


> Ottawa Citizen article this morning CDS was top guy in regiment that provided a character reference for Hamilton.
> 
> See @Bruce Monkhouse I'm learning! No link lol



Plus ca change....

What Did He Know?
Charges of coverup over Somalia rock the military​








						What Did He Know? | Maclean's | APRIL 15, 1996
					

Charges of coverup over Somalia rock the military




					archive.macleans.ca
				




Somalia debacle a high-level cover-up​


			https://www.cbc.ca/archives/entry/somalia-debacle-a-high-level-cover-up
		


1994: Somalia Inquiry to investigate Canadian military scandal​
Seldom has a federal public inquiry been so blunt and unequivocal. The three commissioners called for a full-scale criminal investigation into the March 4, 1993, shooting by Canadian soldiers of two Somalis, one of whom died. They urged the government to look into possible perjury charges against senior military officials who, the commissioners said, lied on the witness stand. And they flatly concluded that without massive change in the military - including a purge of the top brass - a repeat of the African debacle is almost certain. "The sorry sequence of events in Somalia was not the work of a few bad apples," concluded chairman Gilles Létourneau, a Federal Court of Canada judge, "but the inevitable result of systematic organization and leadership failures, many occurring over long periods of time and ignored by our military leaders for just as long."



			https://www.cbc.ca/archives/entry/1994-somalia-inquiry-to-investigate-canadian-military-scandal


----------



## MilEME09

Would explain why he tried to cover for Dawes. This mess keeps getting worse and worse


----------



## SeaKingTacco

MilEME09 said:


> Would explain why he tried to cover for Dawes. This mess keeps getting worse and worse


I may have missed it, but can you explain how Eyre tried to cover for Dawes? Not trolling- just not following your train of logic, based on the events, as I currently understand them.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

daftandbarmy said:


> Plus ca change....
> 
> What Did He Know?
> Charges of coverup over Somalia rock the military​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Did He Know? | Maclean's | APRIL 15, 1996
> 
> 
> Charges of coverup over Somalia rock the military
> 
> 
> 
> 
> archive.macleans.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somalia debacle a high-level cover-up​
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/archives/entry/somalia-debacle-a-high-level-cover-up
> 
> 
> 
> 1994: Somalia Inquiry to investigate Canadian military scandal​
> Seldom has a federal public inquiry been so blunt and unequivocal. The three commissioners called for a full-scale criminal investigation into the March 4, 1993, shooting by Canadian soldiers of two Somalis, one of whom died. They urged the government to look into possible perjury charges against senior military officials who, the commissioners said, lied on the witness stand. And they flatly concluded that without massive change in the military - including a purge of the top brass - a repeat of the African debacle is almost certain. "The sorry sequence of events in Somalia was not the work of a few bad apples," concluded chairman Gilles Létourneau, a Federal Court of Canada judge, "but the inevitable result of systematic organization and leadership failures, many occurring over long periods of time and ignored by our military leaders for just as long."
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/archives/entry/1994-somalia-inquiry-to-investigate-canadian-military-scandal


I could be wrong, but just because Eyre was the senior Patricia at the times Dawes wrote the now infamous character reference, it does not mean he knew anything about it. That, in my limited experience, is not what Regimental councils discuss.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Halifax Tar said:


> See @Bruce Monkhouse I'm learning! No link lol



I'm holding my tongue.  This is the difficulty of trying to comment about something that is "so far" only mentioned in one media outlet, one that by site owner's (understandable) fiat we are precluded from referencing in any manner.  Before this continues to a possible whole scale edit of comments, the quoted post should be deleted, my post should be deleted and any other links to it be deleted.


----------



## MilEME09

SeaKingTacco said:


> I may have missed it, but can you explain how Eyre tried to cover for Dawes? Not trolling- just not following your train of logic, based on the events, as I currently understand them.


If one letter came from Dawes, and another from the A/CDS when he was PPCLI. He wouldn't have much of a choice but to defend his character, he couldn't be critical if he was also involved in the letters as well. Not saying he is just as guilty or anything, just pointing out he may have backed him self into a corner here.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Ok what is a Regimental Guard ?  Or a Regimental Council ?  Why does a regiment need a group to decide its strategic guidance and policy direction ?  Shouldn't it be taking that from the CAF or Army doctrine, like I would imagine, the remainder of the military ? 

No trolling here and I have no dog in the fight, just an outside question.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

MilEME09 said:


> If one letter came from Dawes, and another from the A/CDS when he was PPCLI. He wouldn't have much of a choice but to defend his character, he couldn't be critical if he was also involved in the letters as well. Not saying he is just as guilty or anything, just pointing out he may have backed him self into a corner here.


Are you alleging that Eyre wrote a letter, or are you speculating? I am trying, but failing, to understand what you are saying.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

FOLKS.......lets tread carefully on the "who-knew, they-knew" guessing lest we tar good folks(and potentially this site) with that brush.

Thank you,
Bruce


----------



## McG

My experience (which is admittedly not with the PPCLI) is that senior serving members are not tightly involved in the day-to-day of the regimental mafia. The regimental colonel (who the media originally linked to supporting the letter) runs the regiment.


----------



## Halifax Tar

McG said:


> My experience (which is admittedly not with the PPCLI) is that senior serving members are not tightly involved in the day-to-day of the regimental mafia. The regimental colonel (who the media originally linked to supporting the letter) runs the regiment.


When you say Regiment do mean the whole of its battalions ?  Eg 1, 2, 3, and 4 RCR's LCols all report to their respective brigade commanders and then a regimental Col. as well ?   This is starting to sound like office space... Did you use the TPS report cover sheet ? lol


----------



## Ostrozac

Halifax Tar said:


> Could this whole debacle with Dawe, Hamilton, and Eyre be a regimental mafia thing ?  I keep seeing this Regimental Guard thing in the last article. Are we seeing what could be a real issue with our combat arms regimental cultures and organizations ?  Closing ranks and trying to protect their own.
> 
> No trolling here and I have no dog in the fight, just an outside question.


Regiments, particularly infantry regiments, are quasi-tribal organizations that include both serving and formerly serving members and have characteristics that cross-cut the formal chain of command.

At it’s best, this system encourages the unit cohesion essential for success on the battlefield. At its worst, this system can be secretive, insular, encourage cronyism and acts in its own interest, not necessarily the interest of the forces as a whole.

There‘s a reason why the term used is a regimental ”mafia”. But the regimental system, like all tribal systems, is inherently resilient. Ours has survived the CEF mobilization model, two conscription crises, unification and Somalia. I’d say the odds are it will continue.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Ostrozac said:


> Regiments, particularly infantry regiments, are quasi-tribal organizations that include both serving and formerly serving members and have characteristics that cross-cut the formal chain of command.
> 
> At it’s best, this system encourages the unit cohesion essential for success on the battlefield. At its worst, this system can be secretive, insular, encourage cronyism and acts in its own interest, not necessarily the interest of the forces as a whole.
> 
> There‘s a reason why the term used is a regimental ”mafia”. But the regimental system, like all tribal systems, is inherently resilient. Ours has survived the CEF mobilization model, two conscription crises, unification and Somalia. I’d say the odds are it will continue.


So who does career management for infanteers both NCM and Commissioned ?  Is it the same as mine where all 2500-3K of us are managed by 2 MWOs and WO based in Ottawa who move us around as needed ?

I mean thinking outside the box here, but if the PPCLI has a deficiency in a skill set and the RCR had an over abundance could people be shuffled off as required ?  If not maybe this is another issue, we've allowed little fiefdoms to grow roots that aren't always working in the best interests of the CAF or Canada as a whole, instead putting regimental allegiance first.

I understand I am treading on sensitive ground.  And I am only trying to understand the organization.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Halifax Tar said:


> When you say Regiment do mean the whole of its battalions ?  Eg 1, 2, 3, and 4 RCR's LCols all report to their respective brigade commanders and then a regimental Col. as well ?   This is starting to sound like office space... Did you use the TPS report cover sheet ? lol


No- the Regimental Colonel has no operational command role on the Battalions. That function is provided by Brigade. The various Regimental senates (I am about to simplify) concern themselves largely with buttons, bows, history and traditions.


----------



## Halifax Tar

SeaKingTacco said:


> No- the Regimental Colonel has no operational command role on the Battalions. That function is provided by Brigade. The various Regimental senates (I am about to simplify) concern themselves largely with buttons, bows, history and traditions.


Isn't that what DHH and the Dress Committees are for ?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Halifax Tar said:


> Isn't that what DHH and the Dress Committees are for ?


Somebody has to feed that stuff to DHH and dress committees.

DHH has about a dozen people (maybe even less now) for the entire CAF.

And like I said- I simplified.


----------



## Halifax Tar

SeaKingTacco said:


> Somebody has to feed that stuff to DHH and dress committees.
> 
> DHH has about a dozen people (maybe even less now) for the entire CAF.
> 
> And like I said- I simplified.


Fair, and I appreciate your info.  

I guess where I am scratching my head is the RCN doesn't have some senate or guard who lobby's on behalf of our "buttons and bows".  We do have a formal system to present things up the CoC where the RCN CPO will take them to the national committee for debate if required.   Why does a single cap badge need so much more representation than whole other services ?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Halifax Tar said:


> So who does career management for infanteers both NCM and Commissioned ?  Is it the same as mine where all 2500-3K of us are managed by 2 MWOs and WO based in Ottawa who move us around as needed ?
> 
> I mean thinking outside the box here, but if the PPCLI has a deficiency in a skill set and the RCR had an over abundance could people be shuffled off as required ?  If not maybe this is another issue, we've allowed little fiefdoms to grow roots that aren't always working in the best interests of the CAF or Canada as a whole, instead putting regimental allegiance first.
> 
> I understand I am treading on sensitive ground.  And I am only trying to understand the organization.


Career management is done by the various career managers in Ottawa, guided by the COs of units/schools. Each Regimental Senate might develop a wish list of who should get moved where and promoted/developed, but they are not the ones doing the posting/promoting. That is the Career shop in Ottawa- just like everyone else.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Halifax Tar said:


> Fair, and I appreciate your info.
> 
> I guess where I am scratching my head is the RCN doesn't have some senate or guard who lobby's on behalf of our "buttons and bows".  We do have a formal system to present things up the CoC where the RCN CPO will take them to the national committee for debate if required.   Why does a single cap badge need so much more representation than whole other services ?


You are actually wrong. There is a similar function conducted at Naval Board.


----------



## Lumber

Halifax Tar said:


> I mean thinking outside the box here, but if the PPCLI has a deficiency in a skill set and the RCR had an over abundance could people be shuffled off as required ?  If not maybe this is another issue, we've allowed little fiefdoms to grow roots that aren't always working in the best interests of the CAF or Canada as a whole, instead putting regimental allegiance first.


No, infanteers almost never swap regiments. Once a Patrica, always a Patricia, for example. It's not like us in the Navy, TAR, where our sense of belonging to a ship and it's culture lasts about as long as our posting there.


----------



## Halifax Tar

SeaKingTacco said:


> You are actually wrong. There is a similar function conducted at Naval Board.


Really ?  Well I have never heard of this.  I stand corrected.



SeaKingTacco said:


> Career management is done by the various career managers in Ottawa, guided by the COs of units/schools. Each Regimental Senate might develop a wish list of who should get moved where and promoted/developed, but they are not the ones doing the posting/promoting. That is the Career shop in Ottawa- just like everyone else.


So are soldiers merited within their battalion, regiment as a whole, or trade as in Infanteers ?


----------



## Blackadder1916

Halifax Tar said:


> When you say Regiment do mean the whole of its battalions ?  Eg 1, 2, 3, and 4 RCR's LCols all report to their respective brigade commanders and then a regimental Col. as well ?   This is starting to sound like office space... Did you use the TPS report cover sheet ? lol



SKT simplified it.  Here's the full monty.



			https://ppcli.com/wp-content/uploads/Complete-Regimental-Manual-01-Aug-19.pdf
		


And "The" other regiment 2017_Regimental-Standing_Orders

Pour le Régie you'll have to wade through their site.  Royal 22e Régiment


----------



## Ostrozac

Halifax Tar said:


> So who does career management for infanteers both NCM and Commissioned ?  Is it the same as mine where all 2500-3K of us are managed by 2 MWOs and WO based in Ottawa who move us around as needed ?
> 
> I mean thinking outside the box here, but if the PPCLI has a deficiency in a skill set and the RCR had an over abundance could people be shuffled off as required ?  If not maybe this is another issue, we've allowed little fiefdoms to grow roots that aren't always working in the best interests of the CAF or Canada as a whole, instead putting regimental allegiance first.
> 
> I understand I am treading on sensitive ground.  And I am only trying to understand the organization.


Note that I am no longer a serving member of The RCR, but when I was, career management, particularly at the NCO level, was handled very much by regiments, and not Infantry Corps-wide. I remember when they trawled the battalions in the early 2000’s looking for TOW Gunners to volunteer for a new anti-armour company they were forming (what became E Coy, LdSH) and the offers were very much phrased as — if you do this you will rebadge to PPCLI and they will handle your career from there. Rebadging between regiments occurred, but was viewed as a serious matter.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Blackadder1916 said:


> SKT simplified it.  Here's the full monty.
> 
> 
> 
> https://ppcli.com/wp-content/uploads/Complete-Regimental-Manual-01-Aug-19.pdf


Jesus, a 286 page manual for a single regiment ?

There are Regimental Constitutions and Bylaws ?


----------



## Jarnhamar

Edit


----------



## daftandbarmy

Halifax Tar said:


> Ok what is a Regimental Guard ?  Or a Regimental Council ?  Why does a regiment need a group to decide its strategic guidance and policy direction ?  Shouldn't it be taking that from the CAF or Army doctrine, like I would imagine, the remainder of the military ?
> 
> No trolling here and I have no dog in the fight, just an outside question.



Dude, you clearly don't 'get' the Infantry


----------



## ballz

Halifax Tar said:


> Ok what is a Regimental Guard ?  Or a Regimental Council ?  Why does a regiment need a group to decide its strategic guidance and policy direction ?  Shouldn't it be taking that from the CAF or Army doctrine, like I would imagine, the remainder of the military ?



Because nepotism...


----------



## daftandbarmy

ballz said:


> Because nepotism...



(rings softly knocking in the background)


----------



## TCM621

ballz said:


> Because nepotism...


They are just really out in the open about the fact that retired Col and Generals have power. I have seen the Col Commandant shut down a panel of Cols and Gen officers with the threat of a few phone calls to Ottawa. This happens in every O Mess and Wardroom of every base but the Combat Arms just elect a person to do that and then put him to work.


----------



## Halifax Tar

TCM621 said:


> They are just really out in the open about the fact that retired Col and Generals have power. I have seen the Col Commandant shut down a panel of Cols and Gen officers with the threat of a few phone calls to Ottawa. This happens in every O Mess and Wardroom of every base but the Combat Arms just elect a person to do that and then put him to work.


What a sad statement.


----------



## daftandbarmy

TCM621 said:


> They are just really out in the open about the fact that retired Col and Generals have power. I have seen the Col Commandant shut down a panel of Cols and Gen officers with the threat of a few phone calls to Ottawa. This happens in every O Mess and Wardroom of every base but the Combat Arms just elect a person to do that and then put him to work.



To be fair, which is unlike me, Regimental Councils do alot of good work looking 'inwards' at the regimental level to see who is doing well, who might need some help, and other important HR type stuff that the 'Big CAF' just doesn't handle, or care much about.

And as I've only seen them in action as an observer, and never been part of one, that's about where my knowledge level stops.


----------



## ballz

SeaKingTacco said:


> Career management is done by the various career managers in Ottawa, guided by the COs of units/schools. Each Regimental Senate might develop a wish list of who should get moved where and promoted/developed, but they are not the ones doing the posting/promoting. That is the Career shop in Ottawa- just like everyone else.



In the infantry, the infantry career managers do what they're told by the regiments. The infantry career manager will know which positions need to be filled and in what priority from the corps' perspective, many of which are already considered to be a certain regiments responsibility to fill (largely based on geography), and the regiments will decide who is filling those positions and the career manager cuts the posting message accordingly. Then there's a bunch of positions that can be swapped as required (i.e. Royals have someone who has a compelling reason for a posting to a location normally have a Patricia filling it, the regiments will just agree to have it filled by a royal, the Patricia's might need a similar swap somewhere else, etc.). They're usually competing to get "their guy" into certain high-profile jobs for career progression reasons, and competing with other trades on that front as well, etc. You don't become the Army G3 without your regiment fighting to get you there, for example.

They're definitely involved in buttons, bows, etc. but their biggest role day-to-day to your average infanteer is career management.



Halifax Tar said:


> Jesus, a 286 page manual for a single regiment ?
> 
> There are Regimental Constitutions and Bylaws ?



The RCR's Regimental Standing Orders are 595 pages and covers a lot of the questions you are asking... 2017_Regimental-Standing_Orders

Happy reading.


----------



## Loachman

Halifax Tar said:


> No one convicted of the crimes Hamilton was convicted of should be given a character reference, not because they legally shouldnt but because I'd like to think any serving  member would see the moral pitfalls in authoring such a letter.



Should MGen Dawe not have testified on his behalf during the trial, had he been so called?

If you disagree with the sentencing process and its conventions, do you similarly disagree with the trial process and its conventions?

If we withhold statements in *favour* of a convicted person, we would also have to withhold statements *against* him or her. Should that happen, nobody would know about the lengthy string of similar crimes perpetrated by the offender, including the last one that he committed while out on bail for the preceding one, which he committed while out on bail for the one before that.

Like it or not, there are *both* trial and sentencing processes for good and valid reason.

The trial phase exists to examine the facts surround the crime, and determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.

The sentencing phase exists to determine the most appropriate sentence for that particular crime. If the sentence is considered to be either too light or too heavy compared to similar verdicts, either the crown or the defence can appeal.

An accused person has a *right* to a fair trial, no matter what his or her crimes might be.

"No one accused of the crimes Bloggins was accused of should be given a lawyer, not because he shouldn't but because I'd like to think that any decent lawyer would see the moral pitfalls in defending him".



Halifax Tar said:


> I embrace this.  And I see it as a way to shed the bad people we shouldnt want in our ranks.



And that can still be done after a fair and proper conviction *and* sentencing.



Halifax Tar said:


> We need to concentrate  on victim support  and investigation of all allegations.



That does not exclude the need to do other things rightly and properly as well, nor prevent them from being done.

From what we have seen in the press, some of those other things were not done as well as they could have been, in some opinions, but the reporting has also favoured the victims' sides so a complete and accurate picture cannot be presumed from what we know.

There have been court outcomes, in the past, with which I *very* much disagreed. Reading judges' decisions, however, puts a much different light on things, and often changes my opinions. I still don't like the outcomes, but I know why the decisions were made, can understand the thinking behind them, and can no longer simply claim that "the judge was out to lunch".

The judge's instruction to the jury in the Colton Bouchie case is well worth reading for a good insight. It was still available on the National Post website several months ago. His family were most unhappy with the verdict, and also received more sympathy in the press. That case was also discussed in here, if I remember correctly.

There were no winners in that one, either.

I'd like to see *this* judge's decision.


----------



## MilEME09

SeaKingTacco said:


> Are you alleging that Eyre wrote a letter, or are you speculating? I am trying, but failing, to understand what you are saying.


I am not alleging, just speculating if he was involved he may of back him self into a corner. We need more information


----------



## Lumber

MilEME09 said:


> I am not alleging, just speculating if he was involved he may of back him self into a corner. We need more information


If he had been involved in the sexual assault itself, he may also have backed himself into a corner. We need more information.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Loachman said:


> Should MGen Dawe not have testified on his behalf during the trial, had he been so called?
> 
> If you disagree with the sentencing process and its conventions, do you similarly disagree with the trial process and its conventions?
> 
> If we withhold statements in *favour* of a convicted person, we would also have to withhold statements *against* him or her. Should that happen, nobody would know about the lengthy string of similar crimes perpetrated by the offender, including the last one that he committed while out on bail for the preceding one, which he committed while out on bail for the one before that.
> 
> Like it or not, there are *both* trial and sentencing processes for good and valid reason.
> 
> The trial phase exists to examine the facts surround the crime, and determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.
> 
> The sentencing phase exists to determine the most appropriate sentence for that particular crime. If the sentence is considered to be either too light or too heavy compared to similar verdicts, either the crown or the defence can appeal.
> 
> An accused person has a *right* to a fair trial, no matter what his or her crimes might be.
> 
> "No one accused of the crimes Bloggins was accused of should be given a lawyer, not because he shouldn't but because I'd like to think that any decent lawyer would see the moral pitfalls in defending him".
> 
> 
> 
> And that can still be done after a fair and proper conviction *and* sentencing.
> 
> 
> 
> That does not exclude the need to do other things rightly and properly as well, nor prevent them from being done.
> 
> From what we have seen in the press, some of those other things were not done as well as they could have been, in some opinions, but the reporting has also favoured the victims' sides so a complete and accurate picture cannot be presumed from what we know.
> 
> There have been court outcomes, in the past, with which I *very* much disagreed. Reading judges' decisions, however, puts a much different light on things, and often changes my opinions. I still don't like the outcomes, but I know why the decisions were made, can understand the thinking behind them, and can no longer simply claim that "the judge was out to lunch".
> 
> The judge's instruction to the jury in the Colton Bouchie case is well worth reading for a good insight. It was still available on the National Post website several months ago. His family were most unhappy with the verdict, and also received more sympathy in the press. That case was also discussed in here, if I remember correctly.
> 
> There were no winners in that one, either.
> 
> I'd like to see *this* judge's decision.



Testifying under oath in a court military or civilian and providing a character reference are two different things.  If called as a witness is to testify they would be asked pointed questions with honest answers expect to be given in return.  That's very different than, "Hey Sir, will you write a letter and tell me what you think of Maj Hamilton".

The Maj has his day in court and his sentencing.  As he should have.  What shouldn't have happened is letter which is obviously being interpreted as the institution calling Maj Hamilton a good guy while trying to influence the sentencing.  I can tell you right now if a subordinate of mine was convicted of the same crimes and some one asked me to provide a character reference I would deny that request, up to and including my own courts-martial to try and make me write one.  #tryandmakeme


----------



## Loachman

FJAG said:


> Both yes and no. S 130 doesn't list any laws but in fact incorporates all Federal laws which have a punishment provision over and above the CCC. Narcotics falls into that. Also don't forget s 132 of the NDA which allows laying a charge under any foreign law where the offence takes place. This used to be a standard for drunk driving in Germany. The intent of this section is to allow Canada to take jurisdiction over offences where the CSD wouldn't apply. In large part this is to meet SOFA requirements and facilitates keeping Canadian soldiers out of foreign courts and jails.
> 
> 🍻



A Vandoo Sergeant's wife spent two or three weeks in the Guardhouse in Lahr, after a standard hatless dance, while I was there - with the standard issue of boots to spitshine, Kiwi polish tin, old stainless steel water bottle, mess tins, and steel garbage can (all painted black) to buff to a high shine with rag and Brasso.

She had left the Warrant Officers' and Sergeants' Mess late one Friday night while her husband was in the field, hammered out of her mind, somehow managed to drive onto the ramp in front of 5 AMU, smacked into the nose wheel of a Herc, got out of her car, and made it about two paces. The MPs found her soon afterwards, face down.

She was convinced that she was in her own parking spot at her Q or apartment.

On the last day of her sentence, like any other miscreant, she was handed a can of spray paint to prepare the metal items for the next guest.


----------



## Loachman

Halifax Tar said:


> Testifying under oath in a court military or civilian and providing a character reference are two different things.  If called as a witness is to testify they would be asked pointed questions with honest answers expect to be given in return.  That's very different than, "Hey Sir, will you write a letter and tell me what you think of Maj Hamilton".
> 
> The Maj has his day in court and his sentencing.  As he should have.  What shouldn't have happened is letter which is obviously being interpreted as the institution calling Maj Hamilton a good guy while trying to influence the sentencing.  I can tell you right now if a subordinate of mine was convicted of the same crimes and some one asked me to provide a character reference I would deny that request, up to and including my own courts-martial to try and make me write one.  #tryandmakeme



Statements on behalf of, or against, an offender are also a part of the process, even if you do not like it.

How is it "obviously being interpreted as the institution", when it is written and signed by somebody who *knew* the offender, both as he was prior to and after his deployment, and *personally observed the effects that that deployment had upon him*?

That is *entirely relevant* to the sentencing considerations, so that the judge can have all of the necessary information to impose an *appropriate* sentence.

Whatever you might choose to do is entirely up to you. You may not expect as much loyalty from your subordinates, however, if they perceived a tendency to throw people away.


----------



## MilEME09

Lumber said:


> If he had been involved in the sexual assault itself, he may also have backed himself into a corner. We need more information.


The article posted and others suggest we was involved in the letter writing from PPCLI. IF he was he couldn't ethically not back Dawes without bring hypocritical. That is all I am saying


----------



## ballz

MilEME09 said:


> The article posted and others suggest we was involved in the letter writing from PPCLI. IF he was he couldn't ethically not back Dawes without bring hypocritical. That is all I am saying



The article doesn't suggest that. The article states that he was the Senior Serving Patricia at the time when it was written, doesn't explain anything about what that means, and leaves the reader to draw that conclusion based on the fact that they have no idea what any of that means (just look at the questions here about how regiments work).

Being the Senior Serving person in a Regiment is not like being in a Command position.... you're the senior serving person by virtue of your rank and time-in. Some are more involved than others, but you don't go to the Senior Serving person for direction all the time. For example, Vance was the Senior Serving member for The RCR (obviously, cause no one outranked him), and guess what, as CDS he was too busy so the next senior guy took up those "duties" if you can even call it that. The Patricia's RHQ is in Edmonton, I'm not sure what position he was in but he was in some sort of GOFO / Ottawa-based position, up to his neck in his own files. Very unlikely that LCol McGregor reached out to the most senior member of his regiment, a 2 or 3-star at the time, to talk to him about the letter he was composing for one guy's court case (especially cause those degenerate Patricia's have a truckload of guys in court at any given time).

I suspect he would have reached out to Col Adair who was the Colonel of the Regiment at the time, and actually has an active part in day-to-day activities of the regiment. I dunno how Adair is escaping heat and light on this one... I guess he's benefitting from not being as juicy a target as a 2 and 3-star GOFO, as well as no one understanding how regiments work.

The CDS's office stated LGen Eyre had no knowledge of the letter, and I believe him on that one... particularly with how haphazardly this all seems to have been executed.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Halifax Tar said:


> Testifying under oath in a court military or civilian and providing a character reference are two different things.  If called as a witness is to testify they would be asked pointed questions with honest answers expect to be given in return.  That's very different than, "Hey Sir, will you write a letter and tell me what you think of Maj Hamilton".
> 
> The Maj has his day in court and his sentencing.  As he should have.  What shouldn't have happened is letter which is obviously being interpreted as the institution calling Maj Hamilton a good guy while trying to influence the sentencing.  I can tell you right now if a subordinate of mine was convicted of the same crimes and some one asked me to provide a character reference I would deny that request, up to and including my own courts-martial to try and make me write one.  #tryandmakeme


No one can force you or anybody else to write a character reference. If you do not think one is warranted- don’t write it. Simple.

That is alot different than saying character references, as a concept, should not exist in crimes that you personally (and for very good reason, if I can extend my personal sympathy for what you suffered during your childhood) find abhorent.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Ah, the media.  How accurate and comprehensive and informative they are.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Loachman said:


> Statements on behalf of, or against, an offender are also a part of the process, even if you do not like it.
> 
> How is it "obviously being interpreted as the institution", when it is written and signed by somebody who *knew* the offender, both as he was prior to and after his deployment, and *personally observed the effects that that deployment had upon him*?
> 
> That is *entirely relevant* to the sentencing considerations, so that the judge can have all of the necessary information to impose an *appropriate* sentence.
> 
> Whatever you might choose to do is entirely up to you. You may not expect as much loyalty from your subordinates, however, if they perceived a tendency to throw people away.


Yup they sure are.  And I am free to think anyone who would provide a statement in a positive light for an offender who committed crimes as is this subject is abhorrent.

Because he used his rank, position and organizational letter head to try to and paint the convict in a positive light and influence the sentencing in the convicts favor.

I wont argue that.  But I will say sometimes silence is louder than speech.

I am wholly dedicated to my subordinates.  But they forfeit my dedication if they are found guilty of rape/attempted rape and to have assaulted that persons partner, such is the subject matter at hand.

There is a scale of offences, our own laws say so.  Some more grievous than others.  Minor transgressions can be dealt with through good leadership, positive examples and corrective measure at the unit level.  Some require jail time.  Want my support ?  Don't rape people, seems fair and reasonable.



SeaKingTacco said:


> No one can force you or anybody else to write a character reference. If you do not think one is warranted- don’t write it. Simple.
> 
> That is alot different than saying character references, as a concept, should not exist in crimes that you personally (and for very good reason, if I can extend my personal sympathy for what you suffered during your childhood) find abhorent.


I don't think I said they shouldn't exist, I think I said this one shouldn't have been written.  If I wasn't clear I apologize the aforementioned is my intent.


----------



## OldSolduer

ballz said:


> The article doesn't suggest that. The article states that he was the Senior Serving Patricia at the time when it was written, doesn't explain anything about what that
> I suspect he would have reached out to Col Adair who was the Colonel of the Regiment at the time, and actually has an active part in day-to-day activities of the regiment. I dunno how Adair is escaping heat and light on this one... I guess he's benefitting from not being as juicy a target as a 2 and 3-star GOFO, as well as no one understanding how regiments work.


FYI and clarification Col Adair is not the Colonel of the Regiment. That title for now belongs to BGen (ret'd) Vince Kennedy. 

IIRC Colonel Adair is President of the Regimental Guard. Any Patricias - dangerboy for instance maybe able to further inform us.


----------



## Mick

OldSolduer said:


> FYI and clarification Col Adair is not the Colonel of the Regiment. That title for now belongs to BGen (ret'd) Vince Kennedy.
> 
> IIRC Colonel Adair is President of the Regimental Guard. Any Patricias - dangerboy for instance maybe able to further inform us.


https://ppcli.com/wp-content/uploads/Complete-Regimental-Manual-01-Aug-19.pdf

After a quick read of the link provided by Blackadder1916, it appears the President of the Guard must be a General Officer, and is typically the Senior Serving Patricia.

In addition to Colonel-in-Chief, and Colonel of the Regiment, there is also a Regimental Colonel who is the "senior career management planner" and is normally "a Colonel employed in the Ottawa area."  

Logically, Colonel Adair was filling the latter role, since C-in-C and CoR appointments aren't filled by currently serving officers.


----------



## ballz

OldSolduer said:


> FYI and clarification Col Adair is not the Colonel of the Regiment. That title for now belongs to BGen (ret'd) Vince Kennedy.
> 
> IIRC Colonel Adair is President of the Regimental Guard. Any Patricias - dangerboy for instance maybe able to further inform us.



Edit: COTR vs Regimental Colonel. Mick beat me to it.

He was at the time of this letter though, correct? ... and my mistake, it's not COTR we're talking about, it's Regimental Colonel...  I always mixed those two up. Or do Patricia's not use the term Regimental Colonel? I'm not familiar with "Regimental Guard," would that be the same as Regimental Senate in The RCR... wow, this last para shows how confusing the tribal stuff gets.

In any case, I should state, I know very little of the mafia stuff, and definitely less about the Patricias. Maybe Eyre was informed, maybe not, I dunno. But there's enough separation between Senior Serving that I believe him when his office states he had no knowledge of it. Although I would guess Maj Hamilton's case was watched more closely by the Regiment than many others would be.


----------



## Infanteer

Education Time on the Regimental System.

Colonel-in-Chief/Colonel of the Regiment (some Regiments have both) = Another term for Honourary Colonel.  Figurehead.  Recommended by a Regiment through a formal process governed by the CAF.

Senate/Guard/Conseil (title varies) = A forum for Generals and Colonels of a Regiment, who meet to discuss Regimental issues.  This is largely related to Regimental fundraising, awareness, non-public services, linkages to associations, museums, etc.  Some venues involve former members.  If you want to see what one of these does, look online for published plans.  Its not very operational - here is an example.

President/Chair = Acts as the executive officer of a Regiment by chairing a Regimental Senate/Guard/Conseil.  A secondary duty for a busy General.  Usually a senior serving officer of that Regiment, but not necessarily THE senior serving member due to duties.  Some regiments have Deputies to assist who may or may not also be the Regimental Colonel.

Regimental Colonel = A Colonel from an infantry Regiment, appointed by the Army on recommendation of the Senate/Guard/Conseil, responsible for a myriad of things.  Note that this too is also a secondary duty, so the officer has a (busy) day job somewhere.  The Regimental Colonel's key task is the career management of Regimental officers, and coordination of these decisions with the Career Managers in DGMC.

Regimental Executive Committee = Generally run by Regimental Colonels or a Lieutenant-Colonel from the Regiment, and focused on more mundane Regimental management (think kit shop, parades, publications, events, fundraising) and attended by senior officers and WOs of the Regiment.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Infanteer said:


> Education Time on the Regimental System.
> 
> Colonel-in-Chief/Colonel of the Regiment (some Regiments have both) = Another term for Honourary Colonel.  Figurehead.  Recommended by a Regiment through a formal process governed by the CAF.
> 
> Senate/Guard/Conseil (title varies) = A forum for Generals and Colonels of a Regiment, who meet to discuss Regimental issues.  This is largely related to Regimental fundraising, awareness, non-public services, linkages to associations, museums, etc.  Some venues involve former members.  If you want to see what one of these does, look online for published plans.  Its not very operational - here is an example.
> 
> President/Chair = Acts as the executive officer of a Regiment by chairing a Regimental Senate/Guard/Conseil.  A secondary duty for a busy General.  Usually a senior serving officer of that Regiment, but not necessarily THE senior serving member due to duties.  Some regiments have Deputies to assist who may or may not also be the Regimental Colonel.
> 
> Regimental Colonel = A Colonel from an infantry Regiment, appointed by the Army on recommendation of the Senate/Guard/Conseil, responsible for a myriad of things.  Note that this too is also a secondary duty, so the officer has a (busy) day job somewhere.  The Regimental Colonel's key task is the career management of Regimental officers, and coordination of these decisions with the Career Managers in DGMC.
> 
> Regimental Executive Committee = Generally run by Regimental Colonels or a Lieutenant-Colonel from the Regiment, and focused on more mundane Regimental management (think kit shop, parades, publications, events, fundraising) and attended by senior officers and WOs of the Regiment.


Thanks I appreciate the in-depth info.


----------



## Infanteer

Note that when it comes to career management in a Regular Force Infantry Regiment, we are talking about hundreds of Captains, Majors, and Lieutenant-Colonels, so the Regimental Colonel steers what is actually a larger, collective process.  We are not talking about one guy sitting in a smoke-filled room by himself.


----------



## Weinie

Infanteer said:


> Education Time on the Regimental System.
> 
> Colonel-in-Chief/Colonel of the Regiment (some Regiments have both) = Another term for Honourary Colonel.  Figurehead.  Recommended by a Regiment through a formal process governed by the CAF.
> 
> Senate/Guard/Conseil (title varies) = A forum for Generals and Colonels of a Regiment, who meet to discuss Regimental issues.  This is largely related to Regimental fundraising, awareness, non-public services, linkages to associations, museums, etc.  Some venues involve former members.  If you want to see what one of these does, look online for published plans.  Its not very operational - here is an example.
> 
> President/Chair = Acts as the executive officer of a Regiment by chairing a Regimental Senate/Guard/Conseil.  A secondary duty for a busy General.  Usually a senior serving officer of that Regiment, but not necessarily THE senior serving member due to duties.  Some regiments have Deputies to assist who may or may not also be the Regimental Colonel.
> 
> Regimental Colonel = A Colonel from an infantry Regiment, appointed by the Army on recommendation of the Senate/Guard/Conseil, responsible for a myriad of things.  Note that this too is also a secondary duty, so the officer has a (busy) day job somewhere.  The Regimental Colonel's key task is the career management of Regimental officers, and coordination of these decisions with the Career Managers in DGMC.
> 
> Regimental Executive Committee = Generally run by Regimental Colonels or a Lieutenant-Colonel from the Regiment, and focused on more mundane Regimental management (think kit shop, parades, publications, events, fundraising) and attended by senior officers and WOs of the Regiment.


Yup, But does your assertion that they (collectively) have no impact, jive with reality. Otherwise , get rid of them, as they serve no valid purpose.


----------



## Infanteer

Where did I assert that?


----------



## TCM621

Halifax Tar said:


> Yup they sure are. And I am free to think anyone who would provide a statement in a positive light for an offender who committed crimes as is this subject is abhorrent.





Halifax Tar said:


> Because he used his rank, position and organizational letter head to try to and paint the convict in a positive light and influence the sentencing in the convicts favor.




Is there any indication that he tried to paint the offender in a positive light? The only thing we have is a second hand account that he he said he was good guy who deserved a break because of his PTSD. We have two comments absent of any context. 

Maybe he painted the person Hamilton was prior to his PTSD in a positive light but condemned his actions within the letter. People need to stop speculating and then projecting how they thought it went on to Dawe. Maybe he did everything you accuse him of but absent any evidence this man is being dragged through the mud as if he approved of the rape.


----------



## Weinie

Infanteer said:


> Where did I assert that?


Education Time on the Regimental System.

Colonel-in-Chief/Colonel of the Regiment (some Regiments have both) = Another term for Honourary Colonel. Figurehead. Recommended by a Regiment through a formal process governed by the CAF.

Senate/Guard/Conseil (title varies) = A forum for Generals and Colonels of a Regiment, who meet to discuss Regimental issues. This is largely related to Regimental fundraising, awareness, non-public services, linkages to associations, museums, etc. Some venues involve former members. If you want to see what one of these does, look online for published plans. Its not very operational - here is an example.

President/Chair = Acts as the executive officer of a Regiment by chairing a Regimental Senate/Guard/Conseil. A secondary duty for a busy General. Usually a senior serving officer of that Regiment, but not necessarily THE senior serving member due to duties. Some regiments have Deputies to assist who may or may not also be the Regimental Colonel.

Regimental Colonel = A Colonel from an infantry Regiment, appointed by the Army on recommendation of the Senate/Guard/Conseil, responsible for a myriad of things. Note that this too is also a secondary duty, so the officer has a (busy) day job somewhere. The Regimental Colonel's key task is the career management of Regimental officers, and coordination of these decisions with the Career Managers in DGMC.

Regimental Executive Committee = Generally run by Regimental Colonels or a Lieutenant-Colonel from the Regiment, and focused on more mundane Regimental management (think kit shop, parades, publications, events, fundraising) and attended by senior officers and WOs of the Regiment.


Infanteer said:


> Where did I assert that?


You did not assert that . My apologies.


----------



## Loachman

Infanteer said:


> Colonel-in-Chief/Colonel of the Regiment (some Regiments have both) = Another term for Honourary Colonel.



Colonels-in-Chief are almost always, if not always (as I believe they are), members of the Royal Family.

For The RCR, it was HRH Prince Philip.


----------



## Infanteer

Almost, but not quite.

The Colonel-in-Chief of the PPCLI is now Adrienne Clarkson.


----------



## dangerboy

For the PPCLI the criteria for which was established when Adrienne Clarkson was selected and will be used for her successor is:

a.    the candidate must be female; 
b.    the candidate must not be a C-in-C for another Regiment but must be exclusively Patricia; 
c.     the candidate must have relevance to the Regiment; 
d.     although not a stated criterion, it is understood that if not a member of the Royal Family, the candidate must be able to receive special permission from the monarch to allow appointment; and 8 Minutes of Guard 37. 1-10/18 
e.    important but not essential criteria also include: record of public or military service, availability, age, and connection to Canada.


----------



## Weinie

Weinie said:


> Yup, But does your assertion that they (collectively) have no impact, jive with reality. Otherwise , get rid of them, as they serve no valid purpose.


My assertion that you asserted something was wrong. My assertion that Regimental "mafias' are fundamentally wrong is a correct assertion,


----------



## ArmyRick

Loachman said:


> Statements on behalf of, or against, an offender are also a part of the process, even if you do not like it.
> 
> How is it "obviously being interpreted as the institution", when it is written and signed by somebody who *knew* the offender, both as he was prior to and after his deployment, and *personally observed the effects that that deployment had upon him*?
> 
> That is *entirely relevant* to the sentencing considerations, so that the judge can have all of the necessary information to impose an *appropriate* sentence.
> 
> Whatever you might choose to do is entirely up to you. You may not expect as much loyalty from your subordinates, however, if they perceived a tendency to throw people away.



Your not getting it. At all. It doesn't matter what is legal, allowable or can be done. Its about MORALITY and you seem lost. Very lost.

Like it or not, THE CAF is or is about to be on political trial, and don't forget the CAF serves at the whim of the politicians who control it. Don't forget what happened when the Airborne Regiment pissed off the Chretien Liberals in 1995. 1 stroke of a pen and the regiment was done. 

Enough with regimental councils, CAF always standing by their own (Back up the rapist but to hell with the serving soldier and her husband also a soldier). 

EVERY single Canadian that is paying attention to this, is going to look at this and I will bet, they will not be impressed at all with General Dawes decision and what appears to be a regret afterwards. 

Piss the Canadian people and the politicians off and 1 stroke of a pen, no more PPCLI. Or no more CAF. Or no more CANSOFCOM. Remember what happened to the Airborne Regiment.

As far as the Van doo wife in Lahr, your point?


----------



## OldSolduer

ArmyRick said:


> Your not getting it. At all. It doesn't matter what is legal, allowable or can be done. Its about MORALITY and you seem lost. Very lost.
> 
> Like it or not, THE CAF is or is about to be on political trial, and don't forget the CAF serves at the whim of the politicians who control it. Don't forget what happened when the Airborne Regiment pissed off the Chretien Liberals in 1995. 1 stroke of a pen and the regiment was done.
> 
> Enough with regimental councils, CAF always standing by their own (Back up the rapist but to hell with the serving soldier and her husband also a soldier).
> 
> EVERY single Canadian that is paying attention to this, is going to look at this and I will bet, they will not be impressed at all with General Dawes decision and what appears to be a regret afterwards.
> 
> Piss the Canadian people and the politicians off and 1 stroke of a pen, no more PPCLI. Or no more CAF. Or no more CANSOFCOM. Remember what happened to the Airborne Regiment.
> 
> As far as the Van doo wife in Lahr, your point?


While we (Currently serving and retired members) certainly are engaged in this, a very large portion of the Canadian public could care less.

I do not think the politicians will disband or wipe out any regiments - we have allies to our south that may be observing our actions (The GoC's actions) and no doubt the threat to disband the CAF would trigger a few phone calls from our southern neighbour and both mother countries.

"Justin WTF do you think you're doing?"


----------



## YZT580

You chaps would have fit right in in Salem Mass. about 200 years ago.  Where Dawes made an error and this is purely conjecture taken from press coverage, is in not going to the victims and explaining the action that he was going to take and the reasons for that action.  Everyone is entitled to express their views on the character of an individual.  It enables a judge to understand who that person is, who they were, and provide insight into why the event occurred.  Dawes was entitled to write that letter, in fact, it took a lot of guts to do so because he had to know what the reaction would be.  He could have said no as some have suggested but he believed that there was more behind the action than simple sexual frustration and male ego.  This incident should not be in the same discussion as the actions of the Vance.


----------



## McG

YZT580 said:


> Where Dawes made an error and this is purely conjecture taken from press coverage, is in not going to the victims and explaining the action that he was going to take and the reasons for that action.


Had he given due consideration to the victim or her husband, he might have realized earlier that writing such a letter was betraying a good person who was still under his command.

One of the reasons the CAF is in its current steaming pile of trouble is because we suffer from moral disengagement. We too easily minimize the harm caused by the behaviours of the people we see as our team. We too quickly minimize the injury inflicted on those who are not from out team. We are ready to make excuses or justifications for abhorrent conduct after a few cases of good performance. I've seen it with drugs, with many cases of drunk driving, and I've seen it with NCOs on a leadership course spending several drunken hours attempting to bash through the door of a female recruit while shouting demands for sex (she submitted her release fairly quickly there after by the way). Too many COs want to offer "oh, but he's an outstanding field soldier" and "this is so out of character, he would never do this again" all working toward the "this doesn't need a remedial measure; we can manage this informally." This is not malice on the part of some leaders; it's a recognized social psychological phenomena. Until we wake-up and hold people to the standard of conduct required of the CAF, there will continue to be incidents where the institution fails both victims and offenders. There will continue to be incidents where junior ranks question the moral compass of senior leaders, and there will continue to be incidents where the public questions the ability of the military to govern itself.

We can eject people and turn our back to them without remorse for performance. Same needs to be true for conduct.


----------



## Jarnhamar

YZT580 said:


> You chaps would have fit right in in Salem Mass. about 200 years ago.  Where Dawes made an error and this is purely conjecture taken from press coverage, is in not going to the victims and explaining the action that he was going to take and the reasons for that action.  Everyone is entitled to express their views on the character of an individual.  It enables a judge to understand who that person is, who they were, and provide insight into why the event occurred.  Dawes was entitled to write that letter, in fact, it took a lot of guts to do so because he had to know what the reaction would be.  He could have said no as some have suggested but he believed that there was more behind the action than simple sexual frustration and male ego.  This incident should not be in the same discussion as the actions of the Vance.



Lets say for argument sake him writing the character reference is out of the argument.

He still completely failed to support a victim of sexual assault and a victim of assault both at the onset of the incident and afterwards when the victims reached out to him to have a conversation. 

Victims of sexual misconduct (on the more severe side) keep lamenting leaders in the CAF aren't listening and don't seem to care. This is a perfect example of what they're talking about IMO.

As for this not having anything to do with Vance, disagree.  Vance is another perfrect example of leaders not caring. This incident was reported to him, he agreed it was wrong and said he would do something about it.
He lied. 


General Dawe is probably a super cool reall nice guy. The issue is these senior leaders just don't seem to get it at best, and don't care thinking they're above the law at worst.


----------



## YZT580

McG said:


> Had he given due consideration to the victim or her husband, he might have realized earlier that writing such a letter was betraying a good person who was still under his command.
> 
> It should have been possible to do both.  A wise men said I may not agree with what you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.  The same logic applies to writing an appraisal defending a convicted felon.  It sounds like it is ok to support some crimes but not others.  If he had robbed a convenience store no one would have commented.  Probably if he had shot his neighbour in a fit of rage a number of folks would have stepped forward and commented on his behavioral change but because it is an assault on one of your own he is all bad.  And you just may have lost a good leader as a result.
> 
> We can eject people and turn our back to them without remorse for performance. Same needs to be true for conduct.  I absolutely agree with you.  But you need to very carefully define what constitutes bad conduct and the consequences and stick with it regardless of circumstances.  Good luck with that though.  When Harper tried that with defined sentences for specific offenses the Supreme Court had a fit and ruled against many of them.  They wanted their exceptions.  Having a standard that is etched in stone is an essential feature of any lasting civilization and the lack or removal of such a standard is a sure indication that the aforementioned civilization is about to collapse.  Our current leadership (in all parties) are proof that our own civilization is currently circling the bowl.


----------



## Brad Sallows

If not enough is done for victims, one solution that is not on the table is to take it out on criminals by withholding stuff that is customarily part of the system.  Don't fuck them over a little extra because of someone else's indifference/neglect.

As to who is not getting it: I suppose the Canadian public, which is generally on board with compassionate justice (eg. sentencing circles) would, if it were paying more attention, be more alarmed at the hang-em-out-to-dry advocates.


----------



## ArmyRick

McG said:


> Had he given due consideration to the victim or her husband, he might have realized earlier that writing such a letter was betraying a good person who was still under his command.
> 
> One of the reasons the CAF is in its current steaming pile of trouble is because we suffer from moral disengagement. We too easily minimize the harm caused by the behaviours of the people we see as our team. We too quickly minimize the injury inflicted on those who are not from out team. We are ready to make excuses or justifications for abhorrent conduct after a few cases of good performance. I've seen it with drugs, with many cases of drunk driving, and I've seen it with NCOs on a leadership course spending several drunken hours attempting to bash through the door of a female recruit while shouting demands for sex (she submitted her release fairly quickly there after by the way). Too many COs want to offer "oh, but he's an outstanding field soldier" and "this is so out of character, he would never do this again" all working toward the "this doesn't need a remedial measure; we can manage this informally." This is not malice on the part of some leaders; it's a recognized social psychological phenomena. Until we wake-up and hold people to the standard of conduct required of the CAF, there will continue to be incidents where the institution fails both victims and offenders. There will continue to be incidents where junior ranks question the moral compass of senior leaders, and there will continue to be incidents where the public questions the ability of the military to govern itself.
> 
> We can eject people and turn our back to them without remorse for performance. Same needs to be true for conduct.


Fully Agreed. Well said


----------



## daftandbarmy

No surprise, the CAF's 'powerful' might need  a little perspective to restore their moral authority, which is clearly lacking right now. 

We seem to like coins. Maybe a coin that says 'memento mori' issued to all senior leaders?


How to Increase Leaders' Moral Authority

Perspective-taking, or imagining the world from another’s vantage point, has been shown to function like a psychological steering wheel. A 2014 study found that combining power with perspective taking improved interpersonal relationships and information-sharing, leading to more accurate decision making. This may be the ideal formula for morally authoritative leadership. Encouraging perspective-taking can be as simple as making sure that leaders are frequently reminded of their interdependence within the organisation. Role switching or regular interaction with peers in other departments as well as followers helps to contain self-focused myopia.




			https://knowledge.insead.edu/node/4372/pdf


----------



## SeaKingTacco

daftandbarmy said:


> No surprise, the CAF's 'powerful' might need  a little perspective to restore their moral authority, which is clearly lacking right now.
> 
> We seem to like coins. Maybe a coin that says 'memento mori' issued to all senior leaders?
> 
> 
> How to Increase Leaders' Moral Authority
> 
> Perspective-taking, or imagining the world from another’s vantage point, has been shown to function like a psychological steering wheel. A 2014 study found that combining power with perspective taking improved interpersonal relationships and information-sharing, leading to more accurate decision making. This may be the ideal formula for morally authoritative leadership. Encouraging perspective-taking can be as simple as making sure that leaders are frequently reminded of their interdependence within the organisation. Role switching or regular interaction with peers in other departments as well as followers helps to contain self-focused myopia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://knowledge.insead.edu/node/4372/pdf


I find that (some? Most? Many?) GOFOs lose the plot and (their subordinates) because they are not true to themselves and come across as inauthentic. I see lots of bluster and buzzwords and misplaced attention to tiny details.

The very best ones I have been around are not loud; are humble; are not afraid to have a normal conversation with someone below their rank and actually devote time and energy to thinking about defence and are not afraid to admit a mistake.

Really, these are qualities that we want in any leader at any level, so this should not be a difficult problem to fix.


----------



## Good2Golf

I do think there is also an element of ‘wanting to be like other execs in Ottawa’ (ie. PS) and there is (was, anyway in my experience) similar use of ‘fashionable lexicon’ in communicating in cross-Departmental senior meetings.  I think that affects (erodes?) the otherwise pure (moral, professional, such as it is today) state of military senior leaders.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Gunnar

Has anyone assessed the impact on operational readiness of these non-stop accusations, and investigations, especially when they now involve people in the Intelligence branch?  Not diminishing the severity of accusations, but questioning whether there is a plan for the surviving CoC to pick up the slack.  Who is in charge?  Is it clear to everyone beyond the regimental level?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Good2Golf said:


> I do think there is also an element of ‘wanting to be like other execs in Ottawa’ (ie. PS) and there is (was, anyway in my experience) similar use of ‘fashionable lexicon’ in communicating in cross-Departmental senior meetings.  I think that affects (erodes?) the otherwise pure (moral, professional, such as it is today) state of military senior leaders.
> 
> Regards
> G2G



'He's BLUF-ing', remains one of my favourite expressions


----------



## QV

McG said:


> Had he given due consideration to the victim or her husband, he might have realized earlier that writing such a letter was betraying a good person who was still under his command.
> 
> One of the reasons the CAF is in its current steaming pile of trouble is because we suffer from moral disengagement. We too easily minimize the harm caused by the behaviours of the people we see as our team. We too quickly minimize the injury inflicted on those who are not from out team. We are ready to make excuses or justifications for abhorrent conduct after a few cases of good performance. I've seen it with drugs, with many cases of drunk driving, and I've seen it with NCOs on a leadership course spending several drunken hours attempting to bash through the door of a female recruit while shouting demands for sex (she submitted her release fairly quickly there after by the way). Too many COs want to offer "oh, but he's an outstanding field soldier" and "this is so out of character, he would never do this again" all working toward the "this doesn't need a remedial measure; we can manage this informally." This is not malice on the part of some leaders; it's a recognized social psychological phenomena. Until we wake-up and hold people to the standard of conduct required of the CAF, there will continue to be incidents where the institution fails both victims and offenders. There will continue to be incidents where junior ranks question the moral compass of senior leaders, and there will continue to be incidents where the public questions the ability of the military to govern itself.
> 
> We can eject people and turn our back to them without remorse for performance. Same needs to be true for conduct.


Was there any thought to the damage to cohesion and morale that could arise with the support offered Hamilton?  

Ultimately this was a bad judgement call, one that should have been very obvious.  I’m not sure there is an easy recovery from this kind of moral disengagement.  Such a poor poor move by an otherwise exemplary example of a soldier.


----------



## TCM621

SeaKingTacco said:


> I find that (some? Most? Many?) GOFOs lose the plot and (their subordinates) because they are not true to themselves and come across as inauthentic. I see lots of bluster and buzzwords and misplaced attention to tiny details.
> 
> The very best ones I have been around are not loud; are humble; are not afraid to have a normal conversation with someone below their rank and actually devote time and energy to thinking about defence and are not afraid to admit a mistake.
> 
> Really, these are qualities that we want in any leader at any level, so this should not be a difficult problem to fix.


I don't find loud or quiet really has much to do with it but if you can't chat with a subordinate because of some misguided hang up about rank, that is definite red flag. Over the years, I have known a number of officers who ended up in senior leadership positions, and Senior Chiefs, well enough to get a decent sense of their character. The best of them could have a conversation with a corporal in civvies without the corporal ever suspecting they were a GOFO. In fact, I know a couple of cases where that happened. 

Hillier was a good example, although he isn't one of the ones I knew well. The first time I met him was in the smoke pit where he was hiding his smoking from his wife. He asked us about our jobs and they we continued to have a smoke pit chat about the event we were at. Two days later we had another chat in a different smoke pit and again it was a very cordial chat you might have with anyone despite the enormous difference in rank.

In short, a lot of the character of an officer can be seen if they look through the jnr ranks as they walk by them. The best CO I have ever had stopped new people in the halls if he didn't recognize them and learned their name, section, when they got tthere etc. He probably knew everyone who had worked there more than 6 months by face if not name. He was also a hard taskmaster who demanded results but no one wanted him to leave when he got promoted.


----------



## Kilted

Gunnar said:


> Has anyone assessed the impact on operational readiness of these non-stop accusations, and investigations, especially when they now involve people in the Intelligence branch?  Not diminishing the severity of accusations, but questioning whether there is a plan for the surviving CoC to pick up the slack.  Who is in charge?  Is it clear to everyone beyond the regimental level?


Or influence by foreign actors?


----------



## TCM621

QV said:


> Was there any thought to the damage to cohesion and morale that could arise with the support offered Hamilton?
> 
> Ultimately this was a bad judgement call, one that should have been very obvious.  I’m not sure there is an easy recovery from this kind of moral disengagement.  Such a poor poor move by an otherwise exemplary example of a soldier.



This is the problem. With proper communication, there doesn't have to be damage to cohesion or morale. I think the most likely response would have been "I don't like it but I understand why it is being done" and that is a pretty good outcome in a situation like this where we have competing (if unequal) levels of responsibility.


----------



## daftandbarmy

TCM621 said:


> I don't find loud or quiet really has much to do with it but if you can't chat with a subordinate because of some misguided hang up about rank, that is definite red flag. Over the years, I have known a number of officers who ended up in senior leadership positions, and Senior Chiefs, well enough to get a decent sense of their character. The best of them could have a conversation with a corporal in civvies without the corporal ever suspecting they were a GOFO. In fact, I know a couple of cases where that happened.
> 
> Hillier was a good example, although he isn't one of the ones I knew well. The first time I met him was in the smoke pit where he was hiding his smoking from his wife. He asked us about our jobs and they we continued to have a smoke pit chat about the event we were at. Two days later we had another chat in a different smoke pit and again it was a very cordial chat you might have with anyone despite the enormous difference in rank.
> 
> In short, a lot of the character of an officer can be seen if they look through the jnr ranks as they walk by them. The best CO I have ever had stopped new people in the halls if he didn't recognize them and learned their name, section, when they got tthere etc. He probably knew everyone who had worked there more than 6 months by face if not name. He was also a hard taskmaster who demanded results but no one wanted him to leave when he got promoted.




"It is, indeed, singular, how a man loses or gains caste with his comrades from his behaviour, and how closely he is observed in the field. The officers, too, are commented upon and closely observed. The men are very proud of those who are brave in the field, and kind and considerate to the soldiers under them. An act of kindness done by an officer has often during the battle been the cause of his life being saved. Nay, whatever folks may say upon the matter, I know from experience, that in _our_ army the men like best to be officered by gentlemen, men whose education has rendered them more kind in manners than your coarse officer, sprung from obscure origin, and whose style is brutal and overbearing. My observation has often led me to remark amongst men, that those whose birth and station might reasonably have made them fastidious under hardship and toil, have generally borne their miseries without a murmur;—whilst those whose previous life, one would have thought, might have better prepared them for the toils of war, have been the first to cry out and complain of their hard fate."

_- Recollections of Rifleman Harris, Old 95th, with Anecdotes of his Officers and his Comrades - _


----------



## Halifax Tar

Great post


----------



## OldSolduer

Gunnar said:


> Has anyone assessed the impact on operational readiness of these non-stop accusations, and investigations, especially when they now involve people in the Intelligence branch?


This mirrors my thoughts as well. Was this individual in the pocket of foreign agents? If so, which nation?

Nations don't have friends per se - they share common interests but whose to say some of our allies aren't gathering information ?


----------



## Halifax Tar

OldSolduer said:


> This mirrors my thoughts as well. Was this individual in the pocket of foreign agents? If so, which nation?
> 
> Nations don't have friends per se - they share common interests but whose to say some of our allies aren't gathering information ?


Who are you wondering if they were/are in the pocket of foreign agents ?


----------



## CBH99

I'm not following the mention of foreign agents...

Is the suggestion that some of these complaints are false, and from foreign agents, to cause investigations into the top brass & reorganizations of the top brass -- and then exploit that situation somehow?

Or...??


----------



## Halifax Tar

CBH99 said:


> I'm not following the mention of foreign agents...
> 
> Is the suggestion that some of these complaints are false, and from foreign agents, to cause investigations into the top brass & reorganizations of the top brass -- and then exploit that situation somehow?
> 
> Or...??


I'm lost by the sudden insertion of espionage conspiracy theory too...


----------



## CBH99

Don't get me wrong.  Sounds like a fascinating discussion, even if it's right out of left field!!

But yeah, I'm with Halifax Tar on this one.  Kinda lost.


----------



## MilEME09

PM's chief of staff offers to testify before defence committee Friday in military misconduct review
					

The prime minister's chief of staff, Katie Telford, has offered to appear before the House of Commons' defence committee on Friday as part of its ongoing review into sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces, CTV News has learned.



					www.ctvnews.ca
				




Telford to finally testify


----------



## Jarnhamar

I wonder if


MilEME09 said:


> Telford to finally testify


I wonder if Marie Henein just got an email from TheArchitect1970@Gmail.com.


----------



## Blackadder1916

CBH99 said:


> I'm not following the mention of foreign agents...
> 
> Is the suggestion that some of these complaints are false, and from foreign agents, to cause investigations into the top brass & reorganizations of the top brass -- and then exploit that situation somehow?
> 
> Or...??



I think that "foreign agents" came up as *speculation* related to this post from a couple of days ago.



Vincere_Hostem said:


> Head of Canadian military intelligence school removed amid misconduct probe​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Head of Canadian military intelligence school removed amid misconduct probe - National | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> The Canadian military is facing what experts call an institutional crisis over sexual misconduct in its ranks after Global News first reported on high-level allegations on Feb. 2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> globalnews.ca



And not to stir the pot of conspiracy theories, but the poster joined this site, posted that one message and has not been heard from since.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Blackadder1916 said:


> I think that "foreign agents" came up as *speculation* related to this post from a couple of days ago.



I miss Walt Kelly & Pogo....



Trivia time: Kelly adapted this from a US Naval Officer's quote. Somehow fitting  






						We have met the enemy - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## NavyShooter

Looking at the state of things sometimes I wonder if we'd even really need to be a target of foreign espionage services to disrupt our plans and activities, or if they'll just let us keep on our own path and watch us do their work ourselves...?

I'm sure that the oft told tales of the 'honey trap' do exist in the real world, however, the reality of most of the allegations we've seen seems to involve senior personnel abusing their power over junior personnel, and then having other, similarly powerful people protect them from the consequences.  

For this to involve foreign intelligence services, they'd REALLY be playing the long game - getting someone in uniform, into a position where they are subjected to (or available to be?) sexual abuse/mistreatment/assault, then wait a few years to bring it to the light of the media...?  That beggars belief that any foreign intelligence service would be able to do something like that.

I mean, I am not read in on details on any of these situations, but it does not seem to be a foreign power...it seems to be small heads thinking for big heads.


----------



## Loachman

Too busy to join back in today, but I'll try and get caught up tomorrow.

In the meantime, if it's not been posted already, I saw this early this morning:


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Blackadder1916 said:


> I think that "foreign agents" came up as *speculation* related to this post from a couple of days ago.
> 
> 
> 
> And not to stir the pot of conspiracy theories, but the poster joined this site, posted that one message and has not been heard from since.


Posted from a Govt of Canada computer though...


----------



## Brad Sallows

Now is as good a time as any.  Not a lot going on if a stiff broom empties out a lot of chairs.


----------



## CBH99

Blackadder1916 said:


> And not to stir the pot of conspiracy theories, but the poster joined this site, posted that one message and has not been heard from since.


Ah.  Good catch.  Seen & noted.


----------



## OldSolduer

Halifax Tar said:


> Who are you wondering if they were/are in the pocket of foreign agents ?


Intelligence personnel are often targets of foreign agents - could the Int School CO have been compromised?


----------



## SupersonicMax

OldSolduer said:


> Intelligence personnel are often targets of foreign agents - could the Int School CO have been compromised?


If that was the case and was known, I doubt he would have been "reassigned to a staff position within the military intelligence division."


----------



## Jarnhamar

OldSolduer said:


> Intelligence personnel are often targets of foreign agents - *could the Int School CO have been compromised?*


It's also possible if you pull a few threads in this story there's sexual misconduct involved down the line, just that the specific issue that caused this wasn't directly sexual misconduct.


----------



## CBH99

NavyShooter said:


> Looking at the state of things sometimes I wonder if we'd even really need to be a target of foreign espionage services to disrupt our plans and activities, or if they'll just let us keep on our own path and watch us do their work ourselves...?
> 
> I'm sure that the oft told tales of the 'honey trap' do exist in the real world, however, the reality of most of the allegations we've seen seems to involve senior personnel abusing their power over junior personnel, and then having other, similarly powerful people protect them from the consequences.
> 
> For this to involve foreign intelligence services, they'd REALLY be playing the long game - getting someone in uniform, into a position where they are subjected to (or available to be?) sexual abuse/mistreatment/assault, then wait a few years to bring it to the light of the media...?  That beggars belief that any foreign intelligence service would be able to do something like that.
> 
> I mean, I am not read in on details on any of these situations, but it does not seem to be a foreign power...it seems to be small heads thinking for big heads.


On the one hand, you wouldn’t really need to start from Square 1.  Hypothetically.  Recruiting a member that is in, having that member make a complaint and go public with even small bits & pieces to support the complaint - the media and department do the rest.  

HOWEVER...

I do believe this is a case of small heads doing the thinking, combined with the confidence that comes from a position of power & a social circle with similar powers.


----------



## Kilted

CBH99 said:


> I'm not following the mention of foreign agents...
> 
> Is the suggestion that some of these complaints are false, and from foreign agents, to cause investigations into the top brass & reorganizations of the top brass -- and then exploit that situation somehow?
> 
> Or...??


No, I wasn't suggesting that.  I was more suggesting that they may try and capitalize on the negative media.  Maybe try something similar to what we have seen in Latvia. I don't know how many false statements with regards to sexual harassments/assaults' are made, investigated and dismissed that never see the light of day, but it does make me wonder how much damage a few specifically placed complaints against GO/FO could do, even if they were out of their position for only a few days.  There seems to be a policy of placing any GO/FO on leave for any complaint (as far as we know) recently.


----------



## CBH99

Oh Wayne.  Isn’t this a great reward for being a good guy?  🤣  Look at all the perks of the job you’re getting!

in all seriousness though - this one is kind of tricky.  Crap investigation or not, if he wasn’t convicted or even formally charged - and the issue was from 20 years ago - it’s hard to hold that against him forever.  

Not saying anything about the issue either way.  But it is potentially a tricky one.  Technically it can’t really be used against him when they were selecting for the position, could it?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Who is Wayne ?


----------



## dangerboy

Halifax Tar said:


> Who is Wayne ?


Guessing they mean LGen Wayne Eyre


----------



## Halifax Tar

Theoretically could an NCM be chosen as CDS and immediately promoted to the required rank ?  

I understand the requirements for promotions ect ect, but could Government use their discretion and go their own way, military policy be damned ?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

National Post Article, May 7th 2021 What you need to know about the military sexual misconduct scandal involving Gen. Vance​'As (Vance) told me, he was untouchable,' Maj. Brennan testified. 'I feel there will not be justice for me'


----------



## Blackadder1916

Halifax Tar said:


> Theoretically could *an NCM be chosen as CDS* and immediately promoted to the required rank ?
> 
> I understand the requirements for promotions ect ect, but could Government use their discretion and go their own way, *military policy be damned* ?



No.  It's not military policy, but civilian law.






						National Defence Act
					

Federal laws of Canada




					laws-lois.justice.gc.ca
				





> Appointment, rank and duties of Chief of Defence Staff
> 
> *18* (1) The Governor in Council may appoint *an officer* to be the Chief of the Defence Staff, who shall hold such rank as the Governor in Council may prescribe and who shall, subject to the regulations and under the direction of the Minister, be charged with the control and administration of the Canadian Forces.



In the same law


> officer means
> (a) a person who holds Her Majesty’s commission in the Canadian Forces,
> (b) a person who holds the rank of officer cadet in the Canadian Forces, and
> (c) any person who pursuant to law is attached or seconded as an officer to the Canadian Forces;


----------



## daftandbarmy

Halifax Tar said:


> Theoretically could an NCM be chosen as CDS and immediately promoted to the required rank ?
> 
> I understand the requirements for promotions ect ect, but could Government use their discretion and go their own way, military policy be damned ?









  Which reminds me of a movie


----------



## Halifax Tar

Opinion: The will to solve the Canadian military’s sexual misconduct crisis must come from within - and I should know
					

Systemic misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces is a scandal that needs to be addressed by men and women who have been angry for too long. Everything else is pointless political theatre




					www.theglobeandmail.com


----------



## dangerboy

The PM's Chief of Staff is testifying, well sort of.  Telford repeatedly dodges questions about not telling Trudeau of 2018 Vance allegation


----------



## coolintheshade

dangerboy said:


> The PM's Chief of Staff is testifying, well sort of.  Telford repeatedly dodges questions about not telling Trudeau of 2018 Vance allegation


As the saying goes...where there's smoke, there's fiyah. 

"Telford was asked roughly 10 times by Conservative members of the committee to clarify why Trudeau appears not to have been informed about the allegation. He has said he was not “personally aware” of the allegation in 2018 and that while his office knew of an allegation, they did not know the details.

She responded to those questions by saying only that her office was contacted by Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan’s office asking for advice on how to handle an allegation.

“All we knew was that the ombudsperson at the end of the meeting pulled the minister aside and suggested he had a complaint and an envelope as I understand it,” she said.

Telford later noted when pressed once more that “the answer is that there wasn’t an allegation in terms of something – we didn’t know the nature of the allegation."


----------



## daftandbarmy

dangerboy said:


> The PM's Chief of Staff is testifying, well sort of.  Telford repeatedly dodges questions about not telling Trudeau of 2018 Vance allegation



I'm glad this has degenerated into the usual round of 'he said, she said', because it's easier to categorize if nothing else 

“As you have already heard, I was not given the substance or the details of the allegation, and as you have already heard my office and the minister were not given the substance or the details of the allegation. We did not know what the complaint was about,” she said.

This contradicts Walbourne’s previous testimony and subsequent statements that he did in fact inform Sajjan it was a complaint of “inappropriate sexual behaviour” against the chief of defence.









						'We did not know what the complaint was about': Telford says of Vance allegation
					

The prime minister's chief of staff says she was given no information about a complaint levelled at the former defence chief Gen. Jonathan Vance in March 2018 and was told there was "no safety issue" at hand.



					www.ctvnews.ca


----------



## Weinie

daftandbarmy said:


> I'm glad this has degenerated into the usual round of 'he said, she said', because it's easier to categorize if nothing else
> 
> “As you have already heard, I was not given the substance or the details of the allegation, and as you have already heard my office and the minister were not given the substance or the details of the allegation. We did not know what the complaint was about,” she said.
> 
> This contradicts Walbourne’s previous testimony and subsequent statements that he did in fact inform Sajjan it was a complaint of “inappropriate sexual behaviour” against the chief of defence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'We did not know what the complaint was about': Telford says of Vance allegation
> 
> 
> The prime minister's chief of staff says she was given no information about a complaint levelled at the former defence chief Gen. Jonathan Vance in March 2018 and was told there was "no safety issue" at hand.
> 
> 
> 
> www.ctvnews.ca


This is a gong-show.


----------



## FSTO

Two Liberal members of the committee have now gone to the Harper well. Yes, the former government appointed Vance, but the Liberals extended him and gave him a raise!  Hmmm


----------



## daftandbarmy

FSTO said:


> Two Liberal members of the committee have now gone to the Harper well. Yes, the former government appointed Vance, but the Liberals extended him and gave him a raise!  Hmmm



Not. Enough. Popcorn.


----------



## coolintheshade

daftandbarmy said:


> Not. Enough. Popcorn.


Blimey guv'nor...that's quite the image. LOL


----------



## Kilted

Blackadder1916 said:


> No.  It's not military policy, but civilian law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> National Defence Act
> 
> 
> Federal laws of Canada
> 
> 
> 
> 
> laws-lois.justice.gc.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the same law


So an Officer Cadet in the CIC?


----------



## Blackadder1916

Kilted said:


> So an Officer Cadet in the CIC?



Technically, yes.  But in reality would it ever happen?  No.  Nor would it ever happen that they commission a Sgt or a Chief for the sole purpose of then making him CDS; nor is it likely that they would reach down to the bottom of the barrel looking for a captain or major or even a colonel and springboard him/her past all the GOFOs.  Despite the present climate there are still some good senior officers serving.  What's that old trope . . . shit and cream float to the top?  Wait for it . . . it's hard to notice the cream when there are turds bobbing around on the surface.


----------



## Kilted

Blackadder1916 said:


> Technically, yes.  But in reality would it ever happen?  No.  Nor would it ever happen that they commission a Sgt or a Chief for the sole purpose of then making him CDS; nor is it likely that they would reach down to the bottom of the barrel looking for a captain or major or even a colonel and springboard him/her past all the GOFOs.  Despite the present climate there are still some good senior officers serving.  What's that old trope . . . shit and cream float to the top?  Wait for it . . . it's hard to notice the cream when there are turds bobbing around on the surface.


Would it honestly be the weirdest thing that the current government has done?


----------



## OldSolduer

General De Chastelain was brought back for a second kick at the cat.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Blackadder1916 said:


> Technically, yes.  But in reality would it ever happen?  No.  Nor would it ever happen that they commission a Sgt or a Chief for the sole purpose of then making him CDS; *nor is it likely that they would reach down to the bottom of the barrel looking for a captain or major or even a colonel and springboard him/her past all the GOFOs. * Despite the present climate there are still some good senior officers serving.  What's that old trope . . . shit and cream float to the top?  Wait for it . . . it's hard to notice the cream when there are turds bobbing around on the surface.



So what was it about our current MND that made him such an attractive candidate to springboard him past all the GOFOs while he was still a serving member as a major?


----------



## OldSolduer

Jarnhamar said:


> So what was it about our current MND that made him such an attractive candidate to springboard him past all the GOFOs while he was still a serving member as a major?


He was elected to Parliament and it is the PM's choice. No GO/FO were elected - and Andrew Leslie knows where the bodies are buried.


----------



## McG

He did not spring past any GOFO.  There is no requirement to progress through any military position to be MND.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Why pick him though?


----------



## OldSolduer

Jarnhamar said:


> Why pick him though?


He represents a populous area in BC that gives generously to the LPC? Am I right?


----------



## CBH99

He is also of a very visible ethnicity, which helps to attract that vote.  Which overall happens to be quite wealthy, business driven, and quite populous.  It was a win-win from a PR perspective.

He also turned out to be a 'yes man' in many ways, so the PM got a surprise bonus feature


----------



## Haggis

CBH99 said:


> He is also of a very visible ethnicity, which helps to attract that vote.  Which overall happens to be quite wealthy, business driven, and quite populous.  It was a win-win from a PR perspective.
> 
> He also turned out to be a 'yes man' in many ways, so the PM got a surprise bonus feature


Which is why he will survive this debacle to run again in a few months (should he choose to).


----------



## cavalryman

OldSolduer said:


> He represents a populous area in BC that gives generously to the LPC? Am I right?



Or as Jacques Parizeau said in 1995... Money and the ethic vote.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

FSTO said:


> Two Liberal members of the committee have now gone to the Harper well. Yes, the former government appointed Vance, but the Liberals extended him and gave him a raise!  Hmmm


Wait until somebody thinks to ask: hey Liberals! Didn’t YOU appoint MacDonald? It will be fun watching them blame Harper for that one (but, no doubt they will still try...)


----------



## MilEME09

OldSolduer said:


> He was elected to Parliament and it is the PM's choice. No GO/FO were elected - and Andrew Leslie knows where the bodies are buried.


Pulling the skeletons out if the closest may be what we need


----------



## daftandbarmy

Jarnhamar said:


> So what was it about our current MND that made him such an attractive candidate to springboard him past all the GOFOs while he was still a serving member as a major?



He's from 39 CBG which, of course, is the spawning ground for heavily politicized Senior Officers in the Canadian Army


----------



## Kilted

OldSolduer said:


> He was elected to Parliament and it is the PM's choice. No GO/FO were elected - and Andrew Leslie knows where the bodies are buried.


I vaguely remember a story about him and the CO of the Queen's Own Rifles.  I can't remember the context.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Meanwhile, it looks like we're still awarding contracts based on the 'lowest cost bidder' policy...


Trauma retreat for military sex assault survivors used sex offender as 'peer mentor'​
Participants say doctor in charge of program did not disclose peer mentor’s criminal convictions​

Some Canadian Armed Forces veterans and first responders who are sexual assault survivors said they were outraged to learn their peer mentor at a women's trauma retreat was himself a registered sex offender.

Project Trauma Support is a residential treatment program. Its medical director is Dr. Manuela Joannou, a family physician and ER doctor in Perth, Ontario. The program, which launched in 2015, works with military personnel, veterans and first responders who've experienced post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and operational stress injury through outdoor group exercises. Some participants have credited the program with saving their lives.

Seven female participants who attended one of the six-day retreats in early July 2018 said the program failed to warn them that one of their peer mentors — retired army major Jonathan Hamilton, who came home with PTSD from multiple deployments to Afghanistan — had a history of sexual assault. They said the program put Hamilton's health and safety ahead of the needs of 12 women traumatized by sexual assault.

"I drove away from the program suicidal," said retired Canadian Forces corporal Tina Sharp. "I wasn't in a good place for a very long time."

Sharp is a former medic with PTSD. She said Joannou failed to tell the group that Hamilton had been convicted recently of four counts of sexual assault in two separate court cases.

"I'm filled with deep anger," she said. "In the process of trying to heal from my military sexual trauma, I was exposed to a sex offender who had already re-offended ... He heard me talk about some of my sexual trauma."



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/project-trauma-support-sex-offender-peer-mentor-1.6020782


----------



## GR66

Seriously, WTF?

🤬


----------



## Kilted

Who actually runs that program.  I know that it has received federal funding, but is it a private organization?


----------



## dapaterson

Homepage at: https://projecttraumasupport.com/

Per a letter sent to the CBC (at the bottom of the article linked above), the Chairman of the Board is BGen (retired) Paul Rutherford: https://ca.linkedin.com/in/paul-rutherford-6bb55118


----------



## Blackadder1916

daftandbarmy said:


> Meanwhile, it looks like we're still awarding contracts based on the 'lowest cost bidder' policy...
> Trauma retreat for military sex assault survivors used sex offender as 'peer mentor'​
> Seven female participants who attended one of the six-day retreats in early July 2018 said the program failed to warn them that one of their peer mentors — *retired army major Jonathan Hamilton*, who came home with PTSD from multiple deployments to Afghanistan — had a history of sexual assault. They said the program put Hamilton's health and safety ahead of the needs of 12 women traumatized by sexual assault.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/project-trauma-support-sex-offender-peer-mentor-1.6020782



How many pieces of shyte named Jonathan Hamilton are there?  Is it same one that was the received the reference from MGen Dawe?  I wonder who wrote the references for him to get that job? 



dapaterson said:


> Per In the Courts (Kingston Whig-Standard 17 Sept 2017)
> 
> *Jonathan H. Hamilton*, 41, was convicted on two counts of unlawfully entering a dwelling, two related counts of sexual assault and two common assaults. His sentencing was suspended and he was placed on probation for three years, ordered included on the Sex Offender Information Registry for life and his DNA was ordered to be entered in the national DNA bank. Hamilton was a major in the Canadian Forces, diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder when he committed the offences in 2015. Justice Larry O'Brien heard evidence that, under the influence of alcohol, he walked into the unlocked home of a fellow member of the military at Canadian Forces Base Kingston while the man was deployed and touched his comrade's sleeping wife through the covers as she lay in her bed. He also physically attacked the woman's husband on two other occasions, once entering their home to throw a punch at the man and on a later occasion charging him in a downtown bar. When confronted with what he'd done, Justice O'Brien was told, Hamilton initially claimed he'd been testing the woman's fidelity to her husband. At his sentencing hearing, however, he admitted to the judge that, unhappy in his own marriage, he'd misread the woman's friendliness as something more.


----------



## dapaterson

More information: Since 2018, they have been a registered charity.  T3010


----------



## brihard

This friggin’ sucks. PTS is, by all accounts, an excellent program for vets dealing with PTSD. I’ve heard great things from vets who went there. Now it’s probably done for because one doctor made one monumentally shitty call.

I hope their same approaches to therapy can be captured, rebranded and rebuilt with better protection against these kinds of screwups. This program has saved lives.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Blackadder1916 said:


> How many pieces of shyte named Jonathan Hamilton are there?  Is it same one that was the received the reference from MGen Dawe?  I wonder who wrote the references for him to get that job?


Yup, same convicted sex offender. And the project had a ret'd Brig. Gen as a chair. Guess the fairy godfather network extends out all over the place.

Pretty awesome job. Take a good program, make a really awful decision, and re-traumatize a bunch of women.

Maybe just me, but if you need to have a former police officer volunteer overseeing a convicted sex offender 'peer mentor' at a sexual assault counseling retreat as a mitigation, maybe the better idea would be to screen that person out. Also, convicted sex offenders are not peer mentors to victims.


----------



## QV

Blackadder1916 said:


> How many pieces of shyte named Jonathan Hamilton are there?  Is it same one that was the received the reference from MGen Dawe?  I wonder who wrote the references for him to get that job?


I am not at all surprised. In fact, this sort of thing goes with the grain, so yeah that’s about right.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Blackadder1916 said:


> How many pieces of shyte named Jonathan Hamilton are there?  Is it same one that was the received the reference from MGen Dawe?  I wonder who wrote the references for him to get that job?



Meanwhile, the CAF be like....


----------



## dapaterson

> It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.
> 
> Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter'd your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?
> 
> Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil'd this sacred place, and turn'd the Lord's temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress'd, are yourselves gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors.
> 
> In the name of God, go!


----------



## MilEME09

Navy_Pete said:


> Yup, same convicted sex offender. And the project had a ret'd Brig. Gen as a chair. Guess the fairy godfather network extends out all over the place.
> 
> Pretty awesome job. Take a good program, make a really awful decision, and re-traumatize a bunch of women.
> 
> Maybe just me, but if you need to have a former police officer volunteer overseeing a convicted sex offender 'peer mentor' at a sexual assault counseling retreat as a mitigation, maybe the better idea would be to screen that person out. Also, convicted sex offenders are not peer mentors to victims.


It is seriously the same guy? i hope to god someone gets fired over that, how much more tone deaf can you get?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

daftandbarmy said:


> Meanwhile, the CAF be like....


Except, per usual, the CBC did a terrible job explaining that this  program is not run by the CAF.


----------



## daftandbarmy

SeaKingTacco said:


> Except, per usual, the CBC did a terrible job explaining that this  program is not run by the CAF.



The public, those who pay attention that is, probably wouldn’t differentiate anyways.

I’m just crouching in anticipation of yet more incoming we don’t know about...


----------



## Kilted

brihard said:


> This friggin’ sucks. PTS is, by all accounts, an excellent program for vets dealing with PTSD. I’ve heard great things from vets who went there. Now it’s probably done for because one doctor made one monumentally shitty call.
> 
> I hope their same approaches to therapy can be captured, rebranded and rebuilt with better protection against these kinds of screwups. This program has saved lives.


Probably depends on where their funding comes from and how insulated they are from influence by politicians. With the current strength of cancel culture it wouldn't surprise me if the Airborne Regiment show how got disbanded again over this.


----------



## CBH99

brihard said:


> This friggin’ sucks. PTS is, by all accounts, an excellent program for vets dealing with PTSD. I’ve heard great things from vets who went there. Now it’s probably done for because one doctor made one monumentally shitty call.
> 
> I hope their same approaches to therapy can be captured, rebranded and rebuilt with better protection against these kinds of screwups. This program has saved lives.


One has to wonder how a doctor, being mindful of who was attending the program and who she was caring for, would hire a registered sex offender as a mentor.  Like WTF...

And I realize I need to tread lightly when saying this, so please everybody - understand I don’t say this in a sexist way.  But I am EXTREMELY surprised that a female doctor, helping female sexual assault victims, would make that call.  And then try to protect him. 

Just 🤯🤯🤦🏼‍♂️🤦🏼‍♂️

I do hope this program is rebranded and carries on, genuinely.  What a stupid and preventable situation.


Edit - Was he the ONLY applicant for that position?  And what were the required qualifications?  

Like my mind has just stopped being able to comprehend things lately... I would have hired a beach ball before hiring him. <daily rant over> 😠


----------



## trigger324

Only in the CAF...


----------



## Haggis

trigger324 said:


> Only in the CAF...


PTS is *NOT *a CAF sponsored program.


----------



## Haggis

CBH99 said:


> And I realize I need to tread lightly when saying this, so please everybody - understand I don’t say this in a sexist way.  But I am EXTREMELY surprised that a female doctor, helping female sexual assault victims, would make that call.  *And then try to protect him*.


That's the part that really boggles my mind.  

The CBC article states "Sharp said that Joannou urged her not to believe everything she read, suggested Hamilton was falsely accused and said he deserved compassion too."

So, now we have yet another doctor who knows better than the courts making decisions that put the public at risk.  The God complex rears it's professional head yet again.


----------



## trigger324

Haggis said:


> PTS is *NOT *a CAF sponsored program.


I am aware. If this wasn’t CAF related it wouldn’t be a topic of discussion here and now.


----------



## Haggis

trigger324 said:


> I am aware. If this wasn’t CAF related it wouldn’t be a topic of discussion here and now.


Only tangentially, and tenuously at that.  The Chairman of the BoD and some of the participants were former CAF members and the "mentor" was as well.  To insinuate that this program and the incidental failing in this regard are related to or caused by the CAF is unfair.


----------



## trigger324

Haggis said:


> Only tangentially, and tenuously at that The Chairman of the BoD and some of the participants were former CAF members and the "mentor" was as well.  To insinuate that this program and the incidental failing in this regard are related to or caused by the CAF is unfair.


Unfair? No, sorry. Name me another federal department with this much folly. This is a CAF _related _site discussing a CAF story(68 pages worth right now) involving numerous CAF members. It’s CAF or we’re all in denial


----------



## SeaKingTacco

trigger324 said:


> Unfair? No, sorry. Name me another federal department with this much folly. This is a CAF _related _site discussing a CAF story(68 pages worth right now) involving numerous CAF members. It’s CAF or we’re all in denial


I think what Haggis is saying is that this program is not run or funded by the CAF- we have no more control over how it is run than we have control over how the Ontario government runs health care (to pick a random example). It has former members of the CAF as its clients, but it also treats paramedics, firefighters and cops. Are their  parent departments also responsible?

edited for missing word.


----------



## dimsum

trigger324 said:


> Name me another federal department with this much folly.


If the same things happened in Global Affairs Canada or Agriculture Canada (just picking two random depts), would the media latch onto it as much? 

The CAF gets heat and light on anything they do.  It is totally possible that other departments have just as bad of an issue, but because it's not a political football, no one cares.


----------



## Kilted

trigger324 said:


> Unfair? No, sorry. Name me another federal department with this much folly. This is a CAF _related _site discussing a CAF story(68 pages worth right now) involving numerous CAF members. It’s CAF or we’re all in denial


The CAF can't be responsible for what retired members do, the Code of Service Disciple doesn't extend that far.  Only someone who doesn't do their research could actually believe that the CAF was responsible for that individual being put in that position.  If the military was responsible for the actions of every civilian organization that has anything to do with the military I'm sure they would have tried to have this site shut down years ago just over the fears of someone making an unwanted post.


----------



## CBH99

Very well said Seaking.  

What Haggis said was perfectly fair.  The program isn’t funded, staffed, or run by the military.  It has no official relationship to the CAF or DND.  

The individual who hired him wasn’t a CAF member.  She was a doctor.  Let’s take whatever wins we can these days, this isn’t on the CAF.


----------



## daftandbarmy

dimsum said:


> If the same things happened in Global Affairs Canada or Agriculture Canada (just picking two random depts), would the media latch onto it as much?
> 
> The CAF gets heat and light on anything they do.  It is totally possible that other departments have just as bad of an issue, but because it's not a political football, no one cares.



I've worked with alot of public sector and private sector agencies over the past 20+ years, and none of them are like the CAF.

Apart from the fact that their jobs are not to be ready to kill evil doers etc, their workforces are far more diverse and integrated (visible minorities, gender balanced etc) and therefore more representative of the populations they serve, in general. They continually and consciously strive to do better at this too and tend not to make excuses. They all have made good progress, based on my outsider's point of view.

And, while I know that they all struggle with issues similar to those that the CAF is experiencing, they punish/fire bad actors for much less than I've seen tolerated regularly in military organizations, 'high performers' or otherwise. Us? We appear to prefer to protect and promote our problem people.

We get the 'heat and light' mainly because we really suck at alot of this stuff, don't seem to be able to have any control over the situation, and make excuses and cover things up rather than accept responsibility and take action.


----------



## QV

CBH99 said:


> One has to wonder how a doctor, being mindful of who was attending the program and who she was caring for, would hire a registered sex offender as a mentor.  Like WTF...
> 
> And I realize I need to tread lightly when saying this, so please everybody - understand I don’t say this in a sexist way.  But I am EXTREMELY surprised that a female doctor, helping female sexual assault victims, would make that call.  And then try to protect him.
> 
> Just 🤯🤯🤦🏼‍♂️🤦🏼‍♂️
> 
> I do hope this program is rebranded and carries on, genuinely.  What a stupid and preventable situation.
> 
> 
> Edit - Was he the ONLY applicant for that position?  And what were the required qualifications?
> 
> Like my mind has just stopped being able to comprehend things lately... I would have hired a beach ball before hiring him. <daily rant over> 😠


Follow the science?  Believe all doctors?  I jk...


----------



## trigger324

SeaKingTacco said:


> I think what Haggis is saying is that this program is not run or funded by the CAF- we have no more control over how it is run than we have control over how the Ontario government runs health care (to pick a random example). It has former members of the CAF as its clients, but it also treats paramedics, firefighters and cops. Are their  parent departments also responsible?
> 
> edited for missing word.


I totally get what he’s saying. But I’ll redirect you to my references above ABOUT the CAF and what’s brought us to this conversation in the first place.


----------



## trigger324

dimsum said:


> If the same things happened in Global Affairs Canada or Agriculture Canada (just picking two random depts), would the media latch onto it as much?
> 
> The CAF gets heat and light on anything they do.  It is totally possible that other departments have just as bad of an issue, but because it's not a political football, no one cares.


You just proved my point. “IF the same things happened...”. Well, I’m sure they would be.
We’re more visible than Global affairs and Agriculture. Very rightly so should we be looked at harder. And we are. We deserve it.


----------



## trigger324

CBH99 said:


> Very well said Seaking.
> 
> What Haggis said was perfectly fair.  The program isn’t funded, staffed, or run by the military.  It has no official relationship to the CAF or DND.
> 
> The individual who hired him wasn’t a CAF member.  She was a doctor.  Let’s take whatever wins we can these days, this isn’t on the CAF.


An approach like this makes us appear to pass blame and try to come out of it looking good. We’re so far gone past that now, Shame on all of us for wanting to take wins over such a terrible sequence of events


----------



## Halifax Tar

We cant be responsible when a civilian organization hires a criminal who has left the Forces, under any circumstance. 

We can be responsible if we sent our members to this organization for help, prescribing if you will, and didn't properly to vet the organization and this exposed our members to this criminal.   But I am not sure this happened here.

Geez this Hamilton fellow looks more and more every day like a good guy who just needed a break.


----------



## OldSolduer

trigger324 said:


> An approach like this makes us appear to pass blame and try to come out of it looking good. We’re so far gone past that now, Shame on all of us for wanting to take wins over such a terrible sequence of events


You seem to be the smart one in this room. Solution please?


----------



## OldSolduer

Halifax Tar said:


> Geez this Hamilton fellow looks more and more every day like a good guy who just *needed a break*.


Which limb do we start with?


----------



## trigger324

OldSolduer said:


> You seem to be the smart one in this room. Solution please?


Well thanks for the compliment. We have a problem in the military. And it’s around Operation Honour or what Operation Honour should have been. I for one think as many spotlights that are possible should be shone on us right now for everything that’s transpired here. Solution? Turn over every single rock that needs to be turned over. From General to Sailor and everyone in between. And John Q Public needs to know everything that’s discovered along the way.


----------



## OldSolduer

trigger324 said:


> Well thanks for the compliment. We have a problem in the military. And it’s around Operation Honour or what Operation Honour should have been. I for one think as many spotlights that are possible should be shone on us right now for everything that’s transpired here. Solution? Turn over every single rock that needs to be turned over. From General to Sailor and everyone in between. And John Q Public needs to know everything that’s discovered along the way.


Very idealistic I will give you that. Highly impractical IMO. The resources required would be huge I would guess.

As for OP HONOUR I took it seriously despite the doubts I had about it. Unfortunately it turned out the way I thought it would.


----------



## trigger324

OldSolduer said:


> Very idealistic I will give you that. Highly impractical IMO. The resources required would be huge I would guess.
> 
> As for OP HONOUR I took it seriously despite the doubts I had about it. Unfortunately it turned out the way I thought it would.


And that is why we should pay good attention to reporters, journalists, and all other media from everywhere in the spectrum to keep on investigating and reporting every single bit of information they uncover. It’s been proven “we” will try to cover things up so as to save face, why wouldn’t an avenue such as the media not be beneficial to break that open?


----------



## SupersonicMax

OldSolduer said:


> As for OP HONOUR I took it seriously despite the doubts I had about it. Unfortunately it turned out the way I thought it would.



Perhaps it wasn't perfect and despite the recent allegations, I certainly believe the CAF made great strides since 2015 on institutional front.  We are in a much better place we were even in the early 2010s.


----------



## daftandbarmy

SupersonicMax said:


> Perhaps it wasn't perfect and despite the recent allegations, I certainly believe the CAF made great strides since 2015 on institutional front.  We are in a much better place we were even in the early 2010s.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

trigger324 said:


> Well thanks for the compliment. We have a problem in the military. And it’s around Operation Honour or what Operation Honour should have been. I for one think as many spotlights that are possible should be shone on us right now for everything that’s transpired here. Solution? Turn over every single rock that needs to be turned over. From General to Sailor and everyone in between. And John Q Public needs to know everything that’s discovered along the way.


Great, but what does that have to do with a news report about an agency that is *NEITHER funded by NOR associated with/controlled by the CAF* making questionable decisions about how to treat survivors of sexual assault?  What would you like the A/CDS to do? Apologize for something we did not do and had no control over? Send an infantry company to shut the place down? I do not see the nexus, but perhaps I am missing your point.

If you are saying that this is just part of the larger story about sexual misconduct, then I would agree. It is all related.


----------



## OldSolduer

trigger324 said:


> And that is why we should pay good attention to reporters, journalists, and all other media from everywhere in the spectrum to keep on investigating and reporting every single bit of information they uncover. It’s been proven “we” will try to cover things up so as to save face, why wouldn’t an avenue such as the media not be beneficial to break that open?


Be careful what you wish for. There are going to be innocent people caught up in that. Careers and lives ruined over rumours and innuendo, is that what we want?

There's a "journalist" who works for the local paper here that never writes about anything but the police, military or corrections and NEVER in a positive light. Bias at its best while claiming "freedom of the press".


----------



## trigger324

SeaKingTacco said:


> Great, but what does that have to do with a news report about an agency that is *NEITHER funded by NOR associated with/controlled by the CAF* making questionable decisions about how to treat survivors of sexual assault?  What would you like the A/CDS to do? Apologize for something we did not do and had no control over? Send an infantry company to shut the place down? I do not see the nexus, but perhaps I am missing your point.
> 
> If you are saying that this is just part of the larger story about sexual misconduct, then I would agree. It is all related.


My point is that this tidbit about PTS and its failings, while NOT part of the CAF, yet brought into the story because of the player involved(Hamilton), is in fact part of the larger story about sexual misconduct, and thus, is indeed related.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

trigger324 said:


> My point is that this tidbit about PTS and its failings, while NOT part of the CAF, yet brought into the story because of the player involved(Hamilton), is in fact part of the larger story about sexual misconduct, and thus, is indeed related.


Okay, got it. Part of the larger story. With that, I agree.


----------



## trigger324

OldSolduer said:


> Be careful what you wish for. There are going to be innocent people caught up in that. Careers and lives ruined over rumours and innuendo, is that what we want?
> 
> There's a "journalist" who works for the local paper here that never writes about anything but the police, military or corrections and NEVER in a positive light. Bias at its best while claiming "freedom of the press".


To your para 1, I say we cross that bridge when we come to it. Regarding para 2, there are other journalists out there who definitely do write things about us in a positive light. I believe it evens out and those biased towards us are usually satisfied.


----------



## Jarnhamar

CBH99 said:


> Very well said Seaking.
> 
> What Haggis said was perfectly fair.  The program isn’t funded, staffed, or run by the military.  It has no official relationship to the CAF or DND.
> 
> The individual who hired him wasn’t a CAF member.  She was a doctor.  Let’s take whatever wins we can these days, *this isn’t on the CAF.*



We DID provide him a character referencing saying we didn't think he was a threat to anyone. If I was him I sure would have used that when applying for a job if anyone brought up concerns.


----------



## CBH99

trigger324 said:


> An approach like this makes us appear to pass blame and try to come out of it looking good. We’re so far gone past that now, Shame on all of us for wanting to take wins over such a terrible sequence of events


I DO agree with where your coming from, and where you are going with your position.  100%.  I VERY much support the idea & strict enforcement of holding members to a higher standard than the public, and we should be leading by example in the way we conduct ourselves.  Personally & as an organization — and I think most of our members embrace being the kind of professionals we out to be.

In regards to THIS particular situation — this is a civilian organization that is not funded or led by the CAF.  It assists a variety of different people, and seems well respected among those who have attended.  

The fact that Hamilton was hired is obviously all kinds of wrong, disgusting, bad.  But he was hired by a female civiiian doctor who knew of his convictions, and hire him anyway. (I mention she was female as I would have thought she would be more empathetic.)  She then tried to protect him.

I don’t think there is a single member on this board who disagrees with your sentiment.  

Allegations against Vance were surprising, but not uncommon in the senior military / political arena.  The fact that it’s now been revealed just how prevalent it is, has all of us shaking our heads in disgust, bewilderment.  

However, this situation was not caused by the CAF.  The CAF did not hire, employ, fund, lead, etc etc - have any involvement other than a few of our members attended.  
There were female members of other agencies there also.  

(Genuine question - could you articulate how you see the CAF being at fault in regards to the above?  I am curious, from a constructive standpoint -  because I do appreciate your sentiment on this issue.)


----------



## Brad Sallows

> Solution? Turn over every single rock that needs to be turned over. From General to Sailor and everyone in between.



Your proposal is going to catch a lot more people than anyone suspects.  An awful lot of drunk guys have groped a girl at some point in time.

Add: and the solution is to raise the age of recruitment to, say, 25.


----------



## trigger324

Brad Sallows said:


> Your proposal is going to catch a lot more people than anyone suspects.  An awful lot of drunk guys have groped a girl at some point in time.


And I don’t see a problem with catching “a lot more people” if they’re groping girls, drunk or not(a whole other problem in itself). Upthread someone mentioned “innocent people getting caught...”. Well as far as I’m concerned, these innocent are not so innocent, right?


----------



## Jarnhamar

Brad Sallows said:


> Your proposal is going to catch a lot more people than anyone suspects.  An awful lot of drunk guys have groped a girl at some point in time.



Generally speaking (heh) is it worth dummying ourselves for 5 or 10 years and being combat ineffective or whatever by cleaning house wholesale and basically running a CAF inquisitional witchhunt?

Can we change the garbage place we seem to be in by doing anything less than a scorched-earth approach to this?


----------



## Haggis

trigger324 said:


> My point is that this tidbit about PTS and its failings, while NOT part of the CAF, yet brought into the story because of the player involved(Hamilton), is in fact part of the larger story about sexual misconduct, and thus, is indeed related.


Sorry, but I'm not buying this.  Your first quote:


trigger324 said:


> Only in the CAF...


directly infers that the CAF was responsible - if not complicit - in Hamilton gaining the position with PTS.  That's unfair.


----------



## trigger324

Haggis said:


> Sorry, but I'm not buying this.  Your first quote:
> 
> directly infers that the CAF was responsible - if not complicit - in Hamilton gaining the position with PTS.  That's unfair.


I stand by that. This is a CAF problem. “We” did it, so we deserve the magnifying glass. Make no mistake and read back up if you would, because, earlier today I explained to someone else asking me this, the connection between THIS situation and the greater problem at hand.


----------



## Haggis

Jarnhamar said:


> We DID provide him a character referencing saying we didn't think he was a threat to anyone. If I was him I sure would have used that when applying for a job if anyone brought up concerns.


Did the character references actually say he was not a threat?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Haggis said:


> Did the character references actually say he was not a threat?


If you wrote me a letter saying Bob was a good guy who needed a break, I wouldn't interpret that to mean you think he's a threat.


----------



## Haggis

Halifax Tar said:


> If you wrote me a letter saying Bob was a good guy who needed a break, I wouldn't interpret that to mean you think he's a threat.


That's not what jarnhamar said.  He stated in the letter(s) that the writer(s) "didn't think he was a threat to anyone.".  That's far different than saying "he's a good guy who deserves a break because of what his service to Canada did to him".


----------



## Jarnhamar

Haggis said:


> Did the character references actually say he was not a threat?


Damn, good point. You're right.

It appears that General Dawe saying "I certainly don't see him as a threat to society for just a second. I think on the whole he's a pretty good guy." was said on the telecon and not specifically in the character reference- though I certainly wouldn't be surprised if words to that effect were included.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Haggis said:


> Did the character references actually say he was not a threat?



I wonder of they did a Criminal Records Check, which alot of organizations do these days when deciding to bring on new people, or not.


----------



## QV

D&B, "Vulnerable Sector Check" might be the check that should be done - but I've been out a while so I could be wrong. 

A twice convicted sex offender being placed as a mentor to sex assault victims is exactly an unsurprising outcome.


----------



## TCM621

trigger324 said:


> And I don’t see a problem with catching “a lot more people” if they’re groping girls, drunk or not(a whole other problem in itself). Upthread someone mentioned “innocent people getting caught...”. Well as far as I’m concerned, these innocent are not so innocent, right?


Let's make sure we get rid of all the girls that have ever groped a guy too. We should also get rid of everyone who has ever attempted to kiss someone only to find out their feelings weren't reciprocated. I also think we should get rid of everyone who maliciously accused someone as having cooties. 

Growing up and navigating the confusion that is the opposite sex is hard and we shouldn't make it even harder by ensuring their mistakes follow them for the rest of their lives. Sexual misconduct isn't rape and it shouldn't be treated as such. 2 consensting adults doing things they shouldn't in the work place isn't evil personnafied and neither is a drunk guy putting his hand on someones butt. It isn't allowed but it is orders of magnitude below the level of wrongness that is rape. 

If we instituted your standard we would have to replace 90% of the military with like 5 percent of the population. And seriously, we would have almost no women. Drunk women are leacherous. If you don't believe me watch them at a strip club or worse a ladies night. They will do things regularly that would get any guy here arrested after the bouncers took turns kicking their ass.


----------



## ArmyRick

TCM621 said:


> Let's make sure we get rid of all the girls that have ever groped a guy too. We should also get rid of everyone who has ever attempted to kiss someone only to find out their feelings weren't reciprocated. I also think we should get rid of everyone who maliciously accused someone as having cooties.
> 
> Growing up and navigating the confusion that is the opposite sex is hard and we shouldn't make it even harder by ensuring their mistakes follow them for the rest of their lives. Sexual misconduct isn't rape and it shouldn't be treated as such. 2 consensting adults doing things they shouldn't in the work place isn't evil personnafied and neither is a drunk guy putting his hand on someones butt. It isn't allowed but it is orders of magnitude below the level of wrongness that is rape.
> 
> If we instituted your standard we would have to replace 90% of the military with like 5 percent of the population. And seriously, we would have almost no women. Drunk women are leacherous. If you don't believe me watch them at a strip club or worse a ladies night. They will do things regularly that would get any guy here arrested after the bouncers took turns kicking their ass.


If media were hypothetically reading these post, how do you think YOU come across? Ever hear of optics? Obviously not


----------



## trigger324

TCM621 said:


> Let's make sure we get rid of all the girls that have ever groped a guy too. We should also get rid of everyone who has ever attempted to kiss someone only to find out their feelings weren't reciprocated. I also think we should get rid of everyone who maliciously accused someone as having cooties.
> 
> Growing up and navigating the confusion that is the opposite sex is hard and we shouldn't make it even harder by ensuring their mistakes follow them for the rest of their lives. Sexual misconduct isn't rape and it shouldn't be treated as such. 2 consensting adults doing things they shouldn't in the work place isn't evil personnafied and neither is a drunk guy putting his hand on someones butt. It isn't allowed but it is orders of magnitude below the level of wrongness that is rape.
> 
> If we instituted your standard we would have to replace 90% of the military with like 5 percent of the population. And seriously, we would have almost no women. Drunk women are leacherous. If you don't believe me watch them at a strip club or worse a ladies night. They will do things regularly that would get any guy here arrested after the bouncers took turns kicking their ass.


Oh totally, include them too! I just answered the question as it was asked...Guys groping girls.

In your last paragraph, replace "women" with "men". Or don't. I don't know if you're in anymore, or ever were, but I am, and I, like the rest of us who are, sure couldn't make a statement like that at work. What you've indicated here, that 90% of the military might need to replaced, then that might actually be for the people doing the investigating from here on out. If there's smoke, chances are, there's fire.


----------



## Jarnhamar

TCM621 said:


> Sexual misconduct isn't rape and it shouldn't be treated as such.





TCM621 said:


> 2 consensting adults doing things they shouldn't in the work place isn't evil personnafied and neither is a drunk guy putting his hand on someones butt.



What would you call me having a couple of wobbly pops at a mess function and grabbing a females breasts or squeezing her crotch?


----------



## lenaitch

QV said:


> D&B, "Vulnerable Sector Check" might be the check that should be done - but I've been out a while so I could be wrong.


[/QUOTE]

You would correct. There is no legislation that I am aware of that mandate certain employers/organizations obtain one.  That she did not was at her own peril, which seems to be coming to pass.  My police association just severed ties with her organization, as have apparently several others including VA.  The doctor's decision was astonishing tone deaf in light of the clientele.  How did she think someone who has traumatized would be received by people who have suffered trauma?

Heck, I was on the Board of a museum and we required VS checks for volunteers because they might interact with kids.  It's risk management.


QV said:


> A twice convicted sex offender being placed as a mentor to sex assault victims is exactly an unsurprising outcome.


Huh?


----------



## trigger324

CBH99 said:


> (Genuine question - could you articulate how you see the CAF being at fault in regards to the above?  I am curious, from a constructive standpoint -  because I do appreciate your sentiment on this issue.)


I think I erred slightly this morning when I said Only IN the CAF, which seems to have bothered a reader or two today. I acknowledge who PTS is run by and for with intentions nothing but the best. I think maybe what I should have done is left out the word “in”. I’m basing this on the fact that we’ve got ongoing active investigations, or at least we’re told so, that began a few months ago, based on actions, some, years ago, And as they come to light, it’s one CAF member after another. For us to try and constantly look to distance ourselves from these alleged offenders it seems it’s a matter of saving face rather than acknowledging we’ve got a major problem on our hands and instead take the criticism, as I’ve heard numerous people say “it’s just senior/general/flag officers” or “it’s the Liberal government”. We’ve all got varying experiences and lengths of time in and within that I think we can all agree we’ve seen and heard many things over the years in our day to day that, despite it is improving it doesn’t fly in today’s Canadian military, and while things are improving, things like these are still pretty rampant, or we wouldn’t see the courts martial docket full of sex related charges from people at all levels. Although these GOFOs are bearing the public brunt, until we accept that it’s still everywhere, then we have to expect poor media portrayals, because God knows we get lots of great media portrayals too. But the Sr guys were Jr guys once too. To me that’s some context. So, “Only the CAF” might have been better to say, because we can’t get past ourselves right now. One story after another.  Nobody else is going through this right now, or at least nobody to this degree.


----------



## CBH99

You beat me to it lenaitch, I was just about to say something similar.

I used to volunteer for Boys & Girls Club, one night a week for a few hours.  And, depending on the weekend, maybe for a few hours on a Saturday.

Despite the fact that all of the activities done with the kids were in large group settings, and supervised -- each volunteer had to get a Vulnerable Sector Check, for obvious reasons.  And yet a program like this either didn't require one, or they didn't bother to do one.  


That a program designed to assist in the recovery of sexual assault victims wouldn't conduct one, and then hire someone who they know is a registered sex offender?  Safe to say, I don't know if it was so much as this doctor 'didn't think about the optics' - or 'this doctor didn't stimulate a single brain cell in regards to this decision'  🤦‍♂️


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

TCM621 said:


> Let's make sure we get rid of all the girls that have ever groped a guy too. We should also get rid of everyone who has ever attempted to kiss someone only to find out their feelings weren't reciprocated. I also think we should get rid of everyone who maliciously accused someone as having cooties.
> 
> Growing up and navigating the confusion that is the opposite sex is hard and we shouldn't make it even harder by ensuring their mistakes follow them for the rest of their lives. Sexual misconduct isn't rape and it shouldn't be treated as such. 2 consensting adults doing things they shouldn't in the work place isn't evil personnafied and neither is a drunk guy putting his hand on someones butt. It isn't allowed but it is orders of magnitude below the level of wrongness that is rape.
> 
> If we instituted your standard we would have to replace 90% of the military with like 5 percent of the population. And seriously, we would have almost no women. Drunk women are leacherous. If you don't believe me watch them at a strip club or worse a ladies night. They will do things regularly that would get any guy here arrested after the bouncers took turns kicking their ass.


Rape is included in Sexual Misconduct.  A drunk guy putting his hand on someone’s butt is sexual assault, which is also included in Sexual Misconduct. If you are in the CAF, especially as a leader, it is important that you understand this. 

Not all instances of Sexual Misconduct will have the same admin and disciplinary outcome, but they fall in the spectrum of Sexual Misconduct.


----------



## MilEME09

Richard Shimooka: The lessons Canada's military didn't learn from the Somalia inquiry
					

The sexual misconduct crisis now facing the Forces points to broader systemic issues the Somalia inquiry tried, and failed, to address




					nationalpost.com
				




Specter of the Somalia inquiry haunts the CAF


----------



## daftandbarmy

MilEME09 said:


> Richard Shimooka: The lessons Canada's military didn't learn from the Somalia inquiry
> 
> 
> The sexual misconduct crisis now facing the Forces points to broader systemic issues the Somalia inquiry tried, and failed, to address
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nationalpost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Specter of the Somalia inquiry haunts the CAF



And this is where any efforts at improvement are likely to fail IMHO:

"Any reforms require a full and transparent accounting of the problems in the Forces — the first instinct must not be to diminish, obfuscate or hide issues. This has already damaged the relationship between the enlisted and junior officer ranks and senior leadership, as well as between the CAF with the general public. While the new inquiry may resolve issues surrounding sexual misconduct, if the government does not address the broader issues of accountability and leadership it may find itself facing yet another serious issue in the not-too-distant future."


----------



## QV

lenaitch said:


> Huh?



It’s unsurprising because it’s a very “army” outcome.


----------



## TCM621

Jarnhamar said:


> What would you call me having a couple of wobbly pops at a mess function and grabbing a females breasts or squeezing her crotch?


Wrong, inappropriate and worthy of reproach. The point is that there is nuance and levels to this shit.


----------



## FSTO

daftandbarmy said:


> And this is where any efforts at improvement are likely to fail IMHO:
> 
> "Any reforms require a full and transparent accounting of the problems in the Forces — the first instinct must not be to diminish, obfuscate or hide issues. This has already damaged the relationship between the enlisted and junior officer ranks and senior leadership, as well as between the CAF with the general public. While the new inquiry may resolve issues surrounding sexual misconduct, if the government does not address the broader issues of accountability and leadership it may find itself facing yet another serious issue in the not-too-distant future."


Defend the leader at all costs. That has been the message of all federal governments from Trudeau Pere. Don't know if they learned it from the Unified CAF or if the CAF learned it from the government. 
Doesn't matter cause I don't think anyone military/bureaucratic/political have the guts to slay all the sacred cows to get to the accountability nugget.


----------



## QV

TCM621 said:


> Wrong, inappropriate and worthy of reproach. The point is that there is nuance and levels to this shit.


Sexual misconduct and crimes shouldn’t be in the same definition.  It’s a factor why the CAF is riddled with problems


----------



## TCM621

TangoTwoBravo said:


> Rape is included in Sexual Misconduct.  A drunk guy putting his hand on someone’s butt is sexual assault, which is also included in Sexual Misconduct. If you are in the CAF, especially as a leader, it is important that you understand this.
> 
> Not all instances of Sexual Misconduct will have the same admin and disciplinary outcome, but they fall in the spectrum of Sexual Misconduct.


I understand that but the reason I like to separate rape from the rest is that Rape is such a vicercal crime that nuance is almost impossible. People will forgive murders before they forgive rapists. I think people react emotionally to "rape" when we are talking about much different things. 

This is especially true when we start reaching back into past for bad behaviour. When young people get together stupid shit happens, and people learn from that. How many dudes have attempted to grab a butt during a dance only to learn the girl doesn't have the same idea as him? That's sexual assault but it is also just young people figuring out how to manage romantic relationships.


----------



## ArmyRick

One way of thinking on this. I may be way out to lunch so hurl rotten fruit at me if I am right out of 'er

As a former Infantryman, I did fairly well retiring as a WO (not everyone makes it that far and some go much farther). As a regenerative Farmer, I have done quite well in most aspects (still working at better financial management). 

In both of these endevours, I have found a few things have helped me to succeed.
-Acknowledge your mistakes, errors and less than ideal outcomes. We learn far more from failures than successes
-Similar to above, when heading or seeking advice on improvement, STFU and open both ears to max receiving and keep mouth shut tight (except for questions and clarifications
-Soul search. When improving or developing or growing, take time to reflect and think deeply on overall direction, your attitude and intended or unintended consequences
-When moving forward and making decisions, assume you are wrong or not ideal and LOOK for the earliest signs of things going off the rails

I think the SENIOR military leadership needs to be truly held accountable (they need to OWN this schmozzles in the media, full stop), they need to truly seek help and advice and then ensure proper implementation assuming it could go off the rails.

I do not have a single one trick answer to solving this. I truly think more briefings and presentations with mandatory attendance is NOT the answer.


----------



## Haggis

trigger324 said:


> And I don’t see a problem with catching “a lot more people” if they’re groping girls, drunk or not(a whole other problem in itself). Upthread someone mentioned “innocent people getting caught...”. Well as far as I’m concerned, these innocent are not so innocent, right?


Until you run into another situation like this, where, even when proven wrong, the CAF still didn't make it right by admitting their gross errors.


----------



## OldSolduer

Haggis said:


> Until you run into another situation like this, where, even when proven wrong, the CAF still didn't make it right by admitting their gross errors.


The issue is contentious isn’t it? There’s no right answer. A witch-hunt will do more harm than good.


----------



## trigger324

Haggis said:


> Until you run into another situation like this, where, even when proven wrong, the CAF still didn't make it right by admitting their gross errors.


Brings us right back to “Only in the CAF”, amirite?


----------



## trigger324

OldSolduer said:


> The issue is contentious isn’t it? There’s no right answer. A witch-hunt will do more harm than good.


I feel the term “witch-hunt” to be a buzzword of 2020. But I don’t look at this as a witch hunt at all. If somebody’s guilty of all these matters at hand, then by God, root them out


----------



## OldSolduer

trigger324 said:


> I feel the term “witch-hunt” to be a buzzword of 2020. But I don’t look at this as a witch hunt at all. If somebody’s guilty of all these matters at hand, then by God, root them out


Actually that is what you are proposing the CAF do. Root it out at all costs and damn the consequences. The worst offenders - the rapists and (for lack of a better term) serial fondlers (who after disciplinary or administrative measures have failed) need to be gone forthwith. 

In most cases a simple intervention from one's CSM or RSM, Coxn etc will suffice.


----------



## trigger324

I didn’t say damn the consequences, but I say damn the offenders. If finding them and rooting them out to really show the public that the CAF really gives a damn, then what needs to be done gets done. If nobody’s got anything to hide, it shouldn’t be an issue.


----------



## Haggis

trigger324 said:


> Brings us right back to “Only in the CAF”, amirite?


No, you're not. You are conflating this internal failing of the CFNIS, which is wholly within the conteol of the CAF with the external failing of PTS, which is wholly outside the control of the CAF. Apples and bricks.


----------



## Halifax Tar

OldSolduer said:


> Actually that is what you are proposing the CAF do. Root it out at all costs and damn the consequences. The worst offenders - the rapists and (for lack of a better term) serial fondlers (who after disciplinary or administrative measures have failed) need to be gone forthwith.
> 
> In most cases a simple intervention from one's CSM or RSM, Coxn etc will suffice.


We should be devoting time to rooting/investigating an prosecuting's allegations of any misconduct sexual or otherwise if the investigation warrants it. 

Our _"simple intervention"_ or RSMs _"punishment"_ or _"corrective action"_ is riddled with examples of how the wrong doers have been protected or incident played down with no justice for the victims. 

We did this to ourselves by protecting the _"good guys/gals who deserved a break"_ for too long. I don't fault anyone serving or released for going to the press when our CoC has many examples of letting the victim down. 

Lastly, I'm a tight head prop, I'm a sailor and I'm Irish.  I've been black out fall down drunk, and I can keep pace with the hardest of booze hounds; and I have never in 42 years on this earth grabbed a woman's bum or other part.  Alcohol is not an excuse.


----------



## OldSolduer

Halifax Tar said:


> We should be devoting time to rooting/investigating an prosecuting's allegations of any misconduct sexual or otherwise if the investigation warrants it.
> 
> Our _"simple intervention"_ or RSMs _"punishment"_ or _"corrective action"_ is riddled with examples of how the wrong doers have been protected or incident played down with no justice for the victims.
> 
> We did this to ourselves by protecting the _"good guys/gals who deserved a break"_ for too long. I don't fault anyone serving or released for going to the press when our CoC has many examples of letting the victim down.
> 
> Lastly, I'm a tight head prop, I'm a sailor and I'm Irish.  I've been black out fall down drunk, and I can keep pace with the hardest of booze hounds; and I have never in 42 years on this earth grabbed a woman's bum or other part.  Alcohol is not an excuse.


N
I agree with some of this - alcohol is no excuse IMO although the courts do not agree in some instances

I've dealt with this - during OP Honour we had some idiots who made comments about other members. A face to face sit down between victims and perpetrators we found was the best way to deal with minor transgressions.

Be careful what you wish for. You`re treading on a slippery slope.


----------



## trigger324

Haggis said:


> No, you're not. You are conflating this internal failing of the CFNIS, which is wholly within the conteol of the CAF with the external failing of PTS, which is wholly outside the control of the CAF. Apples and bricks.


I think you’re stuck on the fact that PTS entered into the “Sexual Misconduct Allegations in the CAF” discussion thread even though ex-Maj Hamilton is central to both. I acknowledged a few posts up that I understand it is external. But the story wound up in this thread. You can try to distance yourself from it all day. There’s a connection here or we wouldn’t be talking about it. Apples and bricks comparison is still a comparison.


----------



## trigger324

OldSolduer said:


> N
> 
> I agree with some of this - alcohol is no excuse IMO although the courts do not agree in some instances
> 
> I've dealt with this - during OP Honour we had some idiots who made comments about other members. A face to face sit down between victims and perpetrators we found was the best way to deal with minor transgressions.
> 
> Be careful what you wish for. You`re treading on a slippery slope.


Why is this a slippery slope? I agree with Tar. Why should we be careful what we’re wishing for?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

trigger324 said:


> I think you’re stuck on the fact that PTS entered into the “Sexual Misconduct Allegations in the CAF” discussion thread even though ex-Maj Hamilton is central to both. I acknowledged a few posts up that I understand it is external. But the story wound up in this thread. You can try to distance yourself from it all day. There’s a connection here or we wouldn’t be talking about it. Apples and bricks comparison is still a comparison.


We keep talking about the connection, because you keep circling back to it every three posts. You acknowledge there is no connection, then insinuate that there is.


----------



## Halifax Tar

OldSolduer said:


> N
> 
> I agree with some of this - alcohol is no excuse IMO although the courts do not agree in some instances
> 
> I've dealt with this - during OP Honour we had some idiots who made comments about other members. A face to face sit down between victims and perpetrators we found was the best way to deal with minor transgressions.
> 
> Be careful what you wish for. You`re treading on a slippery slope.


Stop being vague. What's this slippery slope ? I fail to see the investigation and prosecution of warranted complaints to be leading to some mysterious slippery slope. 

Stop f-ing touching each other and saying rude or lude comments.  I swear its like dealing with kindergarteners sometimes, and people wonder why we won't allow hot plates in the barracks.


----------



## trigger324

SeaKingTacco said:


> We keep talking about the connection, because you keep circling back to it every three posts. You acknowledge there is no connection, then insinuate that there is.


Every three posts 🙄. Actually, I’m answering questions as they’re posed. I said I know PTS is external, but I also say there’s a connection.


----------



## mariomike

> Stop f-ing touching each other and saying rude or lude comments. I swear its like dealing with kindergarteners sometimes,



Reminds me of high school, sometimes.


----------



## TCM621

trigger324 said:


> If nobody’s got anything to hide, it shouldn’t be an issue.


This attitude leads to tyranny and always will. It should be avoided at all costs even in the military. It leads to fear amongst the ranks and will inevitably be used by bad actors to get back at rivals or enemies. I can't think of one example where this wasn't abused and ended up being far worse than the problem they were trying to fix. 

Let me be clear here. I am saying there is not a sexual assaults and sexual harassment epidemic in the forces. Men are not running around grabbing boobs or whipping their dicks out. That wasn't always true, I saw a lot of penis in my first few years of the Military and I am still kind of scarred by it, but the last time someone removed a piece of clothing in the the mess, it was a female guest who took her shirt off (still had a bra on) and the WComd got involved. What we have is some high profile cases of sexual malfeasances of varying degrees. The overwhelming majority of daily inter gender relations in the CAF are 100% with in typical social norms. There are some issues, especially around how we deal with highly ranked individuals, and it is important to address them but if we skip the details in favour of broad "witch hunts", we will destroy the military as a functional force without ever address the real issues.


----------



## Halifax Tar

TCM621 said:


> This attitude leads to tyranny and always will. It should be avoided at all costs even in the military. It leads to fear amongst the ranks and will inevitably be used by bad actors to get back at rivals or enemies. I can't think of one example where this wasn't abused and ended up being far worse than the problem they were trying to fix.
> 
> Let me be clear here. I am saying there is not a sexual assaults and sexual harassment epidemic in the forces. Men are not running around grabbing boobs or whipping their dicks out. That wasn't always true, I saw a lot of penis in my first few years of the Military and I am still kind of scarred by it, but the last time someone removed a piece of clothing in the the mess, it was a female guest who took her shirt off (still had a bra on) and the WComd got involved. What we have is some high profile cases of sexual malfeasances of varying degrees. The overwhelming majority of daily inter gender relations in the CAF are 100% with in typical social norms. There are some issues, especially around how we deal with highly ranked individuals, and it is important to address them but if we skip the details in favour of broad "witch hunts", we will destroy the military as a functional force without ever address the real issues.



I am not supporting a gestapo style rounding up of every male for questioning in a secluded room.  I simply support investigation and prosecution of allegations that warrant it.

I also dont think we are a band of horny thugs or thug-ess's (?) trying to fondle and grope everyone in sight.  I think in the mixed gender scenarios we put our people in for extended periods of time can lead too a probability of occurrence increase, some will manifest as honest relationships, some as trysts and some will be complete malice.  I also think when you put people together some are going to be good people and some wont, some are going to be sexual deviants and some wont.  I also think there are allot of people in power (high end or not) who will have opportunity to abuse that power or take advantage of it and wont have the will power to say no.

Anyone who is reported to have over stepped the line should be investigated and prosecuted if found to be warranted.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

TCM621 said:


> I understand that but the reason I like to separate rape from the rest is that Rape is such a vicercal crime that nuance is almost impossible. People will forgive murders before they forgive rapists. I think people react emotionally to "rape" when we are talking about much different things.
> 
> This is especially true when we start reaching back into past for bad behaviour. When young people get together stupid shit happens, and people learn from that. How many dudes have attempted to grab a butt during a dance only to learn the girl doesn't have the same idea as him? That's sexual assault but it is also just young people figuring out how to manage romantic relationships.


Where is your concern about nuance coming from? Any actions taken on a given incident of Sexual Misconduct go through a process that considers a wide range of factors. The outcome will depend on a number of factors to include the severity of the misconduct, the level of experience of the accused/respondent, the history of the accused/respondent and the power imbalance/dynamics at play.

A single incident of aggravated sexual assault will likely result in an item 2 Release through DMCA. Your example of a drunken grope could go that route (2A release), depending on prior history or power imbalance, or it could result in lesser remedial measures. A LCol drunkenly groping a 2Lt in the mess should expect to face very severe admin consequences (such as release) in additional to any criminal charges. The outcome _might _be less, although still serious, for a new Trooper groping a peer. Or it might also lead to release if the member has prior incidents. The point is that there is a process. 

We have access to Remedial Measures to correct fairly minor cases of Sexual Misconduct, especially relevant for junior personnel where power has not been abused.  If those people then choose to continue their sexual misconduct then they can expect to face more serious measures up to and including release. In all cases there is procedural fairness, the level of which increases with the potential severity of the measures.


----------



## Kilted

Halifax Tar said:


> I am not supporting a gestapo style rounding up of every male for questioning in a secluded room.  I simply support investigation and prosecution or allegations that warrant it.
> 
> I also dont think we are a band of horny thugs or thug-ess's (?) trying to fondle and grope everyone in sight.  I think in the mixed gender scenarios we put our people in for extended periods of time can lead too a probability of occurrence increase, some will manifest as honest relationships, some as trysts and some will be complete malice.  I also think when you put people together some are going to be good people and some wont, some are going to be sexual deviants and some wont.  I also think there are allot of people in power (high end or not) who will have opportunity to abuse that power or take advantage of it and wont have the will power to say no.
> 
> Anyone who is reported to have over stepped the line should be investigated and prosecuted if found to be warranted.


The Charter forces us to put people in that situation, not saying that we didn't have the issues we have now before women were fully integrated.  To be honest, I think that the forces still hasn't fully adjusted to the integration of women.  The fact is that we still have many members who feel that women should never have been fully integrated and feel that it was only done for the sake of political correctness.  It was ultimately the Charter that forced the government to fully integrate women, something that would have likely occurred by now anyways based on what has occurred in other western armed forces.  So what I'm saying is, if we are still having issues after 30-plus years, this isn't going away anytime fast.


----------



## daftandbarmy

TangoTwoBravo said:


> *We have access to Remedial Measures to correct fairly minor cases of Sexual Misconduct, especially relevant for junior personnel where power has not been abused.  If those people then choose to continue their sexual misconduct then they can expect to face more serious measures up to and including release. In all cases there is procedural fairness, the level of which increases with the potential severity of the measures.*



Because a rise in the number and severity of sexual assaults are probably one indicator of a general breakdown in discipline, I would argue, why not give every unit a quota for charges of all kinds, accompanied by extra NCO positions (Regimental Provost Sgt & a small staff perhaps) to process all the paperwork, handle all the miscreants, and follow up on all the RW monitoring etc required for every CO to hit their monthly 'targets'.  Quotas could be set based on an analysis of the frequency and severity of various types of prevalent offences, with a 'never pass a fault' approach.

Charge people for 'not reporting' incidents as well. Seriously.

Headquarters would not be immune, of course, and we could see a few Senior Commanders/Staff etc on monitored RWs etc. 

Roll up the results and have formation commanders report in to the CDS on a monthly basis to hold everyone accountable up and down the chain.

Keep that up for a year, hammering the offences at the lesser end of the correctional spectrum especially, and then re-evaluate based on performance. For those who fail their RW monitoring/ other compliance requirements, exit them from the CAF post haste as per the usual channels. 'Certainly and celerity' might be a suitable mission statement.

Call it OP SCARED STRAIGHT or something like that. And by 'straight' I mean no offence to the LGBTQ2S etc etc communities


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

daftandbarmy said:


> Because a rise in the number and severity of sexual assaults are probably one indicator of a general breakdown in discipline, I would argue, why not give every unit a quota for charges of all kinds, accompanied by extra NCO positions (Regimental Provost Sgt & a small staff perhaps) to process all the paperwork, handle all the miscreants, and follow up on all the RW monitoring etc required for every CO to hit their monthly 'targets'.  Quotas could be set based on an analysis of the frequency and severity of various types of prevalent offences, with a 'never pass a fault' approach.
> 
> Charge people for 'not reporting' incidents as well. Seriously.
> 
> Headquarters would not be immune, of course, and we could see a few Senior Commanders/Staff etc on monitored RWs etc.
> 
> Roll up the results and have formation commanders report in to the CDS on a monthly basis to hold everyone accountable up and down the chain.
> 
> Keep that up for a year, hammering the offences at the lesser end of the correctional spectrum especially, and then re-evaluate based on performance. For those who fail their RW monitoring/ other compliance requirements, exit them from the CAF post haste as per the usual channels. 'Certainly and celerity' might be a suitable mission statement.
> 
> Call it OP SCARED STRAIGHT or something like that. And by 'straight' I mean no offence to the LGBTQ2S etc etc communities


I would say from a policy perspective we have the tools, and again I point all serving leaders to the November 2020 DAOD on Sexual Misconduct. We will see, though,  what the review brings. Perhaps new policy instruments will be introduced. I think we need some work in terms of victim support to include how we investigate to avoid re-victimizing. A feedback loop to the victim is also something we need to examine. Procedural fairness must also be maintained. Its a balance. 

What exactly is your proposed monthly quota? Statistics can be deceiving - I would expect a training institution, for instance, to have a higher level of incidence.  We want unit chains of command to handle each incidence of sexual misconduct without worrying about a statistic. Handle the case. The worse thing that could happen is people do not report because they want to look good (or avoid looking bad). Is a unit with 10 files in a year doing a bad job? What about a unit with no files?

As a CO I have dealt with several cases over two years across the spectrum. With a severe case the correct approach is obvious.  Others require more careful judgement. I discharge my duties without worrying about statistics, although of course these things are tracked.


----------



## OldSolduer

Halifax Tar said:


> Stop being vague. What's this slippery slope ? I fail to see the investigation and prosecution of warranted complaints to be leading to some mysterious slippery slope.
> 
> Stop f-ing touching each other and saying rude or lude comments.  I swear its like dealing with kindergarteners sometimes, and people wonder why we won't allow hot plates in the barracks.


The slippery slope is that any complaint will be  treated as a huge incident, eating up time and resources that could be used for such things as training, operations, equipment etc. 
As has been said before by bigger brains than you and I have the CAF is a reflection of society so lets start there.


----------



## SupersonicMax

OldSolduer said:


> the CAF is a reflection of society so lets start there.



Given that the CAF has a rigourous selection process, I would argue that we should NOT be a reflection of society but rather, have an above average working force.  We should do better than society as a whole.


----------



## OldSolduer

SupersonicMax said:


> Given that the CAF has a rigourous selection process, I would argue that we should NOT be a reflection of society but rather, have an above average working force.  We should do better than society as a whole.


Yes we should - but to prosecute every minor transgression leads to paralysis. Early interventions using the appropriate methods - laws and regulations which are already on the books - is what is needed.


----------



## SupersonicMax

OldSolduer said:


> Yes we should - but to prosecute every minor transgression leads to paralysis. Early interventions using the appropriate methods - laws and regulations which are already on the books - is what is needed.


How do we know that a transgression is minor until it is investigated?  Do we assume it is?


----------



## QV

SupersonicMax said:


> How do we know that a transgression is minor until it is investigated?  Do we assume it is?


Well, a tasteless joke of a sexual nature and rape are both considered "sexual misconduct" but I hope are fairly easy to differentiate.  So yes, I think one could be considered a minor transgression without a lengthy investigation.


----------



## SupersonicMax

QV said:


> Well, a tasteless joke of a sexual nature and rape are both considered "sexual misconduct" but I hope are fairly easy to differentiate.  So yes, I think one could be considered a minor transgression without a lengthy investigation.


What is your threshold between "minor" and "major"?  Does the behaviour extends beyond the mere "jokes?" 

I don't think we can trust ourselves with any kind of discretion at the moment.


----------



## Loachman

CBH99 said:


> But I am EXTREMELY surprised that a female doctor, helping female sexual assault victims, would make that call.  And then try to protect him.


Paul Bernardo had a female enabler, and the first of their victims who died was her own sister.

Bill Clinton had a female enabler, who almost became President.

The WO who had been harassing (non-sexually but still seriously) multiple junior female members of a unit in Petawawa in the early 1990s, for one of whom I was Assisting Officer, had a female Captain in a passive supporting role.

Not all women are sweet little nurturing angels.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

There is a published decision tree to follow when an incident of sexual misconduct is reported. After ensuring support to the victim/complainant, the first decision to be made is whether a police investigation is required. I give the MP Det a call and we discuss it - it is very quick. The unit legal advisor is also a great resource. All that to say, it is better to call the MP Det and discuss it with them as opposed to making an assumption and compromising what should have been a police investigation. 

If there is no police investigation a unit investigation is initiated, after which a determination can be made. Some investigations might be quick simple, others more complex. Its our duty to do them regardless. 

It is critical that leaders are conversant with the existing policies.


----------



## mariomike

Loachman said:


> Paul Bernardo had a female enabler,
> 
> Bill Clinton had a female enabler,


Paul and Karla = Bill and Hillary?


----------



## QV

SupersonicMax said:


> What is your threshold between "minor" and "major"?  Does the behaviour extends beyond the mere "jokes?"
> 
> I don't think we can trust ourselves with any kind of discretion at the moment.



If the complaint is about a joke then yes I think we can say it is minor opposed to sexual assault which would be major.  But you're right, we probably shouldn't trust the CAF with that distinction.  The CAF hasn't been able to replace the 80 yr old pistol yet, I wouldn't want to complicate things by compelling the CAF to distinguish the tiny nuances between lude behavior and serious crimes against a person.  And since things have been going so very well, lets not change a thing.


----------



## SupersonicMax

QV said:


> If the complaint is about a joke then yes I think we can say it is minor opposed to sexual assault which would be major.  But you're right, we probably shouldn't trust the CAF with that distinction.  The CAF hasn't been able to replace the 80 yr old pistol yet, I wouldn't want to complicate things by compelling the CAF to distinguish the tiny nuances between lude behavior and serious crimes against a person.  And since things have been going so very well, lets not change a thing.


It is not in the extreme that we will or have issues and using extreme examples is not useful to the conversation.  It is in the small nuances where it gets more complex.  As T2B alluded to, there are tools in place to help COs refer matters to the appropriate authorities.  Having a cadre of NCMs in every unit in charge of administering the sexual misconduct program would not be useful.


----------



## TCM621

Halifax Tar said:


> I am not supporting a gestapo style rounding up of every male for questioning in a secluded room.  I simply support investigation and prosecution of allegations that warrant it.
> 
> I also dont think we are a band of horny thugs or thug-ess's (?) trying to fondle and grope everyone in sight.  I think in the mixed gender scenarios we put our people in for extended periods of time can lead too a probability of occurrence increase, some will manifest as honest relationships, some as trysts and some will be complete malice.  I also think when you put people together some are going to be good people and some wont, some are going to be sexual deviants and some wont.  I also think there are allot of people in power (high end or not) who will have opportunity to abuse that power or take advantage of it and wont have the will power to say no.
> 
> Anyone who is reported to have over stepped the line should be investigated and prosecuted if found to be warranted.



You aren't supporting a gestapo style round up but some people are coming very close. In Daftandbarmy's post quoted below he is literally advocating for quotas on charges. That is lunacy. When the CO needs to lay some charges to meet his quota I am sure that I could find some for him. The fact that one of them is my biggest competitor for promotion and the other is the weird guy no one likes, is purely coincidental.



TangoTwoBravo said:


> Where is your concern about nuance coming from? Any actions taken on a given incident of Sexual Misconduct go through a process that considers a wide range of factors. The outcome will depend on a number of factors to include the severity of the misconduct, the level of experience of the accused/respondent, the history of the accused/respondent and the power imbalance/dynamics at play.
> 
> A single incident of aggravated sexual assault will likely result in an item 2 Release through DMCA. Your example of a drunken grope could go that route (2A release), depending on prior history or power imbalance, or it could result in lesser remedial measures. A LCol drunkenly groping a 2Lt in the mess should expect to face very severe admin consequences (such as release) in additional to any criminal charges. The outcome _might _be less, although still serious, for a new Trooper groping a peer. Or it might also lead to release if the member has prior incidents. The point is that there is a process.
> 
> We have access to Remedial Measures to correct fairly minor cases of Sexual Misconduct, especially relevant for junior personnel where power has not been abused.  If those people then choose to continue their sexual misconduct then they can expect to face more serious measures up to and including release. In all cases there is procedural fairness, the level of which increases with the potential severity of the measures.


My concern comes from the comments I have read here and in other places. Too many people have the attitude of charge them all and let the courts sort them out. Look how many people group former Maj Hamilton in with Gen Vance and Adm MacDonald despite being three very different circumstances which are wrong for very different reasons. Hamilton is a rapist, Vance had consensual sex with people he shouldn't have and MacDonald apparently was handsy while drunk. All wrong, all involved sex in one way or another but I would argue they are barely even on the same spectrum. Just like we treat murder very different from how we treat someone who sucker punched someone which we treat very differently from two dudes who got in a fist fight. If people were confident that they would be treated fairly by the system people wouldn't care so much but people are afraid of overreach. Given the failure that was OP Honour and the failure to address the Vance issue, can you blame them?





daftandbarmy said:


> Because a rise in the number and severity of sexual assaults are probably one indicator of a general breakdown in discipline, I would argue, why not give every unit a quota for charges of all kinds, accompanied by extra NCO positions (Regimental Provost Sgt & a small staff perhaps) to process all the paperwork, handle all the miscreants, and follow up on all the RW monitoring etc required for every CO to hit their monthly 'targets'.  Quotas could be set based on an analysis of the frequency and severity of various types of prevalent offences, with a 'never pass a fault' approach.
> 
> Charge people for 'not reporting' incidents as well. Seriously.
> 
> Headquarters would not be immune, of course, and we could see a few Senior Commanders/Staff etc on monitored RWs etc.
> 
> Roll up the results and have formation commanders report in to the CDS on a monthly basis to hold everyone accountable up and down the chain.
> 
> Keep that up for a year, hammering the offences at the lesser end of the correctional spectrum especially, and then re-evaluate based on performance. For those who fail their RW monitoring/ other compliance requirements, exit them from the CAF post haste as per the usual channels. 'Certainly and celerity' might be a suitable mission statement.
> 
> Call it OP SCARED STRAIGHT or something like that. And by 'straight' I mean no offence to the LGBTQ2S etc etc communities


----------



## TCM621

mariomike said:


> Paul and Karla = Hillary and Bill?


Fixed that for you.


----------



## Loachman

trigger324 said:


> For us to try and constantly look to distance ourselves from these alleged offenders it seems it’s a matter of saving face rather than acknowledging we’ve got a major problem on our hands and instead take the criticism



Pointing out simple facts and putting things into proper context is not "saving face".



trigger324 said:


> Nobody else is going through this right now, or at least nobody to this degree.



Not generally in national headlines, but I'd suspect at least as much in local ones and a lot more that go unreported.









						Outrage grows over alleged party for sex-offender teacher
					

Ire and condemnation have continued in reaction to news of an alleged going-away party for Jeff Peters, a former teacher convicted of sexual assault.




					www.thewhig.com
				




There was another case of a doctor in Pembroke a day or three ago as well.

Who is likely to be of more concern at the local level? A member of the Armed Forces, or little Billy's or Susie's teacher?


----------



## Loachman

Yes.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

TCM621 said:


> You aren't supporting a gestapo style round up but some people are coming very close. In Daftandbarmy's post quoted below he is literally advocating for quotas on charges. That is lunacy. When the CO needs to lay some charges to meet his quota I am sure that I could find some for him. The fact that one of them is my biggest competitor for promotion and the other is the weird guy no one likes, is purely coincidental.
> 
> 
> My concern comes from the comments I have read here and in other places. Too many people have the attitude of charge them all and let the courts sort them out. Look how many people group former Maj Hamilton in with Gen Vance and Adm MacDonald despite being three very different circumstances which are wrong for very different reasons. Hamilton is a rapist, Vance had consensual sex with people he shouldn't have and MacDonald apparently was handsy while drunk. All wrong, all involved sex in one way or another but I would argue they are barely even on the same spectrum. Just like we treat murder very different from how we treat someone who sucker punched someone which we treat very differently from two dudes who got in a fist fight. If people were confident that they would be treated fairly by the system people wouldn't care so much but people are afraid of overreach. Given the failure that was OP Honour and the failure to address the Vance issue, can you blame them?


It is a spectrum, which indicates there is a range of severity. What is your fear of overreach? The policy allows for the consideration of factors including the severity of the misconduct. We follow due process, which could involve the laying of charges and disposition of the charge in a hearing. It could also involve non-judicial actions, especially in cases of sexual harassment.  I guarantee that the outcomes will be different for a CAF member who commits aggravated sexual assault and a CAF member that makes an unwelcome advance/sexual comments on a peer. Both will face consequences for founded complaints, but the severity will be different. The level of procedural fairness will also increase as the severity of the potential consequences increase.


----------



## Loachman

daftandbarmy said:


> Because a rise in the number and severity of sexual assaults are probably one indicator of a general breakdown in discipline



Or an indication that things are improving to the point where more victims feel safe enough to come forward.

I believe that cases are tracked by the date that an allegation is made rather than the date on which the alleged misconduct occurred.

We could, then, actually be seeing a lot of old cases being brought to light rather than an increase in cases.

And that would be a good thing.


----------



## TCM621

TangoTwoBravo said:


> It is a spectrum, which indicates there is a range of severity. What is your fear of overreach? The policy allows for the consideration of factors including the severity of the misconduct. We follow due process, which could involve the laying of charges and disposition of the charge in a hearing. It could also involve non-judicial actions, especially in cases of sexual harassment.  I guarantee that the outcomes will be different for a CAF member who commits aggravated sexual assault and a CAF member that makes an unwelcome advance/sexual comments on a peer. Both will face consequences for founded complaints, but the severity will be different. The level of procedural fairness will also increase as the severity of the potential consequences increase.



I am worried that the person who makes an unwelcome advance will be punished too harshly because it shows the CoC is doing "something". This always happens when "zero tolerance" policies are put in place. It isn't as if the problem what there was tolerance in the past, it is that they really mean "zero nuance". 

More importantly, I know that a lot of people feel this way. A fair amount feel even stronger than I do and it is negatively effecting the workplace. I know guys who refuse to be alone with some women because they are afraid of a false accusation. Even if it doesn't happen as much as people think it does, it does happen and that is enough to cause fear and anxiety.  This is especially true in older men because they don't understand young women and they are fearful of causing offence unintentionally and then having their career ruined.  Meanwhile, a lot of women probably think all their supervisors are secretly trying to have sex with them, by force if necessary. Now you have two groups who are afraid of each other and everyone else who has to deal with it. What do you thing that does to morale.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> Given that the CAF has a rigourous selection process, I would argue that we should NOT be a reflection of society but rather, have an above average working force.  We should do better than society as a whole.



That is OK for a peacetime army, but in a pinch the CAF has to be able to turn people with not more than Gr8 education into useful soldiers.  That means dealing with a much larger social cross-section than "above average", which means being prepared to do it before it is needed.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Brad Sallows said:


> That is OK for a peacetime army, but in a pinch the CAF has to be able to turn people with not more than Gr8 education into useful soldiers.  That means dealing with a much larger social cross-section than "above average", which means being prepared to do it before it is needed.


Perhaps but in the recent past (at least the last 20 years), that’s how we have recruited.


----------



## mariomike

TCM621 said:


> I know guys who refuse to be alone with some women because they are afraid of a false accusation.


Socially, or in the workplace?

If the workplace, how do their superiors handle refusals?


----------



## TCM621

mariomike said:


> Socially, or in the workplace?
> 
> If the workplace, what, if anything, do their superiors have to say about that?


Both. Many of their superiors agree with them. This is a common outcome of sexual harassment training. To quote this Harvard Business Review article:


> Why would training designed to educate employees about harassment create a backlash? That seems counterintuitive. The problem is with how the training is presented. Typically it’s mandatory, which sends the message that men have to be forced to pay attention to the issue. And it focuses on forbidden behaviors, the nitty-gritty, which signals that men don’t know where the line is. The message is that men need fixing.
> 
> Start any training by telling a group of people that they’re the problem, and they’ll get defensive. Once that happens, they’re much less likely to want to be a part of the solution; instead they’ll resist. That’s what happens with harassment training: Research shows that it actually makes men more likely to blame the victims and to think that women who report harassment are making it up or overreacting. No surprise, then, that in a 2018 study carried out by the Pew Research Center, more than 30% of men said that false claims of sexual harassment are “a major problem.” And no surprise that 58% of women who had been harassed said that not being believed is a major problem.



No one is saying sexual harassment or assault are acceptable. What people are saying is that the way the CAF is going about addressing it will create more problems than it solves.

Edit: A little off topic but this trend has been noticed with other types of diversity training. Anecdotally, I only remember one thing clearly from Sharp training. I am sure anyone who took it remembers "He can't be gay, he's an Indian". That was a running joke for almost a decade.


----------



## mariomike

TCM621 said:


> Many of their superiors agree with them.


Nice that many do. Let me hit that "Like" button. 

But, that was not my question. My bad. I'll try again.

What is the official policy, the workplace policy,  not off-duty socializing,  in "the CAF of today" regarding "guys who refuse to be alone with some women because they are afraid of a false accusation." ?


----------



## lenaitch

Quotas don't address a problem in any meaningful way, particularly in public service, because satisfying the quota becomes the solution.  Somewhere, somebody will say that a quota not met means somebody is trying too hard or not hard enough.

If there is a problem, address each instance within policy or legislation.  It doesn't necessarily take a new entity or sophisticated software to detect trends and account for variables; it's called leadership.  In government, it is too often the solution to create a new 'something' instead of fix the old.


----------



## Furniture

mariomike said:


> Nice that many do. Let me hit that "Like" button.
> 
> But, that was not my question. My bad. I'll try again.
> 
> What is the official policy - if there is one - in "the CAF of today" regarding "guys who refuse to be alone with some women because they are afraid of a false accusation." ?


The CAF doesn't create policy like that. 

The only enforceable way to force a man and a woman to spend time alone together is if it's an order/direction, and then the one giving the order/direction would have to prove why it was necessary to force someone into an "uncomfortable" situation. 

The problem real problem caused by the appearance of a "witch hunt", or the appearance of the training to be "all men bad", is that it creates an environment where women are always outsiders. As in, the conversation stops when a woman walks in the room, because nobody is sure what they can and can't say, or the guys get more one-on-one coaching from the boss because the boss is more confident that it won't come back to bite him because he went to lunch/supper/the mess  with one of the guys.


----------



## mariomike

Furniture said:


> The only enforceable way to force a man and a woman to spend time alone together is if it's an order/direction, and then the one giving the order/direction would have to prove why it was necessary to force someone into an "uncomfortable" situation.


I understand the military, and other employers, sometimes find it "necessary to force someone into an "uncomfortable" situation." 

But, TCM621 said, "refuse".



> I know guys who refuse to be alone with some women because they are afraid of a false accusation.


----------



## Furniture

mariomike said:


> I understand the military, and other employers, sometimes find it "necessary to force someone into an "uncomfortable" situation."
> 
> But, TCM621 said, "refuse".


As I said in my reply, if a supervisor decided that they would force it to happen they would have to justify it.

If the boss could justify forcing members into the situation it would be no different than someone refusing to follow any other lawful command. The CAF doesn't need a specific policy for it, because the NDA and QR&Os cover it.


----------



## Jarnhamar

TCM621 said:


> Wrong, inappropriate and worthy of reproach. The point is that there is nuance and levels to this shit.





TCM621 said:


> How many dudes have attempted to grab a butt during a dance only to learn the girl doesn't have the same idea as him? That's sexual assault but it is also just young people figuring out how to manage romantic relationships.



I agree rape is a different level then grabbing someone's ass.

I'm not sure I agree that grabbing someone's butt is just them figuring out how to manage romantic relationships; especially when there's no relationship.

One problem with the ass grabbing et el in the military context is that when it's a male doing it to a female it comes across as treating her like a piece of meat or property. And when other men see it, especially impressionable men if it's someone in a position of authority, they think it's okay.

IMO it shifts the female member from being a rank-member of the Canadian Forces to a chick guys make passes at. It objectifies them. Women have to fight a lot harder for acceptance while navigating a giant double-standard mine field in the military.

And yes it's also a double standard when women do this to men and it's not taken as seriously.


----------



## mariomike

Furniture said:


> The CAF doesn't need a specific policy for it, because the NDA and QR&Os cover it.


I wasn't much of a "barracks room lawyer". But, I recall "refusing a lawful order" was mentioned during GMT ( BMQ ).

Which is why I was a little bit surprised to read of today's CAF,



> I know guys who refuse to be alone with some women because they are afraid of a false accusation.



Key word: Refuse. 

Refusal of a lawful order, was a quick way to commit career suicide in emergency services, or the CAF. At least it was when I was in. 

I know times have changed since then, but not that much.


----------



## TCM621

mariomike said:


> I wasn't much of a "barracks room lawyer". But, I recall "refusing a lawful order" was mentioned during GMT ( BMQ ).
> 
> Which is why I was a little bit surprised to read of today's CAF,
> 
> 
> 
> Key word: Refuse.
> 
> Refusal of a lawful order, was a quick way to commit career suicide in emergency services, or the CAF. At least it was when I was in.
> 
> I know times have changed since then, but not that much.


You are right. The CAF could easily force someone to do it. The CAF can force you to take a bound to draw enemy fire too. But I, pensionally, try not to force people to do something they are uncomfortable with unless I really have to. 

Let's turn this around, if a woman refuses to be alone with a man because she is worried something could happen do we force her? Of course not. That doesn't mean we leave it there and it doesn't me we leave it there for a man. I have had some people work for me who didn't want to work for various people for various reasons and one of my jobs is to deal with it. It's a lot of work though and why would we want to increase that programs that don't make women feel safer?


----------



## mariomike

TCM621 said:


> But I, pensionally, try not to force people to do something they are uncomfortable with unless I really have to.


That's admirable.

But, what caught my attention was the word "refuse".



> I know guys who refuse to be alone with some women because they are afraid of a false accusation.


----------



## Weinie

TCM621 said:


> But I, *pensionally,* try not to force people to do something they are uncomfortable with unless I really have to.


Freudian slip perhaps?


----------



## Furniture

mariomike said:


> That's admirable.
> 
> But, what caught my attention was the word "refuse".


It has been explained already, a couple of times.... So what exactly are you looking for?


----------



## mariomike

Furniture said:


> So what exactly are you looking for?


Thanks, Furniture. But, it was TCM621 I was asking.


----------



## Mick

Here's a link to an article written by Annalise Schamuhn.  Definitely worth a read.









						In the two weeks since one of the hardest chapters of my life was made public
					

It has been two weeks since one of the hardest chapters of my life was made public in a CBC interview. Since then, I have become even more deeply involved in a national conversation that was already profoundly important to me.




					www.linkedin.com


----------



## Kilted

TCM621 said:


> You are right. The CAF could easily force someone to do it. The CAF can force you to take a bound to draw enemy fire too. But I, pensionally, try not to force people to do something they are uncomfortable with unless I really have to.
> 
> Let's turn this around, if a woman refuses to be alone with a man because she is worried something could happen do we force her? Of course not. That doesn't mean we leave it there and it doesn't me we leave it there for a man. I have had some people work for me who didn't want to work for various people for various reasons and one of my jobs is to deal with it. It's a lot of work though and why would we want to increase that programs that don't make women feel safer?


Is forcing someone to be alone with a member of the opposite sex a lawful order in this atmosphere? Given the gender ratio in the forces, I don't think that it's unthinkable to accommodate those who are seriously concerned.  They're also those who may request accommodation on religious grounds, which should be a reasonable request.  They are not asking to not work with women, just not be alone with them.  That being said I am from an Infantry Regiment, our male to female ratio is much higher than a random Air Force Squadron for example.

I was kind of worried that we might see something similar to this with regards to the recent hateful conduct measures.  However, it appears that this has not had a significant impact on unit cohesion, at least based on what I have seen or heard about.


----------



## TCM621

Weinie said:


> Freudian slip perhaps?


Who said it was a slip? 😏



mariomike said:


> That's admirable.
> 
> But, what caught my attention was the word "refuse".


I meant it. Have you never had someone refuse to do something in your career? I have. I have even been willing to risk my career over it. Whatever you think of their reasoning, people do feel that way.


----------



## ArmyRick

Mick said:


> Here's a link to an article written by Annalise Schamuhn.  Definitely worth a read.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the two weeks since one of the hardest chapters of my life was made public
> 
> 
> It has been two weeks since one of the hardest chapters of my life was made public in a CBC interview. Since then, I have become even more deeply involved in a national conversation that was already profoundly important to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.linkedin.com


The victim has a voice, listen to it. Worth the read.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Mick said:


> Here's a link to an article written by Annalise Schamuhn.  Definitely worth a read.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the two weeks since one of the hardest chapters of my life was made public
> 
> 
> It has been two weeks since one of the hardest chapters of my life was made public in a CBC interview. Since then, I have become even more deeply involved in a national conversation that was already profoundly important to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.linkedin.com


Very humbling.  I truly hope she is making peace as best she can with how we treated her and her family and that she is able to move on and not let this hold her back.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Kilted said:


> Is forcing someone to be alone with a member of the opposite sex a lawful order in this atmosphere? Given the gender ratio in the forces, I don't think that it's unthinkable to accommodate those who are seriously concerned.


This is part of the infuriating position we've placed ourselves in. If there are legitimate concerns about working with another member in the CAF, male or female, it should be addressed and dealt with. Separating people by gender isn't dealing with it. We have MELs that amount to members not going to the field/not working in areas without handwashing stations because they're afraid of catching Covid. How long before we get "can't work with male/female gender" MELs? Or mbr must have same-gendered section commander?



Kilted said:


> They're also those who may request accommodation on religious grounds, which should be a reasonable request.  *They are not asking to not work with women, just not be alone with them.  *


IMO this is a bad accommodation to make. We're in the military. It sets up a battle between religious accommodations and discriminating on the basis of gender. Not working with someone based on their gender could also border on meeting the criteria for harassment.


----------



## Kilted

Jarnhamar said:


> This is part of the infuriating position we've placed ourselves in. If there are legitimate concerns about working with another member in the CAF, male or female, it should be addressed and dealt with. Separating people by gender isn't dealing with it. We have MELs that amount to members not going to the field/not working in areas without handwashing stations because they're afraid of catching Covid. How long before we get "can't work with male/female gender" MELs? Or mbr must have same-gendered section commander?
> 
> 
> IMO this is a bad accommodation to make. We're in the military. It sets up a battle between religious accommodations and discriminating on the basis of gender. Not working with someone based on their gender could also border on meeting the criteria for harassment.


I have seen it happen multiple times where someone who has made an Op Honour complaint has been avoided by everyone because they are concerned about having similar accusations made against them.  But the issue is bigger than that, there have always been people who are looking to cover their own backside, now there many people who perceive that there is already a witch hunt that can come down on compleletly innocent people based on their gender.

I'm not saying that they wouldn't work with women, I was saying not be alone with women, more specifically a woman.  Their can be a number of simiple accommodations that can be made.  Put a window on a door in a room that would otherwise be private, have three people work in an office instead of two, have a supervisor leave a door open when talking with someone.  There are already a number of practices that are already in place.  For example, its not uncommon if there are multiple females on course or in a platoon to put them in the same fireteam, or fireteams as the numbers require.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Jarnhamar said:


> This is part of the infuriating position we've placed ourselves in. If there are legitimate concerns about working with another member in the CAF, male or female, it should be addressed and dealt with. Separating people by gender isn't dealing with it. We have MELs that amount to members not going to the field/not working in areas without handwashing stations because they're afraid of catching Covid. How long before we get "can't work with male/female gender" MELs? Or mbr must have same-gendered section commander?
> 
> 
> IMO this is a bad accommodation to make. We're in the military. It sets up a battle between religious accommodations and discriminating on the basis of gender. Not working with someone based on their gender could also border on meeting the criteria for harassment.



The other issue is that, just because someone is the same gender doesn't mean they are 'safe': 

Viz: 

Same-sex sexual violence in the military: A scoping review​*Introduction:* Sexual violence (SV) is a globally prevalent issue, and the majority of research focuses on the historical view of SV as an act perpetrated by men against women. Same-sex sexual violence (SSSV) incidents represent a small proportion of recorded sexual offences, and therefore prevalence and consequences of this have received little attention. Male-dominated occupations, such as the military, are associated with higher rates of SV and data points to a particular vulnerability to SSSV of male service personnel (SP).



			https://jmvfh.utpjournals.press/doi/full/10.3138/jmvfh-2019-0052


----------



## Kilted

daftandbarmy said:


> The other issue is that, just because someone is the same gender doesn't mean they are 'safe':
> 
> Viz:
> 
> Same-sex sexual violence in the military: A scoping review​*Introduction:* Sexual violence (SV) is a globally prevalent issue, and the majority of research focuses on the historical view of SV as an act perpetrated by men against women. Same-sex sexual violence (SSSV) incidents represent a small proportion of recorded sexual offences, and therefore prevalence and consequences of this have received little attention. Male-dominated occupations, such as the military, are associated with higher rates of SV and data points to a particular vulnerability to SSSV of male service personnel (SP).
> 
> 
> 
> https://jmvfh.utpjournals.press/doi/full/10.3138/jmvfh-2019-0052


That is always an issue, and one that I would guess is still significantly underreported. The main reason for avoiding being alone with someone of the opposite gender is to avoid sexual harassment or assault allegations.  You can always get the same thing from a person of the same gender, but I don't think that nearly as many people are worried about that.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Kilted said:


> I'm not saying that they wouldn't work with women, I was saying not be alone with women, more specifically a woman.  Their can be a number of simiple accommodations that can be made.  Put a window on a door in a room that would otherwise be private, have three people work in an office instead of two, have a supervisor leave a door open when talking with someone.  There are already a number of practices that are already in place.


If 3 members of an office were female and 1 was male would we make the same accommodations? 

What if 3 males were gay and 1 was straight and felt uncomfortable near gay men? Would we entertain a straight male not wanting to be alone with someone who was gay?

I get what you're saying about accommodations and I'm not trying to be draconian or anything, I think making accommodations like this avoids dealing with the true issues.



Kilted said:


> For example, its not uncommon *if there are multiple females on course or in a platoon to put them in the same fireteam*, or fireteams as the numbers require.


I've seen this a lot and am completely against it. If we're going to put females together because they're female what about homosexuals or muslims? Should we avoid having a male and a female in the same vehicle together?



I say if someone can't keep their hands to themselves or can't avoid making inappropriate comments then nail them with remedial measures and charges. They'll either smarten up or get kicked out.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Jarnhamar said:


> *I say if someone can't keep their hands to themselves or can't avoid making inappropriate comments then nail them with remedial measures and charges. They'll either smarten up or get kicked out.*


----------



## Kilted

Jarnhamar said:


> If 3 members of an office were female and 1 was male would we make the same accommodations?
> 
> What if 3 males were gay and 1 was straight and felt uncomfortable near gay men? Would we entertain a straight male not wanting to be alone with someone who was gay?
> 
> I get what you're saying about accommodations and I'm not trying to be draconian or anything, I think making accommodations like this avoids dealing with the true issues.
> 
> 
> I've seen this a lot and am completely against it. If we're going to put females together because they're female what about homosexuals or muslims? Should we avoid having a male and a female in the same vehicle together?
> 
> 
> 
> I say if someone can't keep their hands to themselves or can't avoid making inappropriate comments then nail them with remedial measures and charges. They'll either smarten up or get kicked out.


Segregating females as much as possible on course is seen as a way to avoid issues.  This is epically relevant on BMQ when we don't necessary know who it is we have coming into the CAF, not saying that that isn't something to worry about at other rank levels.  If there were actual harassments concerns with regards to homosexual members, even if the other member was misunderstanding the situation, there still should be some type of investigation, formal or informal and action taken as necessary.  Obviously this would not just be for someone who was just uncomfortable.  

It's not about actual actions or statements that might be said, its about members avoiding false accusations.  I know some places refer to this as social safety. Should we be surprised after everything that happened with Op Honour that some male members may try to avoid at all costs any situation where they could be accused of anything?


----------



## Haggis

When I worked in the IM Gp, I shared an office with five women.  No issues at all, on either side, despite some good natured ribbing, mostly aimed at me.


----------



## mariomike

TCM621 said:


> Have you never had someone refuse to do something in your career? I have. I have even been willing to risk my career over it. Whatever you think of their reasoning, people do feel that way.


I am in no position to question anyone's "reasoning" or "feelings" about anything.  

I only question the technical use of just one word:  "refuse".

As in,


> I know guys who refuse to be alone with some women because they are afraid of a false accusation.



In that case, a good leader would,


> But I, pensionally, try not to force people to do something they are uncomfortable with unless I really have to.





> unless I really have to.



That may not be compatible with their "reasoning" or "feelings". But, presumably, your orders are obeyed.

So, there was no refusal.

That is all I was trying to say. Obviously, didn't do a very good job of it.



> Have you never had someone refuse to do something in your career?



Not until their six-month ( one-year if they didn't like you ) probationary period was completed.

But, after that? Sure. Plenty of times. Station interior and exterior duties mostly. Like refusing to clean the place up. Take out the garbage. Mop the floor. Cut the grass. ( Or, intentionally doing a bad job of it. ) You had to shovel snow for vehicle egress and ingress. Or, neighbours could do a "slip and fall" on the sidewalk in front and sue the City. Couldn't refuse to shovel snow.

But when the bells went off, you had 60 seconds to get your wheels rolling. To refuse would be career suicide.


> Paramedics are reminded of their responsibility under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, Section 43, (1) and (2).2 These sections exclude paramedics from the right to refuse work where the circumstances are inherent in their work and/or if the work refusal would directly endanger the health and safety of another person.



That would include being sent into the bedrooms of female OD's ( in various stages of consciousness and undress ), as well as female EDP's. Then taking a ride with them strapped to your stretcher. It's just the nature of the job. Get used to it, or GTFO.


I don't recall "Sexual Misconduct Allegation in The CAF" being much of a topic of conversation when I was in. Different era, I guess. No social media either. Not to suggest it was any more, or less, of a concern than it is now.

I've never asked my sister about it. Even now that she is out, she's never mentioned it. Doesn't mean it did, or didn't, happen.



> alone with some women because they are afraid of a false accusation.



I confess to being mildly "afraid of a false accusation" one time many years ago. But, she soon put my mind at ease.

I had to go back on the cars for six months as a seniority "bump".

She phoned me at home to ask if she could partner with me to get off "Swing" for those six months. Her telephone call to me was a courtesy. She could have just showed up unannounced. When she offered to let me do the driving, that sealed the deal. ( Admittedly, there was a certain amount of "skill fade" in the bus and truck division. )

As far as "being alone with a woman", we slept on 12-hour night shifts in a cozy, as in tiny, room that could only contain two people. Only one washroom and shower. No chaperone. Twin couches ( that could be easily pushed together ). The Dept. supplied new and unused pillows, sheets and blankets. New stretcher mattresses were available for extra  cushioning , if desired.

Basically like a run down motel room. It was never intended for mixed partners.

We got along fine. Good thing too. Because, if I had "refused" to be alone with her, the union wouldn't get involved in a case like that.
It would have been me transferred to Scarborough. Not her.





​


----------



## Brad Sallows

People ordinarily try to eliminate risk.  When an accusation is enough to ruin a reputation and cause hardship (eg. expenditure of time and money), people will avoid opportunities for accusations to be made.  Hence, no one-on-one situations behind closed doors.  There is a small fraction of people who will use rules to apply pressure to get what they want.  Anyone who pays attention to office politics knows this.  There is no point whinging about prudent risk mitigation.

The problem is that some guys never learn that unwanted attention from men is more accurately described as attention from unwanted men.  Figuring out which side of the line you are on is the difference between courtship and harassment.


----------



## QV

Brad Sallows said:


> People ordinarily try to eliminate risk.  When an accusation is enough to ruin a reputation and cause hardship (eg. expenditure of time and money), people will avoid opportunities for accusations to be made.  Hence, no one-on-one situations behind closed doors.  There is a small fraction of people who will use rules to apply pressure to get what they want.  Anyone who pays attention to office politics knows this.  There is no point whinging about prudent risk mitigation.
> 
> *The problem is that some guys never learn that unwanted attention from men is more accurately described as attention from unwanted men.  Figuring out which side of the line you are on is the difference between courtship and harassment.*


This is a big truth.  It’s also important to remember that minds can change at anytime.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Ive been in leadership ranks and positions for 11 of my 21 years now.  I've never held a divisional interview, administered a PER or PDR or prescribed remedial measures with out witnesses or representation from higher in the CoC.  Hell, I wouldn't be opposed if the recipient of what was happening wanted their own witnesses too. 

It's just smart business.


----------



## CBH99

Brad Sallows said:


> The problem is that some guys never learn that unwanted attention from men is more accurately described as attention from unwanted men.  Figuring out which side of the line you are on is the difference between courtship and harassment.


Extremely well said.


----------



## OldSolduer

Jarnhamar said:


> What if 3 males were gay and 1 was straight and felt uncomfortable near gay men? Would we entertain a straight male not wanting to be alone with someone who was gay?


Of course not - tongue in cheek here but we'd brand the one straight male as homophobic and send him away for re education. And that isn't far from the truth.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Halifax Tar said:


> Ive been in leadership ranks and positions for 11 of my 21 years now.  I've never held a divisional interview, administered a PER or PDR or prescribed remedial measures with out witnesses or representation from higher in the CoC.  Hell, I wouldn't be opposed if the recipient of what was happening wanted their own witnesses too.
> 
> It's just smart business.


You've never taken a sailor somewhere and went over their PDR/PER 1 on 1?


----------



## Jarnhamar

Kilted said:


> Segregating females as much as possible on course is seen as a way to avoid issues.


For sure, I've seen that and understand. 
Depending on how you look at it, it kind of kicks the can down the road. Sooner or later the private who can't keep their hands to themselves will be a MCpl. Or the OCdt becomes a major.



Kilted said:


> This is epically relevant on BMQ when we don't necessary know who it is we have coming into the CAF, not saying that that isn't something to worry about at other rank levels.


Great point.
Can you imagine if day 1 we told BMQ recruits that anyone caught doing that shit would be charged and if found guilty thrown in coveralls and flown out to the CF service prison and detention barracks in Edmonton? And when someone inadvertently does it, their peers watch MPs make the guy or girl disappear? I bet people would be more inclined to keep their hands to themselves.


----------



## Kilted

Jarnhamar said:


> Great point.
> Can you imagine if day 1 we told BMQ recruits that anyone caught doing that shit would be charged and if found guilty thrown in coveralls and flown out to the CF service prison and detention barracks in Edmonton? And when someone inadvertently does it, their peers watch MPs make the guy or girl disappear? I bet people would be more inclined to keep their hands to themselves.


It would be nice if people were actually held accountable for things like that on BMQ.  I saw a BMQ troop assault a staff member once, they allowed him to VR with nothing done about it.


----------



## Kilted

Kilted said:


> It would be nice if people were actually held accountable for things like that on BMQ.  I saw a BMQ troop assault a staff member once, they allowed him to VR with nothing done about it.


I realized as soon as I posted this that I should also say: I wish people would be held accountable at other levels as well.


----------



## OldSolduer

Kilted said:


> I realized as soon as I posted this that I should also say: I wish people would be held accountable at other levels as well.


Ok as to your posts - was the assault reported? Investigated? Were any charges laid?


----------



## Kilted

OldSolduer said:


> Ok as to your posts - was the assault reported? Investigated? Were any charges laid?


It was investigated by Battle School.


----------



## OldSolduer

Kilted said:


> It was investigated by Battle School.


Interesting but why no charges laid? An assault is an assault - unless it was in self defence.


----------



## Kilted

It was not self-defence.  It also occurred on a co-op course, perhaps that may have had something to do with it.


----------



## OldSolduer

Kilted said:


> It was not self-defence.  It also occurred on a co-op course, perhaps that may have had something to do with it.


I'd like to hear the details but understand if you can't share


----------



## Halifax Tar

Jarnhamar said:


> You've never taken a sailor somewhere and went over their PDR/PER 1 on 1?


Never.  I've always done PER/PDR interviews with either MS and PO2 or PO2 and PO1.  My PO2 had me and the chief.

Come to think of it I don't think I've ever received a PER where it was just me and another person.  This may be the first year for that for me. 

Honestly I thought everyone did this.


----------



## TCM621

Halifax Tar said:


> Never.  I've always done PER/PDR interviews with either MS and PO2 or PO2 and PO1.  My PO2 had me and the chief.
> 
> Come to think of it I don't think I've ever received a PER where it was just me and another person.  This may be the first year for that for me.
> 
> Honestly I thought everyone did this.


I don't think I have ever received a PER  that wasn't 1 on 1.


----------



## OldSolduer

TCM621 said:


> I don't think I have ever received a PER  that wasn't 1 on 1.


Same here.


----------



## ballz

Not to derail the current discussion, but a WO I work with proposed that the only solution they might have to Vance is to take away some of his honours and awards, and we were batting the idea back and forth. And then this came out today.... https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/medals-expelled-military-merit-1.6024218

Personally I think if wearing a few participation medals without having been given them is enough to take away the OMM, what Vance is accused of definitely is...

Wondering if anyone thinks this will be considered / is being considered or what they think of the merits of the idea?


----------



## trigger324

Sounds good to me. Strip him. I never was a fan. Let him live the rest of his hypocritical life in exile..


----------



## trigger324

Halifax Tar said:


> Never.  I've always done PER/PDR interviews with either MS and PO2 or PO2 and PO1.  My PO2 had me and the chief.
> 
> Come to think of it I don't think I've ever received a PER where it was just me and another person.  This may be the first year for that for me.
> 
> Honestly I thought everyone did this.


That’s a Navy thing as far as I know. In fact one time when I was a sailor I had to specifically demand a witness(P2)out of the meeting.


----------



## Haggis

trigger324 said:


> Sounds good to me. Strip him. I never was a fan. Let him live the rest of his hypocritical life in exile..


Shouldn't we wait until he admits to or is found guilty of something first?


----------



## trigger324

Absolutely


----------



## ballz

Haggis said:


> Shouldn't we wait until he admits to or is found guilty of something first?



In an ideal world yes. The problem is with our judicial system, we don't actually know if we can charge him.........

It's an advisory committee that makes the decision. To me if there's enough evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities that he's done the things which brought discredit upon the CAF, he should probably be stripped. I don't know if there enough evidence for that yet though to be honest, and without a trial I don't know if that evidence ever comes to light...


----------



## CBH99

Halifax Tar said:


> Never.  I've always done PER/PDR interviews with either MS and PO2 or PO2 and PO1.  My PO2 had me and the chief.
> 
> Come to think of it I don't think I've ever received a PER where it was just me and another person.  This may be the first year for that for me.
> 
> Honestly I thought everyone did this.


This seems to be a unit thing, and not necessarily a branch thing.  In my first 3 years, all of my PER was done with my Sgt. and 2Lt.  (If my memory serves me correctly?  I only vaguely remember the PERs.)  After that, it was 1 on 1 for a year or two, and continued that way with my other unit until I got out.

I honestly hadn't thought about this until now


----------



## OldSolduer

Haggis said:


> Shouldn't we wait until he admits to or is found guilty of something first?


The Spanish Inquisition demands blood 🩸


----------



## FJAG

Haggis said:


> Shouldn't we wait until he admits to or is found guilty of something first?





> "Sentence first–verdict afterward."


Red Queen - Alice in Wonderland

😉


----------



## trigger324

FJAG said:


> Red Queen - Alice in Wonderland
> 
> 😉


Well, he’s got a pretty unique involvement. Especially around the former Op Honour


----------



## Jarnhamar

ballz said:


> Not to derail the current discussion, but a WO I work with proposed that the only solution they might have to Vance is to take away some of his honours and awards, and we were batting the idea back and forth. And then this came out today.... https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/medals-expelled-military-merit-1.6024218
> 
> Personally I think if wearing a few participation medals without having been given them is enough to take away the OMM, what Vance is accused of definitely is...
> 
> Wondering if anyone thinks this will be considered / is being considered or what they think of the merits of the idea?


Think Jon Vance has a few friends in high places that really want him to quietly disappear from the public eye? I bet he could bring a few friends down if he feels cornered.


----------



## MilEME09

Maj.-Gen. Dany Fortin no longer leading vaccine campaign pending military investigation
					

Maj.-Gen. Dany Fortin has left his role with the Public Health Agency of Canada as the military general in charge of the logistics of Canada’s COVID-19 vaccine rollout and is now the subject of a military investigation.




					www.ctvnews.ca
				




Another one bites the dust


----------



## trigger324

Jarnhamar said:


> Think Jon Vance has a few friends in high places that really want him to quietly disappear from the public eye? I bet he could bring a few friends down if he feels cornered.


Let’s go


----------



## Halifax Tar

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fortin-military-investigation-removed-1.6027995
		


Innocent until proven guilty.


----------



## trigger324

Halifax Tar said:


> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fortin-military-investigation-removed-1.6027995
> 
> 
> 
> Innocent until proven guilty.


🔥


----------



## trigger324

I’m just saying. Something TF is up


----------



## brihard

FFS. Seriously?


----------



## Kilted

Cue the anti-vaxcer conspiracy theories.


----------



## Weinie

trigger324 said:


> I’m just saying. Something TF is up


So, having no dog in this fight. 

If "I" anonymously accused you "trigger234' of anything, and you occupied a prominent position, and the arbiters of the approach were snake bitten by the current environment, does that make you automatically guilty?


----------



## Haggis

My guess is that MGen Fortin's departure is linked to allegations by soldiers serving on Op IMPACT who became aware of potential war crimes committed by their Iraqi charges and the CAF did not address this. The story was published in an Ottawa newspaper yesterday.


----------



## brihard

Haggis said:


> My guess is that MGen Fortin's departure is linked to allegations by soldiers serving on Op IMPACT who became aware of potential war crimes committed by their Iraqi charges and the CAF did not address this. The story was published in an Ottawa newspaper yesterday.


Smacking myself on the head, but yes, that makes sense. That’s a particularly ugly and potentially legally complicated situation.


----------



## Weinie

Haggis said:


> My guess is that MGen Fortin's departure is linked to allegations by soldiers serving on Op IMPACT who became aware of potential war crimes committed by their Iraqi charges and the CAF did not address this. The story was published in an Ottawa newspaper yesterday.


Yeah Haggis, I concur, and if that indeed is the reason, then there is some serious rot at the upper levels of gov't, well beyond CAF. However, read the article again for CAF timeframe and Gen Fortin's comments. Telling.


----------



## trigger324

Weinie said:


> So, having no dog in this fight.
> 
> If "I" anonymously accused you "trigger234' of anything, and you occupied a prominent position, and the arbiters of the approach were snake bitten by the current environment, does that make you automatically





Kilted said:


> Cue the anti-vaxcer conspiracy theories.


I’ve had both of mine. Count me out of that.


----------



## trigger324

Weinie said:


> Yeah Haggis, I concur, and if that indeed is the reason, then there is some serious rot at the upper levels of gov't, well beyond CAF.


Nah, it’s down here


----------



## trigger324

Weinie said:


> So, having no dog in this fight.
> 
> If "I" anonymously accused you "trigger234' of anything, and you occupied a prominent position, and the arbiters of the approach were snake bitten by the current environment, does that make you automatically guilty?


No, but once again, root us all out.


----------



## Weinie

trigger324 said:


> Nah, it’s down here


OK. Your disdain for the CAF and our failings are noted. Why are you still here?


----------



## trigger324

Weinie said:


> OK. Your disdain for the CAF and our failings are noted. Why are you still here?


Til it gets sorted out, sir


----------



## OldSolduer

trigger324 said:


> No, but once again, root us all out.


You’re looking at a Spanish Inquisition- seriously.
FYI my grandfather and several other relatives did not fight in wars to uphold freedom and the rule of law to have people go off Willy nilly conducting witch hunts.
FFS we have laws not mob rule


----------



## trigger324

OldSolduer said:


> You’re looking at a Spanish Inquisition- seriously.
> FYI my grandfather and several other relatives did not fight in wars to uphold freedom and the rule of law to have people go off Willy nilly conducting witch hunts.
> FFS we have laws not mob rule


And we’ve got a sexual misconduct problem, that still, remains unresolved.


----------



## OldSolduer

trigger324 said:


> And we’ve got a sexual misconduct problem, that still, remains unresolved.


And again put away your pitchfork. Patience - these things aren’t resolved overnight.


----------



## Weinie

trigger324 said:


> Til it gets sorted out, sir


Well, I bless thee as the anointed who will lead us to salvation.

edited to add.....still waiting, c'mon, um, oooh,  yup,   aaaaahhhhh,                                          sigh.


----------



## kev994

Someone needs to start graphing the GOFO daily scandals, similar to the daily Covid counts. I’ve completely lost track of where we’re at.


----------



## trigger324

Weinie said:


> Well, I bless thee as the anointed who will lead us to salvation.


Stand by to stand by


----------



## Jarnhamar

trigger324 said:


> Stand by to stand by



Adobe Flash Player hit it's end of life and stopped working on DLN so we'll be standing by for quite a while to fix the misconduct problem.


----------



## trigger324

Weinie said:


> Well, I bless thee as the anointed who will lead us to salvation.
> 
> edited to add.....still waiting, c'mon, um, oooh,  yup,   aaaaahhhhh,                                          sigh.


Your edit is acknowledged. CAF getting nowhere fast


----------



## Weinie

trigger324 said:


> Your edit is acknowledged. CAF getting nowhere fast


And your disdain is manifest. We all get it, you despise the leadership of the CAF, of which, according to your avatar, you are a part of.


----------



## trigger324

Weinie said:


> And your disdain is manifest. We all get it, you despise the leadership of the CAF, of which, according to your avatar, you are a part of.


Yup. Absolutely. I’m in. You don’t have a problem with it, maybe? I’m all for calling out every single one of the offenders, that’s all.


----------



## Weinie

trigger324 said:


> Yup. Absolutely. I’m in. You don’t have a problem with it, maybe? I’m all for calling out every single one of the offenders, that’s all.


Be careful for what you wish for.


----------



## trigger324

Weinie said:


> Be careful for what you wish for.


Why?


----------



## OldSolduer

trigger324 said:


> Why?


Because you have done something, said something, ignored something and now the aggreived see the chance to back stab you despite your good record? Do you understand now? Because that is what you are proposing.


----------



## trigger324

OldSolduer said:


> Because you have done something, said something, ignored something and now the aggreived see the chance to back stab you despite your good record? Do you understand now? Because that is what you are proposing.





OldSolduer said:


> Because you have done something, said something, ignored something and now the aggreived see the chance to back stab you despite your good record? Do you understand now? Because that is what you are proposing.


Then God strike me dead here and now if I have. The CAF still has a problem that needs to be sorted out. Again I say, let’s go..


----------



## ballz

Weinie said:


> And your disdain is manifest. We all get it, you despise the leadership of the CAF, of which, according to your avatar, *you are a part of*.



Oh come on dude...

How do you know he hasn't tried to do the right thing numerous times over and been burned by the institution for trying?

I was the Lt trying to hold a WO accountable and my OC was too weak in the knees, and then when he finally came around, the CO was too weak in the knees. They all stabbed me in the back when I needed their support to do the right thing. They didn't even have to do the hard part, stare someone in the face and hold them accountable, they just needed to hide behind their signature on the RM paperwork and get the f**k out of my way and as much as I hated it, was going to take on the shitty task of holding someone accountable who couldn't remember to ensure the troops had food, water, or his own snow shoes for a winter ex. Ultimately that experience led me to starting my CPA and getting the Fk out of this shitshow, and it also led to two good Sergeants going to mental health and now both are out. But I suppose I must be part of the problem by virtue of rank.

Stop defending the institution. It's failed. It's failed it's members, and now it's failed the Canadian public. They chose a military leader to lead the response to the pandemic. And now, in the midst of the pandemic and vaccine roll-out, he's had to be removed. The CAF has failed the Canadian public, stop trying to rope MCpls into it to take a little bit of heat off of your ilk.


----------



## Kilted

trigger324 said:


> Then God strike me dead here and now if I have. The CAF still has a problem that needs to be sorted out. Again I say, let’s go..


I would be leaving the room, if I was in the same room as you right now.


----------



## PuckChaser

Haggis said:


> My guess is that MGen Fortin's departure is linked to allegations by soldiers serving on Op IMPACT who became aware of potential war crimes committed by their Iraqi charges and the CAF did not address this. The story was published in an Ottawa newspaper yesterday.


Better boot every commander of JTF-A...


----------



## trigger324

Kilted said:


> I would be leaving the room, if I was in the same room as you right now.


What are you saying?


----------



## Kilted

You know, at this point, can't we just disband the Airborne again and be done with it?  I'm sure the CBC could dig up an old article, change some words, a few pictures, as long as everyone on this site keeps their mouths shut, enough of the population would believe it.


----------



## Kilted

trigger324 said:


> What are you saying?


I would be leaving the danger area.


----------



## trigger324

Kilted said:


> I would be leaving the danger area.


Well, where’s that?


----------



## Jarnhamar

Kind of makes you wonder about all those high ranking members that suddenly retired a few months ago doesn't it.


----------



## Weinie

ballz said:


> Oh come on dude...
> 
> How do you know he hasn't tried to do the right thing numerous times over and been burned by the institution for trying?
> 
> I was the Lt trying to hold a WO accountable and my OC was too weak in the knees, and then when he finally came around, the CO was too weak in the knees. They all stabbed me in the back when I needed their support to do the right thing. Ultimately it led me to starting my CPA and getting the Fk out of this shitshow, and it also led to two good Sergeants going to mental health and now both are out.
> 
> Stop defending the institution. It's failed. It's failed it's members, and now it's failed the Canadian public. They chose a military leader to lead the response to the pandemic. And now, in the midst of the pandemic and vaccine roll-out, he's had to be removed. The CAF has failed the Canadian public, stop trying to rope MCpls into it to take a little bit of heat off of your ilk.


Sorry you were put in that dilemma, I truly am.

And as a former NCM, I would be aghast to blame my subordinates for my failures.

I am not sure what you consider my "ILK" to be.

I have a longstanding faith in this institution, based upon 38+ years in uniform. I have served both as an NCM, and Officer, and Reg F and Reservist. I have lead, when I was in a position to do so, for the right thing to be done for my subordinates, and they have been, for the most part, given support.

I have never seen, at any point in my career, any institutionalized sexual misconduct, of any sort, nor any malfeasance that required my interjection', indignation, or introspection.

My spouse, who is a Mil Coll grad, has never seen it either. She completed Armoured Phase trg, without any sexual assault/ misogynistic problems, and decided, midway through Ph 4,  that she wished to pursue a different career path, which was granted.

I have seen several bad decisions made within orgs I was involved with, some were ignorant, some were malicious. Where I could, I offered advice. None of those decisions had detrimental personal impact.

I will keep defending the institution, because it is the enduring manifestation of many of my beliefs. To conflate negative actions from some within the institution with the narrative is wrong.

Edited to change a case verb.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

PuckChaser said:


> Better boot every commander of JTF-A...


Moat of them never met an Iraqi.  Just saying


----------



## Takeniteasy

CAF has made its bed well and its being unmade from the right end this time. No sympathies at all but I still have some empathy left!


----------



## daftandbarmy

Survey says...


A crisis of confidence in the Canadian Armed Forces​Paul Wells: Military surveys suggest Canada's armed forces faced a growing morale problem even before the misconduct allegations against chiefs of defence staff

In May 2019, 2,622 members of the Canadian Armed Forces filled out a survey on their feelings about their work environment and career prospects. In one question, respondents were asked whether they agree with the statement: “I have confidence in the leadership of the CAF.”

Among regular force personnel, the term for full-time members as opposed to reservists, 38.5 per cent said they disagreed. Another 25.7 per cent were neutral on the question, and only 35.8 per cent said they had confidence in the leadership.

The 38.5 per cent no-confidence figure was up 6.3 percentage points from the 2017 edition of the same survey, two years earlier. Among non-commissioned members (as distinct from officers), 41.3 per cent now disagreed that they had confidence in the military leadership, up from 34 per cent in 2017. And while the confidence landscape was a little less disastrous in the Air Force, among regular-force personnel in the Navy, the number saying they lacked confidence in CAF leadership was 45.3 per cent, up from 41 per cent in 2017. In the Army the no-confidence vote stood at 42.6 per cent, up nearly 13 points from 29.8 per cent in 2017.

These figures come from the CAF Your Say Survey, a twice-annual tool for tracking CAF members’ feelings about their work. The spring and fall surveys use different questionnaires to track different indicators. Copies of the spring surveys from 2017, 2018 and 2019 were provided to _Maclean’s_ by the Department of National Defence. The 2020 survey’s results are being compiled, a departmental spokesman said.









						A crisis of confidence in the Canadian Armed Forces - Macleans.ca
					

Paul Wells: Military surveys suggest Canada's armed forces faced a growing morale problem even before the misconduct allegations against chiefs of defence staff




					www.macleans.ca


----------



## CBH99

Kilted said:


> You know, at this point, can't we just disband the Airborne again and be done with it?  I'm sure the CBC could dig up an old article, change some words, a few pictures, as long as everyone on this site keeps their mouths shut, enough of the population would believe it.


The sad & scary part is, you are 100% right.

I'm convinced that if the media told the public to start drinking toilet water, 50% of the population would do it no questions asked.


----------



## CBH99

As we all know on this board, the focus of a lot of our chatter in this thread has been about accusations of sexual misconduct, or poor decisions made by people in leadership roles that somehow enabled, ignored, or tried to excuse, conduct that all of us find morally repulsive.

And a vast majority of CAF members are in the same boat.  A vast majority of CAF members are professional, and conduct themselves appropriately.  

Is there a problem with some members in the realm of sexual misconduct and sexual assault?  Absolutely.  Is the entire organization going to be painted in a bad light, regardless of anything, due to these members?  Yes.  Does it suck 100x more that the members being focused on in the media just so happen to be pretty much the entire senior staff?  Oooohhhhh yes.  


As I had said in a few of my posts - in my entire time in the Army, I can honestly say I didn't observe or experience any kind of sexual misconduct in the slightest.  Quite the opposite actually - the female members in our unit (which there were quite a few, given the size of the unit) - if anything they were probably some of the safest females around.  If anybody had said or done anything inappropriate, they had about 80 guys who would have their back in a second.  Whether it was at the unit, on course, or on tour - I personally didn't witness, or even hear about, any kind of sexual misconduct.  Our CoC was also amazing - truly - I wish I had appreciated them more when I was younger.  Looking back, our CoC was a solid team full of really down to earth, good leaders.

I have chatted with a few other members on this board in private chat, and their experience was similar to mine.  

Others, as we've discussed above, haven't been so fortunate.   




So getting away from the topic of our senior leadership and their current scandals - albeit briefly, I'm sure - I'd like to pose an open question.  And I'll do some digging tonight to see what I can find to post.

The Question - How does the CAF as an organization, overall, compare to other NATO militaries in regards to sexual misconduct?  Do other countries have something similar in concept to OP HONOUR?  

(Obviously nobody else is experiencing almost their entire senior staff having sexual scandals all at once, but overall - how do other militaries compare in terms of their progressive policies, openness and eagerness to deal with it, acknowledged volume of incidents, etc?)


----------



## SupersonicMax

Weinie said:


> I have never seen, at any point in my career, any institutionalized sexual misconduct, of any sort, nor any malfeasance that required my interjection', indignation, or introspection.


Is it possible that your own biases blind you to the institutional flaws?  As Annalise Schamuhn said, it is like explaining water to a fish?

The fact that five GOs are being pushed out early because of sexual misconduct is only a case of “a couple of bad apples” rather than a system that actually breeds them?

I think it’s time for you (and everyone in a position of authority) to take a deep look into your own biaises and see where your own actions and beliefs may contribute to the culture that leads to the issues we are facing.


----------



## little jim

I think we have been lucky in a way, considering the comment above of “a system that breads them”

The media is focused on the failures of some of our senior leaders, but within the past couple of months there have been, what two RSMs removed and a couple dozen NCM charged with these offences (mainly charged in civ court based on rumint). We have been lucky in that respect. 

FWIW I think everyone has to take whatever comes out of this new comd To create a new culture where people act as rational humans; everyone needs to get onboard with this one


----------



## trigger324

CBH99 said:


> The sad & scary part is, you are 100% right.
> 
> I'm convinced that if the media told the public to start drinking toilet water, 50% of the population would do it no questions asked.


What’s wrong with the media? Are they reporting things you just don’t want to hear? We all know of a certain guy who insists the media is the enemy of the people. He doesn’t like them because they say things he doesn’t want to hear and he’s still got a grip on 50% of a population who would definitely drink toilet water no questions asked if he told them to.

Don’t blame the media. If it wasn’t for the media the sexual misconduct in the military would still be hidden.


----------



## Halifax Tar

The G&M is reporting it's sexual misconduct









						General in charge of vaccine logistics under military investigation for alleged sexual misconduct, source says
					

A source told The Globe and Mail that military investigators are looking into an allegation of sexual misconduct that took place before Major-General Dany Fortin became a general in 2015




					www.theglobeandmail.com


----------



## Good2Golf

SupersonicMax said:


> Is it possible that your own biases blind you to the institutional flaws?  As Annalise Schamuhn said, it is like explaining water to a fish?


No more so than the part you played in institutionally making the current Cmdt 2CFFTS’ career development more difficult because of your and other males’ invisible biases that you failed to see throughout your own career.


----------



## OldSolduer

Everyone has biases whether you know it or not.

I’m going to say this again:
Be careful what you wish for.


----------



## trigger324

OldSolduer said:


> Everyone has biases whether you know it or not.
> 
> I’m going to say this again:
> Be careful what you wish for.


That’s a line you’ve commonly used the last few days. Is there something you know about that you’re not letting on?


----------



## YZT580

OldSolduer said:


> Everyone has biases whether you know it or not.
> 
> I’m going to say this again:
> Be careful what you wish for.


amen and amen!


----------



## OldSolduer

trigger324 said:


> That’s a line you’ve commonly used the last few days. Is there something you know about that you’re not letting on?


No.


----------



## Haggis

Halifax Tar said:


> The G&M is reporting it's sexual misconduct





Haggis said:


> My guess is that MGen Fortin's departure is linked to allegations by soldiers serving on Op IMPACT who became aware of potential war crimes committed by their Iraqi charges and the CAF did not address this. The story was published in an Ottawa newspaper yesterday.


I'm not surprised but also disappointed that I was wrong.  SMH....


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

trigger324 said:


> That’s a line you’ve commonly used the last few days. Is there something you know about that you’re not letting on?


Yes.....he knows that you are a problem Mr McCarthy.


----------



## MilEME09

Haggis said:


> I'm not surprised but also disappointed that I was wrong.  SMH....


You know it says something about our organization when we can loose 5 GOFOs and carry on like nothing happened. Seriously if we we didn't have 130+ GOFOs we might of been in trouble. However since we are top heavy we carry on.


----------



## Halifax Tar

MilEME09 said:


> You know it says something about our organization when we can loose 5 GOFOs and carry on like nothing happened. Seriously if we we didn't have 130+ GOFOs we might of been in trouble. However since we are top heavy we carry on.


To a sickly season and a bloody war


----------



## Jarnhamar

MilEME09 said:


> You know it says something about our organization when we can loose 5 GOFOs and carry on like nothing happened. Seriously if we we didn't have 130+ GOFOs we might of been in trouble. However since we are top heavy we carry on.


Quite the foresight someone had it seems. Almost like....witchcraft.


----------



## trigger324

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Yes.....he knows that you are a problem Mr McCarthy.


Genuine question. How am I a problem? Am I saying things you don’t want to hear? And who’s Mr McCarthy? I’m not resorting to name calling.


----------



## Halifax Tar

trigger324 said:


> Genuine question. How am I a problem? Am I saying things you don’t want to hear? And who’s Mr McCarthy? I’m not resorting to name calling.











						McCarthyism - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## trigger324

Halifax Tar said:


> McCarthyism - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org


LOL! I’ve been called many things by many people in my life. First time I’ve ever been called a Communist though, I must say.


----------



## Halifax Tar

trigger324 said:


> LOL! I’ve been called many things by many people in my life. First time I’ve ever been called a Communist though, I must say.


Not me man, I'm just trying to answer your Q.


----------



## brihard

Halifax Tar said:


> To a sickly season and a bloody war


Sloppy Socials and Fondley Fingers shouldn’t figure so prominently in succession planning...


----------



## trigger324

Halifax Tar said:


> Not me man, I'm just trying to answer your Q.


All good my friend, I knew it wasn’t you. I just never made a connection between McCarthyism and this particular thread.


----------



## mariomike

trigger324 said:


> I’m not resorting to name calling.


Thank you.


----------



## Jarnhamar

It's today's version of accusing people of being climate change deniers or being far right.


----------



## mariomike

> he knows that you are a problem Mr McCarthy.





trigger324 said:


> First time I’ve ever been called a Communist though, I must say.


I doubt anyone ever called Senator McCarthy a communist. ( If that is who the OP is referring to? )


----------



## Halifax Tar

Jarnhamar said:


> It's today's version of accusing people of being climate change deniers or being far right.


I think what we are witnessing is people with personal attachments to individuals or a shared organizational allegiance (Think Cap Badge, Rank or Corps).

It's never easy to learn a respected and revered colleague, friend or leader is tainted or down right disgrace or criminal.  Some wont accept factual findings that run counter to their emotions.


----------



## dimsum

Halifax Tar said:


> I think what we are witnessing is people with personal attachments to individuals or a shared organizational allegiance (Think Cap Badge, Rank or Corps).
> 
> It's never easy to learn a respected and revered colleague, friend or leader is tainted or down right disgrace or criminal.  Some wont accept factual findings that run counter to their emotions.


Or, that the more the public sees this, they think that everyone in the CAF (including you and me) are doing the same thing, just not exposed yet.  

Saying "not everyone is like that" gets pretty tough when every week there is another instance that someone high up did something 20+ years ago.


----------



## Halifax Tar

dimsum said:


> Or, that the more the public sees this, they think that everyone in the CAF (including you and me) are doing the same thing, just not exposed yet.
> 
> Saying "not everyone is like that" gets pretty tough when every week there is another instance that someone high up did something 20+ years ago.


I was referring some posters stead fast insistence of "witch hunts and slippery slopes".

Do we have a statute of limitations on sex related offences in Canada or the CAF ? 

It might be wise to remember that our actions as a A/Slt or OS may come back to haunt us when we are a Snr Officer or Chief, and perhaps keeping ones hands to them selves and conducting ourselves in an honorable manner will seldom get us in trouble.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Halifax Tar said:


> I was referring some posters stead fast insistence of "witch hunts and slippery slopes".
> 
> Do we have a statute of limitations on sex related offences in Canada or the CAF ?
> 
> It might be wise to remember that our actions as a A/Slt or OS may come back to haunt you when your a Snr Officer or Chief, and perhaps keeping ones hands to them selves and conducting ourselves in an honorable manner will seldom get you in trouble.



The long arm of the law reaches to the graveyard gates, apparently:

"In Canada there is no time limit (called a statute of limitations) on bringing criminal charges for sexual assault – meaning you can swear a criminal complaint and file charges at any point in your lifetime. However if your abuser has died, the criminal courts will not be able to proceed with charges."









						Legal Options for Sexual Abuse Survivors | Legal Information Topics | Articles on Legal Themes | What is LISNS? - Legal Information Society of Nova Scotia
					

Learn about legal options for sexual abuse survivors




					www.legalinfo.org


----------



## brihard

Halifax Tar said:


> I was referring some posters stead fast insistence of "witch hunts and slippery slopes".
> 
> Do we have a statute of limitations on sex related offences in Canada or the CAF ?
> 
> It might be wise to remember that our actions as a A/Slt or OS may come back to haunt you when your a Snr Officer or Chief, and perhaps keeping ones hands to them selves and conducting ourselves in an honorable manner will seldom get you in trouble.


There is no ‘statute of limitations’ in indictable offences. All criminal sexual offences are at least hybrid, meaning they can be prosecuted by indictment should crown choose. In the case of historical offences, charges are laid based on the offense as it existed at the time.


----------



## Halifax Tar

daftandbarmy said:


> The long arm of the law reaches to the graveyard gates, apparently:
> 
> "In Canada there is no time limit (called a statute of limitations) on bringing criminal charges for sexual assault – meaning you can swear a criminal complaint and file charges at any point in your lifetime. However if your abuser has died, the criminal courts will not be able to proceed with charges."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Legal Options for Sexual Abuse Survivors | Legal Information Topics | Articles on Legal Themes | What is LISNS? - Legal Information Society of Nova Scotia
> 
> 
> Learn about legal options for sexual abuse survivors
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.legalinfo.org





brihard said:


> There is no ‘statute of limitations’ in indictable offences. All criminal sexual offences are at least hybrid, meaning they can be prosecuted by indictment should crown choose. In the case of historical offences, charges are laid based on the offense as it existed at the time.



Thank you both for the education.  Now lets hope we are seeing the crest of the tide now and the wave of sexual misconduct accusations will recede.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Halifax Tar said:


> Thank you both for the education.  Now lets hope we are seeing the crest of the tide now and the wave of sexual misconduct accusations will recede.



On the contrary, I think we might have been in the eye of the storm for awhile, which means coming up next is:


----------



## SupersonicMax

Good2Golf said:


> No more so than the part you played in institutionally making the current Cmdt 2CFFTS’ career development more difficult because of your and other males’ invisible biases that you failed to see throughout your own career.


Have I excluded the Fighter Force in that introspection?  Unless you believe that no one within the Fighter Force is in a position of authority. It is time for all to think about how to do better individually and as an institution. We can’t erase the past but we can (and better) learn from it.


----------



## brihard

What I hope is that we are seeing the ‘catching up’. Victims coming out of the woodwork now that the environment is permissive and at least a bit more supportive. Going forward I hope that such things are dealt with in something closer to real time. Curb the behaviour as it happens, or as close to it as possible. Identify, investigate, and where appropriate charge/otherwise handle cases in a timely manner so that we DON’T have cases coming out of the woodwork from a decade ago and causing institutional tumult.

Canadians demand and deserve a CAF that reflects our values. Utter intolerance of sexual aggression and predation has to be high on that list. What is happening is that impunity is going away. It’s no longer going to be an easy ‘get away with it’ thing.

CAF needs to hammer this transition home quickly, because Canadians ALSO need and deserve a professional military that can kill people and break their shit in the defence of the national interest under the lawful direction of the civil authority. I would be amazed if CAF’s ability to credibly and sustainably deploy troops and use force were not to some extent compromised by everything that’s happening, most visibly but not exclusively in its senior executives.

There needs to be a purge. Not one of people, but one of attitudes and behaviours. Yes, this will be incompatible with some individuals continuing to serve, but it is what it is. The new normal needs to be established so that the institution can regain its focus on controlled and disciplined violence.


----------



## Good2Golf

SupersonicMax said:


> Have I excluded the Fighter Force in that introspection?  Unless you believe that no one within the Fighter Force is in a position of authority. It is time for all to think about how to do better individually and as an institution. We can’t erase the past but we can (and better) learn from it.


Perhaps you could have acknowledged your own biases at the same time you were taking Weimar to task for his.  Leadership should be proactive on the issue, not reactionary.


----------



## Remius

I remember when we tackled this stuff back in the 90’s.  SHARP and diversity training.  X’s and O’s.

Then throughout the 2000s.

now heading into 2021 we seem to have the same issues.  This seems to be more than just a few bad apples.

so many bad apples that have made it to the top.  Seems to me the system may have had a hand in getting them there and getting away with it for so long.  But who knows. 

But it seems we have more people coming forward and more bad apples being removed.

Maybe it’s because we have new generation of soldiers that joined post 2000 that are tired of putting up with this kind of thing.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Except I never said I didn’t have biases (in fact, I think I have been explicit that we all have to do better; that includes myself).


----------



## Good2Golf

SupersonicMax said:


> Except I never said I didn’t have biases (in fact, I think I have been explicit that we all have to do better; that includes myself).


There’s a difference these days between not saying you don’t, and affirmatively saying you do.  I have them, and I’ve said it before. Old Soldier said he has them and we need to be better.  You were quick to throw shade on Weinie, but there wasn’t a concurrent self-admission.  Every element of the CAF could do better.  Heck, maybe some day, the fighter force will even have a woman commanding officer at a line squadron like all the other RCAF communities have had?


----------



## SupersonicMax

Good2Golf said:


> There’s a difference these days between not saying you don’t, and affirmatively saying you do.  I have them, and I’ve said it before. Old Soldier said he has them and we need to be better.  You were quick to throw shade on Weinie, but there wasn’t a concurrent self-admission.  Every element of the CAF could do better.  Heck, maybe some day, the fighter force will even have a woman commanding officer at a line squadron like all the other RCAF communities have had?


Sure. Saying we all have biases is not enough for you. You can keep picking on me, that’s okay...  Whatever I say, you’ll find ways to criticize.


----------



## OldSolduer

OldSolduer said:


> No.


So I'm in the midst of writing why I think we as a nation and you as a member of the CAF need to be careful. Its lengthy - for me anything over three paragraphs is lengthy. Be patient.


----------



## OldSolduer

trigger324 said:


> LOL! I’ve been called many things by many people in my life. First time I’ve ever been called a Communist though, I must say.


McCarthy wasn't a communist.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> LOL! I’ve been called many things by many people in my life. First time I’ve ever been called a Communist though, I must say.



You're being compared to the Red-hunters, not the Reds.  I mourn for your comprehension.


----------



## mariomike

OldSolduer said:


> McCarthy wasn't a communist.


I "concur".


mariomike said:


> I doubt anyone ever called Senator McCarthy a communist. ( If that is who the OP is referring to? )


----------



## OldSolduer

Brad Sallows said:


> You're being compared to the Red-hunters, not the Reds.  I mourn for your comprehension.


History like this isn't taught in any school that I know of. The Holocaust is glossed over, as is the behavior of the Nazis and the Japanese in World War Two


----------



## mariomike

trigger324 said:


> I just never made a connection between McCarthyism and this particular thread.


Perhaps trigger324 understands "McCarthyism"?


Brad Sallows said:


> You're being compared to the Red-hunters, not the Reds.  I mourn for your comprehension.





> he knows that you are a problem Mr McCarthy.





trigger324 said:


> I’m not resorting to name calling.


Nice to see you took the high road.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> now heading into 2021 we seem to have the same issues.  This seems to be more than just a few bad apples.



Because there's a lag.  The CAF were delivering CYA sessions well before I encountered them elsewhere, so widespread change (ie. the socially-evolving kind) started later than most people recall and consequently there is still a generation (plus) serving that has habits that can not be unlearned.  And I'm not convinced that "change" has really reached down as far and as fast, or that "change" competes as effectively against biology, as some people believe.  Real evolution takes time.  Meanwhile, the aforementioned CYA didn't do a very good job of coming across as anything more than CYA, hence the lack of enforcement.


----------



## mariomike

OldSolduer said:


> History like this isn't taught in any school that I know of. The Holocaust is glossed over, as is the behavior of the Nazis and the Japanese in World War Two


I think they taught us about the Holocaust in school, if I recall correctly.

At what age would you say showing film and photos of it is appropriate for children?

The school was taking us kids to see "Sound of Music" back then at the show. That's all we knew about the war.

As far as U.S. Senator McCarthy was concerned, we studied Canadian and local history.


----------



## trigger324

Brad Sallows said:


> You're being compared to the Red-hunters, not the Reds.  I mourn for your comprehension.


Personally, I mourn for the complacency of attitudes towards the CAF ridding itself of this sexual misconduct scandal that is exhibited by a few people in this thread.


----------



## TCM621

Remius said:


> I remember when we tackled this stuff back in the 90’s.  SHARP and diversity training.  X’s and O’s.
> 
> Then throughout the 2000s.
> 
> now heading into 2021 we seem to have the same issues.  This seems to be more than just a few bad apples.
> 
> so many bad apples that have made it to the top.  Seems to me the system may have had a hand in getting them there and getting away with it for so long.  But who knows.
> 
> But it seems we have more people coming forward and more bad apples being removed.
> 
> Maybe it’s because we have new generation of soldiers that joined post 2000 that are tired of putting up with this kind of thing.


Maybe it is because all these bulls hit training sessions don't fix the problem. The problem is simple. As much as I hate to give the RCR credit for anything, "Never pass a fault" is a good motto to live by. It normally is used to Jack someone up for having a strap unrolled but it's the harder issues that are passed by.

There is a big difference between that and a witch hunt like trigger364 is calling for. If someone is handsy at a mess party, he should be removed and read the riot act the next morning with his heels together. If he has a habit of doing that maybe counseling and probation is more appropriate. We don't however go looking for anyone who may, or may not, have been handsy in the past. You young'uns may not believe it but the 80s and 90s were different. We didn't find sexual partners with our thumbs. Most women didn't tell you what they wanted you went by trial and error. Like any experiment, sometimes it worked and sometimes it blew up in your face. You learned and didn't do it again.

Edit: you young'uns wasn't directed at you.


----------



## trigger324

Remius said:


> Maybe it’s because we have new generation of soldiers that joined post 2000 that are tired of putting up with this kind of thing.


And the old guard can’t handle that...


----------



## mariomike

TCM621 said:


> You young'uns may not believe it but the 80s and 90s were different.


Glad I came of age in the 1970's aka "The Decade of Decadence."  

Before AIDS took a lot of the fun out of it.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

TCM621 said:


> Maybe it is because all these bulls hit training sessions don't fix the problem. The problem is simple. As much as I hate to give the RCR credit for anything, "Never pass a fault" is a good motto to live by. It normally is used to Jack someone up for having a strap unrolled but it's the harder issues that are passed by.
> 
> There is a big difference between that and a witch hunt like trigger364 is calling for. If someone is handsy at a mess party, he should be removed and read the riot act the next morning with his heels together. If he has a habit of doing that maybe counseling and probation is more appropriate. We don't however go looking for anyone who may, or may not, have been handsy in the past. You young'uns may not believe it but the 80s and 90s were different. We didn't find sexual partners with our thumbs. Most women didn't tell you what they wanted you went by trial and error. Like any experiment, sometimes it worked and sometimes it blew up in your face. You learned and didn't do it again.
> 
> Edit: you young'uns wasn't directed at you.


What do you define as "handsy?" 

If one of your subordinates comes to you after a Troop party and tells you that another drunk soldier cornered them at the party, grabbed them by the waist, touched their chest and posterior and propositioned them. They broke away, but are shaken by the event. 

What would your actions be?


----------



## Good2Golf

SupersonicMax said:


> Sure. Saying we all have biases is not enough for you. You can keep picking on me, that’s okay...  Whatever I say, you’ll find ways to criticize.


Finding fault with others and only begrudgingly noting your own faiblesse when called on it isn’t what I’d call ‘picking on you.’  If your tone and critique of Weinie had not been so sanctimonious, I doubt it would have drawn my or anyone else’s attentions.  

I will more directly  identify my own biases, especially as I implied in my previous post to you, regarding the fighter force.  It was in that environment that I experienced what I would categorize as the only major environment of misogynistic/sexually harassing conduct.  I reported what I had witnessed to the unit CO, who literally laughed at me, and later to the Base Commander who gave me a polite blow off.  I was on OJT at the time, so followed up with my own CoC later, who acknowledged that what transpired was unacceptable, and sent the concern higher, but also noted that I could contact the SIU (the NIS back in the day) as well.  I did that as well, although I didn’t hear back after the initial rounds of statements.  I have stayed in touch over the years with the target of the harassment, and they appreciated that someone separately took the effort to pursue resolution of an unacceptable condition.  Others I know well had issues of a similar nature more recently, so it remains extant to a degree.  So, yes...I am biased when I hear words from some to others that accuse of bias or blindness (your words to Weinie about Annalise Schamuhn’s ‘explaining water to fish’ analogy) yet are thin on noting ones own points for improvement.

Regards 
G2G


----------



## Brad Sallows

> If one of your [peers] comes to you after a [] party and tells you that another drunk [] cornered them at the party, grabbed them by the waist, touched their chest and posterior and propositioned them. They broke away, but are shaken by the event.



"Welcome to UBC".


----------



## SupersonicMax

Good2Golf said:


> Finding fault with others and only begrudgingly noting your own faiblesse when called on it isn’t what I’d call ‘picking on you.’  If your tone and critique of Weinie had not been so sanctimonious, I doubt it would have drawn my or anyone else’s attentions.
> 
> I will more directly  identify my own biases, especially as I implied in my previous post to you, regarding the fighter force.  It was in that environment that I experienced what I would categorize as the only major environment of misogynistic/sexually harassing conduct.  I reported what I had witnessed to the unit CO, who literally laughed at me, and later to the Base Commander who gave me a polite blow off.  I was on OJT at the time, so followed up with my own CoC later, who acknowledged that what transpired was unacceptable, and sent the concern higher, but also noted that I could contact the SIU (the NIS back in the day) as well.  I did that as well, although I didn’t hear back after the initial rounds of statements.  I have stayed in touch over the years with the target of the harassment, and they appreciated that someone separately took the effort to pursue resolution of an unacceptable condition.  Others I know well had issues of a similar nature more recently, so it remains extant to a degree.  So, yes...I am biased when I hear words from some to others that accuse of bias or blindness (your words to Weinie about Annalise Schamuhn’s ‘explaining water to fish’ analogy) yet are thin on noting ones own points for improvement.
> 
> Regards
> G2G


So, you expect everyone to air out everything they have done or that their community has done over the years to contribute to the environment we are in today?  As I have said before several times, we _all_ have biases that led to the environment we are living in today. That includes you, me, senior CAF leadership, junior leaders, etc. Because I have biases doesn’t mean I can’t bring others to realize they do as well. At least I realize I have them and the institution has issues rather than be blind to the problems the institution is facing. 

Good on you for reporting this specific incident. Now, which of your behaviours contributed (in a big or small way) to the environment we live in today? Why did you behave in those ways? These are the questions we should all be asking ourselves to uncover both our personal biases and the institution’s. How many time have you given a PERX to someone on MATA despite having even 1 day of observable work? Why did you do so?  Doesn’t that contribute to the marginalization of women in the grand scheme of things?


----------



## Infanteer

TCM621 said:


> If someone is handsy at a mess party, he should be removed and read the riot act the next morning with his heels together. If he has a habit of doing that maybe counseling and probation is more appropriate.


This is one of the reasons the CAF is in the position it is in now.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Infanteer said:


> This is one of the reasons the CAF is in the position it is in now.


Restorative Justice perhaps ? 









						Restorative justice - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## Kilted

Considering that many of the recent allegations against GO/FO appear to have occurred in the past, based on what we know about them, and appear to have been triggered by the allegations against General Vance, is it not conceivable that they will start to taper off as there are fewer and fewer issues left in the closet that people are willing to come forward about?


----------



## brihard

TangoTwoBravo said:


> What do you define as "handsy?"
> 
> If one of your subordinates comes to you after a Troop party and tells you that another drunk soldier cornered them at the party, grabbed them by the waist, touched their chest and posterior and propositioned them. They broke away, but are shaken by the event.
> 
> What would your actions be?



There are two pressing priorities that may not be fully aligned: the best interest and wishes of the victim, and the imperative to maintain discipline.

Personally, I would advise the victim that they have my full support if they want to bring the matter to the attention of the appropriate police service. I would also advise them that there will be an appropriate administrative followup on the behaviour either way.


----------



## Haggis

TangoTwoBravo said:


> What do you define as "handsy?"
> 
> If one of your subordinates comes to you after a Troop party and tells you that another drunk soldier cornered them at the party, grabbed them by the waist, touched their chest and posterior and propositioned them. They broke away, but are shaken by the event.
> 
> What would your actions be?


I had a similar occurrence brought to my attention many years ago. Two opposite gender peers were in an establishment following a Remembrance Day parade. The male got handsy. The female responded with at least two quick shots to the face, effectively delivered.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Haggis said:


> I had a similar occurrence brought to my attention many years ago. Two opposite gender peers were in an establishment following a Remembrance Day parade. The male got handsy. The female responded with at least two quick shots to the face, effectively delivered.



I have seen this in Scotland on more than one occasion. 

Perhaps some cross training from strapping Scottish lasses with a pint in one hand, a fag dangling, and a closed fist right hook?


----------



## Remius

trigger324 said:


> And the old guard can’t handle that...


Believe it or not but a lot of the old guard have helped to enable a lot of people to actually be able to come forward.


----------



## lenaitch

Shake-up at Project Trauma Support -  doctor and chair of Board resign:



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/project-trauma-doctor-manuela-joannou-steps-down-1.6028668


----------



## Jarnhamar

lenaitch said:


> Shake-up at Project Trauma Support -  doctor and chair of Board resign:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/project-trauma-doctor-manuela-joannou-steps-down-1.6028668





> Rutherford came under fire by past participants for signing a letter with Joannou in response to CBC's original story that did not contain an apology for what happened. The letter also said that participants should not be speaking publicly about the program since it's confidential.



Classic CAF right there. Some good old victim blaming.


----------



## OldSolduer

If I may interject for a few moments I need to explain something.

A few of you ask why I say "be careful what you wish for" and "witch hunt". During times like this logic, reason and often the rule of law are forgotten and can lead to tragic results.

I will try to follow the principles of military communication - Accuracy, Brevity and Clarity - but I may not hit all three - or I might.

I am not a student of history, but a fan of history. If we have historians out there please feel free to correct me. 

One of the first examples are the actual Witch Hunts that took place about 400 years ago in Scotland and England. Quite a number of people - mostly women - were accused of being witches and were burnt at the stake - alive. The point is that mere accusations cannot justify punishment. The rule of law must prevail. Innocent until proven guilty.

The Spanish Inquisition (not the Monty Python one - no soft cushions here) was a particularly nasty time. Heretics were tortured into confessing whether they were guilty or not - then put to death. Again, no trial and if there was it was a sham.

Tail Gunner Joe MCcarthy - a US Senator - saw Communists every where. Those who would not confess to being Communists or turn over names of Communists were blacklisted. This happened in 1954 - one of his opponents completed suicide. 

Closer to our time the Satanic Panic of the 1980s - 40 or so years ago now - were responsible for ruining the lives of people who in no way had done anything wrong.  









						Demonic rituals, false confessions, ruined lives: Satanic Panic is still alive and well
					

The collective fears that consumed the US in the 1980s and ’90s are still alive and well — all the way through QAnon and beyond.




					www.vox.com
				




My point is that while you may want to root out sexual misconduct you best be careful how you do it. 

Here's a question: What is sexual misconduct? How is it defined? 

Should the CAF release anyone for sexual misconduct no matter how insignificant the incident may be? 

My second last point - we don't burn people at the stake literally anymore. We  have more artful ways of making peoples lives miserable.

Last point - we have all said something, done something or ignored something in the past that caused people to raise their eyebrows. One day that thing you forgot all about might come to bite you in the butt.


----------



## Haggis

lenaitch said:


> Shake-up at Project Trauma Support -  doctor and chair of Board resign:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/project-trauma-doctor-manuela-joannou-steps-down-1.6028668


I'm not going to say I'm surprised.


----------



## Haggis

Jarnhamar said:


> Classic CAF right there. Some good old victim blaming.


If participants did not sign an NDA, then the operators of PTS have nothing to justify this action.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Haggis said:


> I'm not going to say I'm surprised.



You mean this wasn't already an SOP?

"Rutherford wrote he personally would have never allowed a convicted sex offender to be a peer mentor. He is now recommending new screening measures, including criminal background checks, he said."


----------



## CBH99

trigger324 said:


> What’s wrong with the media? Are they reporting things you just don’t want to hear? We all know of a certain guy who insists the media is the enemy of the people. He doesn’t like them because they say things he doesn’t want to hear and he’s still got a grip on 50% of a population who would definitely drink toilet water no questions asked if he told them to.
> 
> Don’t blame the media. If it wasn’t for the media the sexual misconduct in the military would still be hidden.


I totally agree with you, 100%.  

This statement wasn’t totally targeting the media, and in the context of the sexual assault scandals happening right now - I should have worded that differently.  


**You are 100% right.  In the context of the sexual assault scandals, I DO want the media reporting on it.  Absolutely.   (I truly wish none of this had happened, and therefore wouldn’t be in the news - obviously.)   BUT... when it comes to this situation, I do absolutely want people held accountable to the highest degree.  
(sometimes I get scrolling through various threads and start casually posting in the same context/voice in my head, which is casually conversational.)

Btw - the toilet water comment is a casual saying around where I live.  Clearly not meant to be taken literally 🤦🏼‍♂️ Like FFS...


The point of my post (which after reading it again just now, I absolutely could have been a lot more direct) was the question I asked at the end.  

Out of general curiosity, I am curious how other NATO countries compare in regards to issues of sexual misconduct in their ranks, programs similar to OP HONOUR they have, etc etc.  

**Just to clarify so trigger324 isn’t triggered — obviously the question isn’t to compare and downplay anything along the lines of “well we are doing better than those guys...”

Just a curiosity question is all.  Going to do some digging tonight.


----------



## CBH99

Jarnhamar said:


> Classic CAF right there. Some good old victim blaming.


Jarn, I’m a huge fan and quite enjoy reading your posts.

I am lost on the one above though.

The CAF isn’t victim blaming here.  In this case, it’s the management of the program.  (Which isn’t CAF funded or staffed, and is attended by female members of multiple agencies.)

I’m with you that it absolutely victim blaming.   But from my understanding of the article, it was someone associated with the program that made those comments, not the CAF.  

(I may have missed something though.  Just catching up on reading & posts now)


----------



## trigger324

OldSolduer said:


> If I may interject for a few moments I need to explain something.
> 
> A few of you ask why I say "be careful what you wish for" and "witch hunt". During times like this logic, reason and often the rule of law are forgotten and can lead to tragic results.
> 
> I will try to follow the principles of military communication - Accuracy, Brevity and Clarity - but I may not hit all three - or I might.
> 
> I am not a student of history, but a fan of history. If we have historians out there please feel free to correct me.
> 
> One of the first examples are the actual Witch Hunts that took place about 400 years ago in Scotland and England. Quite a number of people - mostly women - were accused of being witches and were burnt at the stake - alive. The point is that mere accusations cannot justify punishment. The rule of law must prevail. Innocent until proven guilty.
> 
> The Spanish Inquisition (not the Monty Python one - no soft cushions here) was a particularly nasty time. Heretics were tortured into confessing whether they were guilty or not - then put to death. Again, no trial and if there was it was a sham.
> 
> Tail Gunner Joe MCcarthy - a US Senator - saw Communists every where. Those who would not confess to being Communists or turn over names of Communists were blacklisted. This happened in 1954 - one of his opponents completed suicide.
> 
> Closer to our time the Satanic Panic of the 1980s - 40 or so years ago now - were responsible for ruining the lives of people who in no way had done anything wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Demonic rituals, false confessions, ruined lives: Satanic Panic is still alive and well
> 
> 
> The collective fears that consumed the US in the 1980s and ’90s are still alive and well — all the way through QAnon and beyond.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point is that while you may want to root out sexual misconduct you best be careful how you do it.
> 
> Here's a question: What is sexual misconduct? How is it defined?
> 
> Should the CAF release anyone for sexual misconduct no matter how insignificant the incident may be?
> 
> My second last point - we don't burn people at the stake literally anymore. We  have more artful ways of making peoples lives miserable.
> 
> Last point - we have all said something, done something or ignored something in the past that caused people to raise their eyebrows. One day that thing you forgot all about might come to bite you in the butt.


Ok. I catch your drift, that you’re all for warning me to be careful for wishing that the problem we have on our hands is dealt with swiftly and effectively, but in all honesty that is my suggestion. Since I joined this discussion earlier in the week I’ve offered that as my wish and my solution, but frankly I’ve seen no offering of a solution from you, other than a guarded warning not to wish for it with the above stories to augment it. What do you suggest should happen for this situation to go away? ie offenders are dealt with accordingly and Mercedes Stephenson et al don’t have to keep bringing up the transgressions.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Kill every living human??

Everyone knows the answer.....just like in New York City, "if you see something, say something".


----------



## OldSolduer

trigger324 said:


> Ok. I catch your drift, that you’re all for warning me to be careful for wishing that the problem we have on our hands is dealt with swiftly and effectively, but in all honesty that is my suggestion. Since I joined this discussion earlier in the week I’ve offered that as my wish and my solution, but frankly I’ve seen no offering of a solution from you, other than a guarded warning not to wish for it with the above stories to augment it. What do you suggest should happen for this situation to go away? ie offenders are dealt with accordingly and Mercedes Stephenson et al don’t have to keep bringing up the transgressions.


Swiftly and aggressively isn’t always the best way to go.

in depth investigation - which take time - IMO are whats needed.


----------



## Jarnhamar

CBH99 said:


> Jarn, I’m a huge fan and quite enjoy reading your posts.
> 
> I am lost on the one above though.
> 
> The CAF isn’t victim blaming here.  In this case, it’s the management of the program.  (Which isn’t CAF funded or staffed, and is attended by female members of multiple agencies.)
> 
> I’m with you that it absolutely victim blaming.   But from my understanding of the article, it was someone associated with the program that made those comments, not the CAF.
> 
> (I may have missed something though.  Just catching up on reading & posts now)


Appreciate that thank you, likewise.

This program isn't managed by the CAF but they appear to use a lot of CAF staff so there's definitely going to be influence.

Paul Rutherford who I quoted is a retired CAF brigadier-general. His first response contained no apology nor I'm guessing acknowledgement wrong doing when it was clearly a huge what the fuck moment.
His response ignored victims except for suggesting they shouldn't have said anything because the program is confidential. IMO victim blaming. Real nice.

Our leaders aren't getting it. Their first reaction continues to not recognize victims or put them first. Hence the classic CAF reference.


----------



## CBH99

Jarnhamar said:


> Appreciate that thank you, likewise.
> 
> This program isn't managed by the CAF but they appear to use a lot of CAF staff so there's definitely going to be influence.
> 
> Paul Rutherford who I quoted is a retired CAF brigadier-general. His first response contained no apology nor I'm guessing acknowledgement wrong doing when it was clearly a huge what the fuck moment.
> His response ignored victims except for suggesting they shouldn't have said anything because the program is confidential. IMO victim blaming. Real nice.
> 
> Our leaders aren't getting it. Their first reaction continues to not recognize victims or put them first. Hence the classic CAF reference.


Oooohhhhh, now I get it.  I did read the article but I hadn’t connected Rutherford to the CAF, and certainly not as a Brig-Gen.  EDIT - Seen now after I posted 🤦🏼‍♂️

Wow.  That certainly puts his lack of apology and telling victims they shouldn’t have said anything in a very different light.

Absolutely unreal...  🤯😡😔


----------



## Halifax Tar

Jarnhamar said:


> Our leaders aren't getting it. Their first reaction continues to not recognize victims or put them first. Hence the classic CAF reference.


The products of institutional leadership ?


----------



## FJAG

This in - Dr Joannou, BGen (retd) Rutherford and LCol Besemann resign from PTS:



> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/project-trauma-doctor-manuela-joannou-steps-down-1.6028668




🍻


----------



## trigger324

OldSolduer said:


> Swiftly and aggressively isn’t always the best way to go.
> 
> in depth investigation - which take time - IMO are whats needed.


And that’s the old school, old guard way of handling everything and I’m glad to see the new, younger wave who has no patience for these types of shenanigans in 2021 working to get past that mindset. Sure, slow it down, put on the brakes and drag everything out til the affected person, victim, grievor, or any other who loses faith and/or walks away from the situation because they have to move on with their lives and yet still are left to have to continue to dwell with unfavourable memories of their past. God love the journalists who’ve tackled this issue and done their homework. The CAF, once again, is slow to rise to the occasion and has already lost this battle in the eyes of the Canadian public(those who fund it) and a good lot of serving members I dare say.


----------



## trigger324

Edited for an autocorrected misspelled word.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

And you are just an opportunist who see's this as a way to further something in your life......really, really sad actually.
Everyone has the right to innocence until proven guilty,  if you think thats wrong, then you are in the wrong military and country.


.....or perhaps thou  doth protest too much?


----------



## The Bread Guy

trigger324 said:


> ... slow it down, put on the brakes and drag everything out til the affected person, victim, grievor, or any other who loses faith and/or walks away from the situation because they have to move on with their lives and yet still are left to have to continue to dwell with unfavourable memories of their past...


More has to be done, yes.  Quicker response needed, for sure.  But deliberate doesn't _have_ to be ponderously slow & dragging one's feet. 

"March the guilty b*****d in" has shown itself to be less than ideal in many situations, too.  As others smarter than me have said, #BeCarefulWhatYouWishFor


----------



## trigger324

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> And you are just an opportunist who see's this as a way to further something in your life......really, really sad actually.
> Everyone has the right to innocence until proven guilty,  if you think thats wrong, then you are in the wrong military and country.
> 
> 
> .....or perhaps thou  doth protest too much?


When did I say otherwise? I’m all for innocence until proven guilt. But something’s fishy for one allegation after another to come out in this manner.

I’m not protesting enough.


----------



## trigger324

The Bread Guy said:


> "March the guilty b*****d in"


There’s something to that catchphrase or it wouldn’t be one.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Pretty sure this is your tough guy/girl internet persona, because right now I wouldn't follow you to Timmie's for free coffee.....


----------



## trigger324

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Pretty sure this is your tough guy/girl internet persona, because right now I wouldn't follow you to Timmie's for free coffee.....


Sir. From what I’ve seen in this thread, you haven’t offered much of a solution to the problems at hand or reply to what bothers me so much over this scandal other than to crop dust me every 12 hours. Now you’re slagging me. What is so wrong with my stance?


----------



## CBH99

trigger324 said:


> And that’s the old school, old guard way of handling everything and I’m glad to see the new, younger wave who has no patience for these types of shenanigans in 2021 working to get past that mindset. Sure, slow it down, put on the brakes and drag everything out til the affected person, victim, grievor, or any other who loses faith and/or walks away from the situation because they have to move on with their lives and yet still are left to have to continue to dwell with unfavourable memories of their past. God love the journalists who’ve tackled this issue and done their homework. The CAF, once again, is slow to rise to the occasion and has already lost this battle in the eyes of the Canadian public(those who fund it) and a good lot of serving members I dare say.


I don’t think anybody opposes your position here trigger, not sure why you seem so quick to label & point fingers, rather than discuss.

I don’t think anybody would want something dragged out needlessly, when it will simply end up hurting the victim more.

I haven’t read anybody say that.  So I’m not sure why you’d put the words in someone’s mouth, or insinuate that is what they meant.

I haven’t heard anybody in this board say anything supportive of sexual misconduct or minimizing sexual assault.  Maybe try simmering down and thinking about situations from a bigger/different perspective.  


Dealing with sexual misconduct swiftly IS the goal of most people, I would hope and think anyway.  And I can think of a few examples I’ve read about over the years where it was handled extremely swiftly and prudently - as in immediately.  Other situations can’t be handled as quickly due to details, and some probably could be handled swiftly but unfortunately aren’t.

^^ I did not experience or witness any sexual misconduct during my time in the CF.  However, I have witnessed a similar situation here in law enforcement that could have been dealt with quickly, but wasn’t.  Beyond frustrating.


Let me put forward a hypothetical situation for you.  I’d be genuinely curious to get your feedback.

A member comes to you and makes a complaint about sexual misconduct. Instead of taking the time to gather the information, speak to witnesses, verify the accuracy of the information, etc - you go ahead and charge the person they accused of the misconduct.  Quickly and swiftly.  (Since taking the time to investigate it and verify the information is now out of style apparently.)

You charge the person.  Causes massive problems with their family, lawyer fees, and the mental stress of possibly losing your career, etc.  

Turns out, they didn’t do it.  It was a comment in conversation that was misunderstood, or the complainant and the accused used to date and one of them is upset, or someone was upset by a meme they saw (not kidding, this has happened more than once) - or the allegation was just false.

But, since taking the time to investigate and verify information is ‘old school’ and a frustrating waste - you’ve already gone ahead and created a s**tstorm for someone.  

Now what??  Are you equally as enthusiastic about fixing the damage that has been done?


I have two main points here:

1.  Taking the time to verify the information prior to taking action is prudent, and responsible.  (Sure there are situations where it can be dealt with swiftly and harshly, and in those situations, I think everybody is in agreement with you.)

2.  What if you gave someone a bad PER, or didn’t recommend them for promotion, or had a bit of a ‘tiff of personalities’ one day.  And the next thing you know, they are accusing you of sexual misconduct.  

Would you want your CoC to get their statement, your statement, talk to potential witnesses, understand the bigger context, and proceed based on what they can verify?  Or swiftly deal with you without bothering to verify anything, and destroy your career and life?


Like I’ve said before, I think most people are in agreement with your position.  And it is GOOD that we have members like you who would take the complaint seriously, not screw around, and deal with it prudently.  Truly.  

BUT, you seem to somehow think the folks on here are supporting these scumbags, and that isn’t the case.  Saying there should be an investigation isn’t supporting the offender, it’s supporting actions being taken with as much fact behind them as possible.  

(The investigation may be quick, or may take a while.  But saying it’s somehow a bad thing?  Many foolish decisions have happened on a whim.)


----------



## CBH99

trigger324 said:


> Sir. From what I’ve seen in this thread, you haven’t offered much of a solution to the problems at hand or reply to what bothers me so much over this scandal other than to crop dust me every 12 hours. Now you’re slagging me. What is so wrong with my stance?


Nothing wrong with your stance at all.

It’s that instead of discussing the matters, you seem instantly confrontational regardless of what anybody says.  And I’d hope you are self aware enough to know that?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

trigger324 said:


> Sir. From what I’ve seen in this thread, you haven’t offered much of a solution to the problems at hand or reply to what bothers me so much over this scandal other than to crop dust me every 12 hours. Now you’re slagging me. What is so wrong with my stance?


I did give the solution about 6 or 7 posts back.....our problems today are all because, for various reasons*, it didn't happen years ago.

*[not accounting for those who tried and were shut down, but now's the time to still 'say something']


----------



## trigger324

CBH99 said:


> Nothing wrong with your stance at all.
> 
> It’s that instead of discussing the matters, you seem instantly confrontational regardless of what anybody says.  And I’d hope you are self aware enough to know that?


I’m not being confrontational, I’m replying to each statement when I get a notification of a reply. I’m incredibly self aware, but I do note smart ass off the cuff remarks when they’re sent my way. I’m being as diplomatic as I possibly can with everyone, but I may be misread. However I feel passionately about this subject, having a distant connection to it, and when I’m agreed with but still served with a side of “settle the f down”, I tend to wonder why people feel a need to tell me so. And so I ask.
I appreciate your reply and will formulate one in return when I have a few moments.


----------



## trigger324

I sensed your solution but coming with digs at me don’t get far.


----------



## ModlrMike

Clearly the phrases "due process" and "presumption of innocence" are unfamilliar to some people.


----------



## Kilted

Haggis said:


> I had a similar occurrence brought to my attention many years ago. Two opposite gender peers were in an establishment following a Remembrance Day parade. The male got handsy. The female responded with at least two quick shots to the face, effectively delivered.


You have to be careful with that. At a pub that I used to work at a girl did that. The only problem was that she punched the wrong guy.  He had to get surgery to fix the damage. She ended up getting sued for assault and battery. She was lucky that there were no criminal charges. 

This could also lead to a discussion about what constitutes self defence.


----------



## YZT580

After following this string I started to do a little research and came across the following statistics:
* 81% of American employees believed sexual harassment occurred in most workplaces across the US.*​_(I-sight)_

54% of women experienced unwanted sexual advances according to a poll from October 2017.

* 50% of Americans stated that men getting away with committing sexual harassment or assault is a significant problem.*​_(Pew Social Trends)_
According to a survey from 2018, 35% of Americans thought men getting away unpunished was a minor problem, while 14% believed sexual assault in the workplace wasn’t a problem at all. Thirty-four percent of Americans stated that accused men being fired without thorough investigation was a significant problem, while 26% thought the opposite.
* 27% of men and 59% of women experienced harassment at work. *
_(Pew Social Trends)_
In a poll from October 2017, 54% of women reported experiencing sexual assault. While 30% of them said their colleague harassed them, 23% reported it was their supervisor. More than half of assaulted women reported harassment happened both in and outside the workplace.
*  In the US, 26% of workers in rural areas reported sexual harassment in 2018.*
_(Edison Research) _
It seems like working in rural areas puts employees at a higher risk. According to the statistics about sexual harassment in the workplace from Edisonresearch’s report, the percentage of sexually harassed workers was the biggest in rural areas, compared to 18% in suburban and 21% in urban areas. 
*Only 25% of women could freely report harassment to their employers.*
_(Edison Research) _
Women are significantly less likely to believe that their superiors handled the problem well. According to the 2018 report findings, 30% of *women in the workforce* and 53% of men thought their employers adequately dealt with the incident.

The point being that the CAF is neither unique nor is it likely to be at the top of the list of places of employment where harassment is a dominant problem.  It is however an easy target for the press.  Put it in perspective.  Is there a problem?  Yes.  Are senior officers implicated?   Again yes but firing them for alleged offenses is dead wrong.  If the concept of innocent until proven guilty is ignored for fear of bad coverage we are on the slippery slope towards anarchy.  Could we do better?  Absolutely but a little less haste and a strict adherence to our judicial processes are an an absolute necessity.  Also, a little attention to historical context is needed: not to lessen our compassion for those assaulted but we are in a different era from when many of these offenses occurred.  Just think of comedy routines.  Amos and Andy would never be allowed on TV now.  Most of our cartoons are now taboo.  Cowboys and Indian games are racist.  Think about it.


----------



## Remius

Instead of focusing on hunting people down.  And we should if warranted of course.  But maybe the CAF has to do a real introspection I to it’s culture and maybe look at doing away with those things that help enable these kinds of things.

alcohol seems to play a huge part in these sorts of things.  Do away with CAF sanctioned events, mess functions, forced fun, soldier’s Christmas dinners etc etc,  if co workers wnat to meet after work for beers sure.  But let it be organic and natural like any other work place.  

You would probably cut down on half of these things from happening just by doing away with that.


----------



## PuckChaser

ModlrMike said:


> Clearly the phrases "due process" and "presumption of innocence" are unfamilliar to some people.


Or some folks feel that you cannot have due process, presumption of innocence along with taking every complaint seriously and actually listening to victims. Those ideas are not mutually exclusive, and unfortunately that's why it makes it so incredibly difficult to prosecute sexual assault cases. I'm sure Brihard can provide some direct context as a civilian LEO, but most articles I've read  show a majority of sexual assaults occurring behind closed doors, with no witnesses and potentially with alcohol involved. 

The he said/she said conundrum will never be resolved until we have some Minority Report type of system or we completely toss away section 11.d. of the Charter of Rights.


----------



## Kilted

Remius said:


> Instead of focusing on hunting people down.  And we should if warranted of course.  But maybe the CAF has to do a real introspection I to it’s culture and maybe look at doing away with those things that help enable these kinds of things.
> 
> alcohol seems to play a huge part in these sorts of things.  Do away with CAF sanctioned events, mess functions, forced fun, soldier’s Christmas dinners etc etc,  if co workers wnat to meet after work for beers sure.  But let it be organic and natural like any other work place.
> 
> You would probably cut down on half of these things from happening just by doing away with that.


You would also do away with a lot of positive things as well. I know that messes aren't very popular in the regular force, but in the reserves unit cohesion is largely drawn from them. It's also a place where a lot of small issues can be dealt with before they become bigger (no, I'm not talking about the old fashion bully them untill they quit mentality).  

If the troops are going to go out drinking after work, potentially in uniform, I rather them be in a controlled setting away from public view. The Troops will largely stand up for each other when their is an issue, preventing many of these things from happening in the first place.


----------



## Remius

Almost every single case of sexual assault I’ve had to deal with or inappropriate behaviour has come from things like mess events and sanctioned parties.    

i would argue the settings that are outside of public view is what helps enable these things.  Pull the same stunt in a pub and you might charged by civilian authorities instead.

troops will also circle the wagons and keep quiet and refuse to talk when things happen.

it may be why we have an issue.


----------



## Remius

Kilted said:


> You would also do away with a lot of positive things as well. I know that messes aren't very popular in the regular force, but in the reserves unit cohesion is largely drawn from them. It's also a place where a lot of small issues can be dealt with before they become bigger (no, I'm not talking about the old fashion bully them untill they quit mentality).
> 
> If the troops are going to go out drinking after work, potentially in uniform, I rather them be in a controlled setting away from public view. The Troops will largely stand up for each other when their is an issue, preventing many of these things from happening in the first place.


Your comment “If the troops are going out drinking after work, potentially in uniform I rather them be in a controlled setting away from public view.”

This comment alone is proving my point.  The fact that we have to keep them out of public view is admitting we have a problem.  Hiding it doesn’t solve the problem.


----------



## Kilted

Remius said:


> Almost every single case of sexual assault I’ve had to deal with or inappropriate behaviour has come from things like mess events and sanctioned parties.
> 
> i would argue the settings that are outside of public view is what helps enable these things.  Pull the same stunt in a pub and you might charged by civilian authorities instead.
> 
> troops will also circle the wagons and keep quiet and refuse to talk when things happen.
> 
> it may be why we have an issue.


I think that would be part of the culture change they are talking about. At present there is still the stigma against "telling on each other." Regardless of what is done, the Troops will always find ways to get alcohol, it's better to control what we can.

That being said, I could see the current government doing this to make it look like they are doing something.


----------



## Kilted

Remius said:


> Your comment “If the troops are going out drinking after work, potentially in uniform I rather them be in a controlled setting away from public view.”
> 
> This comment alone is proving my point.  The fact that we have to keep them out of public view is admitting we have a problem.  Hiding it doesn’t solve the problem.


I was more concerned about saying something stupid or getting into a fight, not engage in sexual misconduct.


----------



## Remius

Kilted said:


> I think that would be part of the culture change they are talking about. At present there is still the stigma against "telling on each other." Regardless of what is done, the Troops will always find ways to get alcohol, it's better to control what we can.
> 
> That being said, I could see the current government doing this to make it look like they are doing something.


Again, I would argue that with the amount of cases that stem from these events that we aren’t doing a good job of controlling the problem.


----------



## brihard

Kilted said:


> I was more concerned about saying something stupid or getting into a fight, not engage in sexual misconduct.


That all falls under the general umbrella of ‘failing to keep their hands to themselves’. If you ccannot trust troops to avoid the one, likely you cannot trust them to avoid the other. Of course the rampant problem drinking among troops is another thing entirely... But not at all unrelated.


----------



## Remius

Kilted said:


> I was more concerned about saying something stupid or getting into a fight, not engage in sexual misconduct.


The fact that we have to that is cultural problem in and of itself.


----------



## Kilted

Remius said:


> The fact that we have to that is cultural problem in and of itself.


What do you expect?  This is a problem that militaries have had since the beginning of time. 

Some Troops drink excessively, some are alcoholics. I would guess that the percentage of CAF members with drinking problems has probably decreased over the years, but it will be a long time before this is an issue.  

Regardless of how well you recruit, you are always going to get those who get into fights, some of those people are attracted to careers in the military. 

If you really want to solve this issue you would need to treat alcohol as if it was a controlled substance, meaning a zero tolerance policy, but we all know how well that has worked with other things. 

We recruit people as young as 16, expect them to act like adults and then put individuals who are only slightly older then them in charge of them and expect them to teach those individuals how to act. With the way the courses are now we are potentially looking at 20-21 year old Sergeants in the Reserves.  

Im not saying that we should increase the recuritment age, we wouldn't be able to fill the ranks if we did that, I think that we just need to be more realistic when looking at the issues.


----------



## mariomike

Kilted said:


> This could also lead to a discussion about what constitutes self defence.


For reference to that discussion,









						The Legality of Self Defence In Canada
					

Could an LEO or someone else in the know offer advice on what is a legal and practical form of self-defence in Canada?  I'm asking this because of the current situation my girlfriend is in:  She often works into the early morning in downtown Toronto and has to take public transit across town to...




					www.milnet.ca
				



8 pages.


----------



## Brad Sallows

"And that’s the old school, old guard way of handling everything and I’m glad to see the new, younger wave who has no patience for [liberal principles] in 2021 working to get past that mindset."


----------



## Remius

Except we aren’t dealing with people who are conscripted or press ganged or the lowest classes of society like


Kilted said:


> What do you expect?  This is a problem that militaries have had since the beginning of time.
> 
> Some Troops drink excessively, some are alcoholics. I would guess that the percentage of CAF members with drinking problems has probably decreased over the years, but it will be a long time before this is an issue.
> 
> Regardless of how well you recruit, you are always going to get those who get into fights, some of those people are attracted to careers in the military.
> 
> If you really want to solve this issue you would need to treat alcohol as if it was a controlled substance, meaning a zero tolerance policy, but we all know how well that has worked with other things.
> 
> We recruit people as young as 16, expect them to act like adults and then put individuals who are only slightly older then them in charge of them and expect them to teach those individuals how to act. With the way the courses are now we are potentially looking at 20-21 year old Sergeants in the Reserves.
> 
> Im not saying that we should increase the recuritment age, we wouldn't be able to fill the ranks if we did that, I think that we just need to be more realistic when looking at the issues.


Except we aren’t living in a by gone era where rape and fights are acceptable or normal.  Most of our soldiers are the most educated people we’ve had in the history of warfare.   You mention reserves.  All of them are citizens most of the time and soldiers part of the time.   Why would a zero tolerance on alcool in the workplace be an issue?  As far as I know, the military is the only organisation that offers alcool as a reward and has alcool at the center of its social settings.  Low prices, free issues and lots of it.  Stemming from tradition from an era where alcohol was used as a means to control and compensate the men.   We aren’t there anymore.

again, the fact that we have to hide our soldiers from the public isn’t a solution.  And it should even be that way.  We don’t want to unleash that on the public, sure.  But all we are doing is unleashing that on our own in those “controlled” environments.   And here we are.  In 2021 with an institutional crisis.


----------



## OldSolduer

trigger324 said:


> And that’s the old school, old guard way of handling everything and I’m glad to see the new, younger wave who has no patience for these types of shenanigans in 2021 working to get past that mindset. Sure, slow it down, put on the brakes and drag everything out til the affected person, victim, grievor, or any other who loses faith and/or walks away from the situation because they have to move on with their lives and yet still are left to have to continue to dwell with unfavourable memories of their past. God love the journalists who’ve tackled this issue and done their homework. The CAF, once again, is slow to rise to the occasion and has already lost this battle in the eyes of the Canadian public(those who fund it) and a good lot of serving members I dare say.


Now you’re getting Personal. I’d advise you to stop resorting to veiled insults. I’ve been in this earth and served 38 years so have some respect.


----------



## Kilted

Remius said:


> Except we aren’t dealing with people who are conscripted or press ganged or the lowest classes of society like
> 
> Except we aren’t living in a by gone era where rape and fights are acceptable or normal.  Most of our soldiers are the most educated people we’ve had in the history of warfare.   You mention reserves.  All of them are citizens most of the time and soldiers part of the time.   Why would a zero tolerance on alcool in the workplace be an issue?  As far as I know, the military is the only organisation that offers alcool as a reward and has alcool at the center of its social settings.  Low prices, free issues and lots of it.  Stemming from tradition from an era where alcohol was used as a means to control and compensate the men.   We aren’t there anymore.
> 
> again, the fact that we have to hide our soldiers from the public isn’t a solution.  And it should even be that way.  We don’t want to unleash that on the public, sure.  But all we are doing is unleashing that on our own in those “controlled” environments.   And here we are.  In 2021 with an institutional crisis.


It's true that times have changed, but we still recruit individuals that still act in the same way, or start to act in the same way based on the way our peers act.  I'm not saying that we can't expect more from these people.  We probably have one of the most educated armed forces in the world, but we also have some uneducated people and some pretty shady people.  You miss understood my statement about zero tolerance.  I was not referring to a zero-tolerance policy at work, I meant in general. This means if you are a CAF member, you don't; drink.

That being said, I think that there are some steps that we can take to try and improve overall professionalism in the CAF, part of it would involve treating Jr NCM as adults, although many repeatedly prove that they can't be trusted in this manner.


----------



## trigger324

Brad Sallows said:


> "And that’s the old school, old guard way of handling everything and I’m glad to see the new, younger wave who has no patience for [liberal principles] in 2021 working to get past that mindset."


Notes NI bubble ticked for Leading Change on recent PER.


----------



## The Bread Guy

trigger324 said:


> There’s something to that catchphrase or it wouldn’t be one.


"Kill 'em all - let God sort 'em out" has "something" to it as a catchphrase, too, but doesn't make for a good rule of engagement, either.  We should be aiming for better, not easier.


----------



## Remius

Kilted said:


> It's true that times have changed, but we still recruit individuals that still act in the same way, or start to act in the same way based on the way our peers act.  I'm not saying that we can't expect more from these people.  We probably have one of the most educated armed forces in the world, but we also have some uneducated people and some pretty shady people.  You miss understood my statement about zero tolerance.  I was not referring to a zero-tolerance policy at work, I meant in general. This means if you are a CAF member, you don't; drink.
> 
> That being said, I think that there are some steps that we can take to try and improve overall professionalism in the CAF, part of it would involve treating Jr NCM as adults, although many repeatedly prove that they can't be trusted in this manner.


Except it does not have to be an absolute or nothing.  Where I work now I am treated like an adult.  But I also don’t have events that encourage heavy drinking or even subsided by work booze.  If I want to go out for a drink after work with my colleagues I do.  If I drink at night and party outside work hours it’s my business.   But in the CAF we encourage drinking, and even pay people to attend these functions.    Start there.  No one says zero tolerance to booze.  But there is no reason for your work to enable it or provide it.  Especially given our current damaged image.


----------



## Kilted

Remius said:


> Except it does not have to be an absolute or nothing.  Where I work now I am treated like an adult.  But I also don’t have events that encourage heavy drinking or even subsided by work booze.  If I want to go out for a drink after work with my colleagues I do.  If I drink at night and party outside work hours it’s my business.   But in the CAF we encourage drinking, and even pay people to attend these functions.    Start there.  No one says zero tolerance to booze.  But there is no reason for your work to enable it or provide it.  Especially given our current damaged image.


And if issues still occur outside of work, is the CAF just going to wash their hands of it?


----------



## Jarnhamar

Remius said:


> Except it does not have to be an absolute or nothing.  Where I work now I am treated like an adult.  But I also don’t have events that encourage heavy drinking or even subsided by work booze.  If I want to go out for a drink after work with my colleagues I do.  If I drink at night and party outside work hours it’s my business.   But in the CAF we encourage drinking, and even pay people to attend these functions.    Start there.  No one says zero tolerance to booze.  But there is no reason for your work to enable it or provide it.  Especially given our current damaged image.



We brainwash members with alcohol from day 1.

Recruits have to earn their way into the mess (reserve/regs). It's seen as a rite of passage and reward.
Officer Cadets are allowed in the mess from the start because mess life and culture is such a huge part of being an officer. But the point it's a huge part of their culture is hammered home.

What's waiting at the end of an exercise? A smoker with 2 beer- then the games start where we try and get more than 2 beer per person.
Anyone who doesn't drink is viewed with suspicion.

Soldiers heading home on HLTA at the airport bar, that's something you don't want to be the most senior guy for.

Watch military members at a civilian wedding or event. Straight to the bar then it's sitting at a table with 3 or 4 drinks in front of them pounding them down. It's pretty sad watching military members trying to enjoy an event without alcohol.

Alcohol is ingrained in us.


----------



## mariomike

Kilted said:


> And if issues still occur outside of work, is the CAF just going to wash their hands of it?


Depends on the employers definition of "outside of work", I suppose.


----------



## Remius

Kilted said:


> And if issues still occur outside of work, is the CAF just going to wash their hands of it?


If someone goes to bar and gets drunk and tells a girl she has nice boobs and should come home with him or her that’s just someone being an asshole.  Or a very bad pick up artist.  That person will tell them to just pound salt.

if it happens in a mess where the institution provided the alcohol and it happens between serving members then we have a problem.  Because it’s an entirely different dynamic.  

The CAF has a problem with how we treat our own.  People are being assaulted and harassed within.  By its own members.  When a CAF member does that outside the CAF people go to the authorities and things happen.   And no, generally when things happen outside the CAF we let nature takes its legal course and depending on the results we get rid of them.


----------



## brihard

Remius said:


> If someone goes to bar and gets drunk and tells a girl she has nice boobs and should come home with him or her that’s just someone being an asshole.  Or a very bad pick up artist.  That person will tell them to just pound salt.
> 
> if it happens in a mess where the institution provided the alcohol and it happens between serving members then we have a problem.  Because it’s an entirely different dynamic.
> 
> The CAF has a problem with how we treat our own.  People are being assaulted and harassed within.  By its own members.  When a CAF member does that outside the CAF people go to the authorities and things happen.   And no, generally when things happen outside the CAF we let nature takes its legal course and depending on the results we get rid of them.



A distinction to note is that the employer is accountable for anything that happens in the work environment. If it happens in the mess, CAF owns it, beyond simply having a disciplinary issue to deal with. When CAF provides the licensed premise, or makes the member attend the event, more of it is on the institution.


----------



## trigger324

OldSolduer said:


> Now you’re getting Personal. I’d advise you to stop resorting to veiled insults. I’ve been in this earth and served 38 years so have some respect.


Sorry, no, I’m not getting personal towards you and you clearly missed the mark regarding my sentiment. I called out a mindset that still largely exists in an overdue for change organization. If you subscribe to that mindset, then that would not be on me.

Regarding years of service I see no reason to drop a figure like that in a conversation on a message board where I believe we’re equals. I didn’t join yesterday myself but would have never used the line in order to gain unnoticed respect that’s been there all along.


----------



## ModlrMike

Why don't we just invest in several miles of rope and start at the top?


----------



## trigger324

LOL I thought we did


----------



## CBH99

trigger324 said:


> I’m not being confrontational, I’m replying to each statement when I get a notification of a reply. I’m incredibly self aware, but I do note smart ass off the cuff remarks when they’re sent my way. I’m being as diplomatic as I possibly can with everyone, but I may be misread. However I feel passionately about this subject, having a distant connection to it, and when I’m agreed with but still served with a side of “settle the f down”, I tend to wonder why people feel a need to tell me so. And so I ask.
> I appreciate your reply and will formulate one in return when I have a few moments.


I appreciate this post.  It’s tricky when several people are talking about a topic that can be so angering, frustrating, disheartening, etc etc.

Without hearing each other talk, and hearing the tone and context in which people are chatting, it’s easy to misread the tone or context of some people’s posts.  

Earlier today, I think I had misread the tone of your post was all.  

I apologize for the post after that one, I was very much misreading the tone & was snippy back.  

**I DO appreciate - truly - you’re strong stance against this kind of crap, and willingness to handle this s**t head on, with none of the BS covering up, ignoring, or downplaying.  Truly.  It’s an attitude & willingness that not just the CAF needs. 👍🏻👍🏻

I misread the tone of your posts & took them to be suggesting that investigations are a waste of time & people should be punished right after the allegation is made. Again, my apologies for the snippy post.


----------



## OldSolduer

Have it your way. I’m done with this thread.
you don’t get it. I’m


trigger324 said:


> Sorry, no, I’m not getting personal towards you and you clearly missed the mark regarding my sentiment. I called out a mindset that still largely exists in an overdue for change organization. If you subscribe to that mindset, then that would not be on me.
> 
> Regarding years of service I see no reason to drop a figure like that in a conversation on a message board where I believe we’re equals. I didn’t join yesterday myself but would have never used the line in order to gain unnoticed respect that’s been there all along.


ok I get it. You want change. So do I. You’re in a rush to judge and convict with no regard for due process, which must be followed. If we start by convicting with out due process we are no better than dictators around the world.


----------



## Kilted

Ok so changing the subject from the benefit/disadvantages of disbanding all messes, what is the likelihood that the CAF/DND/G of C will actually decide to do this?  If it's being discussed here, it has probably been brought up in NDHQ.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Kilted said:


> Ok so changing the subject from the benefit/disadvantages of disbanding all messes, what is the likelihood that the CAF/DND/G of C will actually decide to do this?  If it's being discussed here, it has probably been brought up in NDHQ.


Isn’t that just treating a symptom, rather than the problem?


----------



## OldSolduer

SeaKingTacco said:


> Isn’t that just treating a symptom, rather than the problem?


Bingo.


----------



## trigger324

OldSolduer said:


> I’m done with this thread.


Then I’ll bid you a good day. But before you leave, 


OldSolduer said:


> You’re in a rush to judge and convict with no regard for due process,


could you let me know where and how I did that?


----------



## OldSolduer

trigger324 said:


> Then I’ll bid you a good day. But before you leave,
> 
> could you let me know where and how I did that?


Your statements. Your impatience with “the old guard”.
Change does not happen overnight.


----------



## Jarnhamar

OldSolduer said:


> ok I get it. You want change. So do I. You’re in a rush to judge and convict with no regard for due process, which must be followed. If we start by convicting with out due process we are no better than dictators around the world.



I could be wrong but I don't think anyone is calling for us to sentence people without a trial or any sort of due process.

The CAF has done nothing in the last 30 years to prove we're ready or able to take this topic seriously and affect change. The often hated and ridiculed media appears to be the best moral compass we as an institution have right now.

I think what people are saying is that what we've been doing for the last 30, 40+ years failed, and it's time for an actual new approach; not stermly worded emails and DLN courses.

We're in a place where a general or senior officer we've spent years (and hundreds of thousands of dollars? millions?) training can have someone say they had their ass slapped 8 years ago at a mess function and they're being replaced before the investigation is taking place.

That's the place we've been put in by the CAFs complacency.  I don't think anyone is buying CAF assurances or promises anymore.


----------



## TCM621

TangoTwoBravo said:


> What do you define as "handsy?"
> 
> If one of your subordinates comes to you after a Troop party and tells you that another drunk soldier cornered them at the party, grabbed them by the waist, touched their chest and posterior and propositioned them. They broke away, but are shaken by the event.
> 
> What would your actions be?


Handsy is just a term for unwanted touching that isn't a clear grope. A grope being touching you know is unwanted but do anyway. One is done out of ignorance or stupidity and the other is done intentionally. 

The second question is harder because context is key. In today's climate I would fire that up higher so fast you would cartoon tires squealing. I am not risking my pension over this shit. My best efforts could easily end up in the Globe and Mail. 

I am assuming, however, you meant ideally. The first thing I would do is try to get as much detail as possible. Ask her what she thought was going on, ie does she think he was deliberately cornering her or was he close talking in a corner. The effect can be the same but one implies a different intent. I would ask if she will feel unsafe around this person at work. If the answer is yes, I would have to engage my CoC at that point. Otherwise, I would ask her if she wants me to handle it or make a complaint. If she wants to handle it at the lowest level, I would have a very firm discussion with the offending subordinate and force him to apologize in person for his ungentlemanly behaviour (provided the victim agreed). I would also firmly remind the individual of the consequences of a second such incident, legal, administrative and other.  At every point I would reassess as I got more information. For example, if the individual has a drinking problem but is perfectly ok while sober maybe a referral to mental health and some C&P related to alcohol misuse maybe warranted. It's hard to say without context but if I can satisfy the victim and have a chance to turn the offender into a better person, I'm going to go with it. 

Interestingly, 20-25 years ago it was much simpler. I would have threatened to shove my boot so far up the guy's ass he would have had to open his mouth to polish them. Then I would have had a conversation with his (and her) troop mates about looking after one and other. That should never happen at a troop party. The people who left one of their own to be cornered by a drunk failed and the people who let one of their own get so drunk, then left him unsupervised, so that he cornered a woman failed.


----------



## mariomike

TangoTwoBravo asks,​


> What do you define as "handsy?"





TCM621 said:


> Handsy is just a term for unwanted touching that isn't a clear grope. A grope being touching you know is unwanted but do anyway.


Do they still call it a "grope and hope"?





						Urban Dictionary: Gropeandhope
					

To grab a women's breast and hope she will reciprocate instead of macing you.




					www.urbandictionary.com


----------



## Remius

Kilted said:


> Ok so changing the subject from the benefit/disadvantages of disbanding all messes, what is the likelihood that the CAF/DND/G of C will actually decide to do this?  If it's being discussed here, it has probably been brought up in NDHQ.


Between you and I, I doubt they disband messes.  But paid drinking functions, forced events and free and subsidized drinks should stop.   Start pricing drinks at current market rates would be a start.  

start encouraging “guests” or dates to be brought to events.  You won’t act like a moron if your wife, girlfriend, partner or if your subordinates have a guest as well.

changing the culture requires a lot of little changes over time.

I’ve identified what I think is a problem.  Alcohol, and events that promote alcohol and activities hidden from public view.  

Is it the only problem?  No.  But we have to start by making tough decisions and making bigger changes than just an “Order” or courses like Jarn said.   We are no further ahead than we were in the 90s.   And it seems to be worse Image wise.


----------



## mariomike

Remius said:


> You won’t act like a moron if your wife, girlfriend, partner or if your subordinates have a guest as well.


Maybe not.

I remember a non-military function where a guy brought his wife. She was a real looker, and knew it too. She was already half in the bag when they got there. Wasn't long before the "handsy" and "gropey" stuff begins with another guy. Hubby punched him. They had been friends. Hubby got sent home. She decided to stay and enjoy the party.


----------



## ArmyRick

OldSolduer said:


> Have it your way. I’m done with this thread.
> you don’t get it. I’m
> 
> ok I get it. You want change. So do I. You’re in a rush to judge and convict with no regard for due process, which must be followed. If we start by convicting with out due process we are no better than dictators around the world.


Good Point, Jim. We can not and must not RUSH into a knee jerk solution on this problem.


----------



## kev994

Remius said:


> Start pricing drinks at current market rates would be a start.


They have been in Winnipeg and Trenton for several years now. Is that not the case everywhere?


----------



## dimsum

kev994 said:


> They have been in Winnipeg and Trenton for several years now. Is that not the case everywhere?


Winnipeg, Halifax, Greenwood, and Comox messes are market price.


----------



## Remius

OldSolduer said:


> Your statements. Your impatience with “the old guard”.
> Change does not happen overnight.


Should it take 25 to 30 years?


----------



## OldSolduer

Remius said:


> Should it take 25 to 30 years?


No. But it might. Change in a system can be glacial paced.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

dimsum said:


> Winnipeg, Halifax, Greenwood, and Comox messes are market price.


Esquimalt, too.


----------



## MilEME09

Maj.-Gen. Dany Fortin facing historical sexual misconduct allegation: CTV News sources
					

CTV News has learned that since March, the military has been aware of a sexual misconduct claim against Maj.-Gen. Dany Fortin, who stepped down from his role overseeing the vaccine rollout two days ago.



					www.ctvnews.ca
				




So we have a General who allegedly did something stupid as a cadet 32 years ago at RMC, and only now is getting his otherwise good career destroyed? This is probably the first allegation I find questionable, 32 years is a long time.......


----------



## Kilted

kev994 said:


> They have been in Winnipeg and Trenton for several years now. Is that not the case everywhere?


As far as some reserve messes no, especially the ones without paid bartenders.  Messes are supposed to be non-profit, there isn't the costs to justify it.  Generally speaking it is the Mess Committees who set the prices, who also have to pay those save prices.  But even if we raised the prices, like I already said with regards to alcohol:


----------



## Brad Sallows

> Most of our soldiers are the most educated people we’ve had in the history of warfare.



Intelligent and educated people are equally capable of playing the buffoon and drinking too much.

Inebriation reduces inhibitions.  You see more of the impulsive nature of people, and what they want.


----------



## trigger324

ArmyRick said:


> Good Point, Jim. We can not and must not RUSH into a knee jerk solution on this problem.


Maybe you can identify when a rushed knee jerk solution was suggested?


----------



## trigger324

So I glanced at the JAG website this morning when I arrived at work and took a look at the upcoming courts martial. I noticed an overwhelming number of sexual assault cases coming up. While I’m alarmed, yet satisfied to see so many I’m also quite interested in the fact that there are varying rank levels.

This leads me to point out that it’s not just GOFO’s or Senior Officers for that matter. I’m saying that this issue is endemic in the entire organization, top to bottom, and the organization is in a sickly state at this time because of it.

I am also satisfied to see Criminal Code of Canada inferences in there. Not as if they haven’t been there all along, but any sentences rendered I would hope, will reflect those.

Worth also to note that CCC wheels most always turn much faster than CSD ones do.


----------



## brihard

trigger324 said:


> So I glanced at the JAG website this morning when I arrived at work and took a look at the upcoming courts martial. I noticed an overwhelming number of sexual assault cases coming up. While I’m alarmed, yet satisfied to see so many I’m also quite interested in the fact that there are varying rank levels.
> 
> This leads me to point out that it’s not just GOFO’s or Senior Officers for that matter. I’m saying that this issue is endemic in the entire organization, top to bottom, and the organization is in a sickly state at this time because of it.
> 
> I am also satisfied to see Criminal Code of Canada inferences in there. Not as if they haven’t been there all along, but any sentences rendered I would hope, will reflect those.
> 
> Worth also to note that CCC wheels most always turn much faster than CSD ones do.


For Criminal Code matters, under the decision in R. v. Jordan, a matter in Provincial Court has 18 months from the laying of charges to completion of trial, or else the delay is presumptively unreasonable and a Charter breach. Delays attributable to the defense don’t count.




MilEME09 said:


> Maj.-Gen. Dany Fortin facing historical sexual misconduct allegation: CTV News sources
> 
> 
> CTV News has learned that since March, the military has been aware of a sexual misconduct claim against Maj.-Gen. Dany Fortin, who stepped down from his role overseeing the vaccine rollout two days ago.
> 
> 
> 
> www.ctvnews.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we have a General who allegedly did something stupid as a cadet 32 years ago at RMC, and only now is getting his otherwise good career destroyed? This is probably the first allegation I find questionable, 32 years is a long time.......



They’re between a rock and a hard place on this one. The norm has been established that any allegation, however dated, will be taken seriously. It has to be, but that also means some real outlier cases will emerge. I hope that they’re conducting as much investigation as possible before acting to relieve senior leaders... though in a case like this there’s likely little viable investigation to be done. It’ll likely be based almost entirely on the statement of the complainant and, possibly, the accused. The alleged conduct would quite potentially hit a criminal threshold, even 32 years ago. I don’t see that the CDS would really have a leg to stand on in reversing course at this point.


----------



## hattrick72

TCM621 said:


> Handsy is just a term for unwanted touching that isn't a clear grope. A grope being touching you know is unwanted but do anyway. One is done out of ignorance or stupidity and the other is done intentionally.
> 
> The second question is harder because context is key. In today's climate I would fire that up higher so fast you would cartoon tires squealing. I am not risking my pension over this shit. My best efforts could easily end up in the Globe and Mail.
> 
> I am assuming, however, you meant ideally. The first thing I would do is try to get as much detail as possible. Ask her what she thought was going on, ie does she think he was deliberately cornering her or was he close talking in a corner. The effect can be the same but one implies a different intent. I would ask if she will feel unsafe around this person at work. If the answer is yes, I would have to engage my CoC at that point. Otherwise, I would ask her if she wants me to handle it or make a complaint. If she wants to handle it at the lowest level, I would have a very firm discussion with the offending subordinate and force him to apologize in person for his ungentlemanly behaviour (provided the victim agreed). I would also firmly remind the individual of the consequences of a second such incident, legal, administrative and other.  At every point I would reassess as I got more information. For example, if the individual has a drinking problem but is perfectly ok while sober maybe a referral to mental health and some C&P related to alcohol misuse maybe warranted. It's hard to say without context but if I can satisfy the victim and have a chance to turn the offender into a better person, I'm going to go with it.
> 
> Interestingly, 20-25 years ago it was much simpler. I would have threatened to shove my boot so far up the guy's ass he would have had to open his mouth to polish them. Then I would have had a conversation with his (and her) troop mates about looking after one and other. That should never happen at a troop party. The people who left one of their own to be cornered by a drunk failed and the people who let one of their own get so drunk, then left him unsupervised, so that he cornered a woman failed.


The DAOD is pretty clear, alcohol misconduct must be sent to Ottawa for a decision on what comes next. The only thing you can do is report up the CoC for the CO to gather the facts (UDI) and send all relevent information to Ottawa. 

Anything less and yes you are jeopardising your pension.


----------



## MJP

hattrick72 said:


> The DAOD is pretty clear, alcohol misconduct must be sent to Ottawa for a decision on what comes next. The only thing you can do is report up the CoC for the CO to gather the facts (UDI) and send all relevent information to Ottawa.
> 
> Anything less and yes you are jeopardising your pension.


Except that the DAOD has been amplified/clarified under CANFORGEN 134/12 and a CO has approval authority for remedial measures for alcohol misconduct up to C&P. So a CO has to think that the misconduct has reached the Administrative Review (AR) stage before it is sent to DMCA 2, anything less and they can deal with it.

It is almost comical that we are almost a decade past the issuance of that CANFORGEN (and a second clarifying one in 2014) and it isn't just written into the DAOD.  Not to mention very germane to the thread sexual misconduct has been removed from the CANFORGEN and it goes to DMCA 2. Although, it is just for them to decide if it is within the CO's authority to deal with or not so it really isn't an AR.


----------



## lenaitch

brihard said:


> They’re between a rock and a hard place on this one. The norm has been established that any allegation, however dated, will be taken seriously. It has to be, but that also means some real outlier cases will emerge. I hope that they’re conducting as much investigation as possible before acting to relieve senior leaders... though in a case like this there’s likely little viable investigation to be done. It’ll likely be based almost entirely on the statement of the complainant and, possibly, the accused. The alleged conduct would quite potentially hit a criminal threshold, even 32 years ago. I don’t see that the CDS would really have a leg to stand on in reversing course at this point.



They, and he, are pretty much screwed no matter which way this goes.  If it doesn't go court (CF or civilian), there are those that will say the system doesn't take the issues and victims seriously.  If it does go to trial, it would turn on 32 year old evidence, with or without independent witnesses.

If the report is to believed, the most likely offence would be 'public indecency', which is dual procedure (prosecutable either by indictment or summarily) in the CC.  Without research, I assume it was also dual back the '80s.

I'm often curious, although I recognize the issue from the victim's perspective, why someone comes forward after several decades.  If the report is to be believed, he allegedly exposed himself to, or was seen exposed by, the victim.  I'm curious as to bubbling trauma, but admit I'm not involved.

He won't be the first person to be brought down by past actions, in or out of the military, and won't be last.  Sometimes, the tall poppies get picked.


----------



## hattrick72

MJP said:


> Except that the DAOD has been amplified/clarified under CANFORGEN 134/12 and a CO has approval authority for remedial measures for alcohol misconduct up to C&P. So a CO has to think that the misconduct has reached the Administrative Review (AR) stage before it is sent to DMCA 2, anything less and they can deal with it.
> 
> It is almost comical that we are almost a decade past the issuance of that CANFORGEN (and a second clarifying one in 2014) and it isn't just written into the DAOD.  Not to mention very germane to the thread sexual misconduct has been removed from the CANFORGEN and it goes to DMCA 2. Although, it is just for them to decide if it is within the CO's authority to deal with or not so it really isn't an AR.


Great pickup and thank you for pointing that out. 

_Adds check CANFORGENS for DOAD keywords prior to advising higher of options_


----------



## hattrick72

lenaitch said:


> They, and he, are pretty much screwed no matter which way this goes.  If it doesn't go court (CF or civilian), there are those that will say the system doesn't take the issues and victims seriously.  If it does go to trial, it would turn on 32 year old evidence, with or without independent witnesses.
> 
> If the report is to believed, the most likely offence would be 'public indecency', which is dual procedure (prosecutable either by indictment or summarily) in the CC.  Without research, I assume it was also dual back the '80s.
> 
> I'm often curious, although I recognize the issue from the victim's perspective, why someone comes forward after several decades.  If the report is to be believed, he allegedly exposed himself to, or was seen exposed by, the victim.  I'm curious as to bubbling trauma, but admit I'm not involved.
> 
> He won't be the first person to be brought down by past actions, in or out of the military, and won't be last.  Sometimes, the tall poppies get picked.


I think if the complainant has a memo or similar with minutes and their original complaint or something similar and nothing was done it changes the outcome. What if the person has something from the #MeToo timeline?

What I find interesting is the complaint was made in March. It was leaked to CTV the day after the WE report. What are the chances a Liberal insider leaked that information to change the narrative?


----------



## MilEME09

hattrick72 said:


> I think if the complainant has a memo or similar with minutes and their original complaint or something similar and nothing was done it changes the outcome. What if the person has something from the #MeToo timeline?
> 
> What I find interesting is the complaint was made in March. It was leaked to CTV the day after the WE report. What are the chances a Liberal insider leaked that information to change the narrative?


I'd believe it


----------



## Kilted

lenaitch said:


> They, and he, are pretty much screwed no matter which way this goes.  If it doesn't go court (CF or civilian), there are those that will say the system doesn't take the issues and victims seriously.  If it does go to trial, it would turn on 32 year old evidence, with or without independent witnesses.
> 
> If the report is to believed, the most likely offence would be 'public indecency', which is dual procedure (prosecutable either by indictment or summarily) in the CC.  Without research, I assume it was also dual back the '80s.
> 
> I'm often curious, although I recognize the issue from the victim's perspective, why someone comes forward after several decades.  If the report is to be believed, he allegedly exposed himself to, or was seen exposed by, the victim.  I'm curious as to bubbling trauma, but admit I'm not involved.
> 
> He won't be the first person to be brought down by past actions, in or out of the military, and won't be last.  Sometimes, the tall poppies get picked.


I wonder if the Class Action lawsuit had anything to do with it?


----------



## lenaitch

hattrick72 said:


> I think if the complainant has a memo or similar with minutes and their original complaint or something similar and nothing was done it changes the outcome. What if the person has something from the #MeToo timeline?
> 
> What I find interesting is the complaint was made in March. It was leaked to CTV the day after the WE report. What are the chances a Liberal insider leaked that information to change the narrative?



Possibly, if the allegation includes information that points to a contemporary investigation that was inadequate.  I just assumed, possibly incorrectly since we really don't much at this point, that the allegation was new.


Kilted said:


> I wonder if the Class Action lawsuit had anything to do with it?



Could be but I'm not familiar with any claim or settlement dates.


----------



## Jarnhamar

MilEME09 said:


> Maj.-Gen. Dany Fortin facing historical sexual misconduct allegation: CTV News sources
> 
> 
> CTV News has learned that since March, the military has been aware of a sexual misconduct claim against Maj.-Gen. Dany Fortin, who stepped down from his role overseeing the vaccine rollout two days ago.
> 
> 
> 
> www.ctvnews.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we have a General who allegedly did something stupid as a cadet 32 years ago at RMC, and only now is getting his otherwise good career destroyed? This is probably the first allegation I find questionable, 32 years is a long time.......


This could be a perfect example of what Oldsolduer was talking about being careful what we wish for.


----------



## QV

And since everything from a sexist joke to rape falls within the definition of “sexual misconduct” any media report of a “sexual misconduct allegation” is going to look even worse as yesterday’s actions are applied to today’s standards.  

I don’t know what Fortin is specifically accused of, and I don’t bother to look. But I’m certain there will much more to come as this all gets going.  You’ve all seen or were aware of the plethora of “inappropriate relationships” with or without rank disparities In the CAF over your careers.  Just like any other workplace there will be workplace relationship drama. The truly criminal behaviour is likely a far smaller percentage then even the civilian population.  

As an aside, interesting to see some people on here now suggesting alcohol is a contributing factor when they opposed that suggestion by me in another thread related to RMC.


----------



## trigger324

Jarnhamar said:


> This could be a perfect example of what Oldsolduer was talking about being careful what we wish for.


Could be, and the good General is definitely entitled to the due process that every single one of us speaking to the topic have been agreeing to.


----------



## YZT580

and I would be willing to bet that there are very very few of us on this site who wouldn't have some action, statement, poor taste joke from our teen and twenty years that wouldn't constitute sexual misconduct


----------



## Kilted

YZT580 said:


> and I would be willing to bet that there are very very few of us on this site who wouldn't have some action, statement, poor taste joke from our teen and twenty years that wouldn't constitute sexual misconduct


The Jordan Rule is the only think that prevent the CAF fo being completely destroyed if everyone was charged who could potentially be accussed of anything.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> I’m saying that this issue is endemic in the entire organization



It's endemic to society.  Occasional misconduct - of various forms, not just sexual - is what people do.  Given enough zealots, it is now the proverbial sword of Damocles.


----------



## trigger324

Brad Sallows said:


> It's endemic to society.


I've been told we are supposed to be better than society.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Better is not synonymous with eradicate.


----------



## trigger324

Is someone eradicating society?


----------



## Remius

Brad Sallows said:


> Better is not synonymous with eradicate.


Not sure what that means lol


----------



## trigger324

Remius said:


> Not sure what that means lol


I'm being trolled. He mourns for our comprehension.


----------



## Kilted

brihard said:


> For Criminal Code matters, under the decision in R. v. Jordan, a matter in Provincial Court has 18 months from the laying of charges to completion of trial, or else the delay is presumptively unreasonable and a Charter breach. Delays attributable to the defense don’t count.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They’re between a rock and a hard place on this one. The norm has been established that any allegation, however dated, will be taken seriously. It has to be, but that also means some real outlier cases will emerge. I hope that they’re conducting as much investigation as possible before acting to relieve senior leaders... though in a case like this there’s likely little viable investigation to be done. It’ll likely be based almost entirely on the statement of the complainant and, possibly, the accused. The alleged conduct would quite potentially hit a criminal threshold, even 32 years ago. I don’t see that the CDS would really have a leg to stand on in reversing course at this point.


It will be difficult to proceed on this if there are no other witnesses.  32 years is a long time to forget stuff.  He may not have any memory if it, if it happened at all.  The complainant could have confused him for someone else entirely.


----------



## MilEME09

Kilted said:


> It will be difficult to proceed on this if there are no other witnesses.  32 years is a long time to forget stuff.  He may not have any memory if it, if it happened at all.  The complainant could have confused him for someone else entirely.


There is also the matter of RMC, was there a complaint back then? If yes was it investigated? Was he disciplined? If he was for example that changes the dynamic.


----------



## FJAG

Kilted said:


> The Jordan Rule is the only think that prevent the CAF fo being completely destroyed if everyone was charged who could potentially be accussed of anything.





Kilted said:


> It will be difficult to proceed on this if there are no other witnesses.  32 years is a long time to forget stuff.  He may not have any memory if it, if it happened at all.  The complainant could have confused him for someone else entirely.


The principle in R v Jordan has no application in this. Jordan requires that a trial proceed within a specific time AFTER charges have been laid based on the s 11 Charter requirement that a person be tried within a reasonable period of time AFTER being charged. It does not include time in pre-charge investigation or the time that has elapsed after an act has occurred and before the authorities are advised of it and commence their investigation.

The issue respecting lapses of memory, lost witnesses etc are all properly matters of Limitation of Actions period and as for criminal law, there are no limitation periods in Canada other than for the minor summary conviction offences.

🍻


----------



## Kilted

FJAG said:


> The principle in R v Jordan has no application in this. Jordan requires that a trial proceed within a specific time AFTER charges have been laid based on the s 11 Charter requirement that a person be tried within a reasonable period of time AFTER being charged. It does not include time in pre-charge investigation or the time that has elapsed after an act has occurred and before the authorities are advised of it and commence their investigation.
> 
> The issue respecting lapses of memory, lost witnesses etc are all properly matters of Limitation of Actions period and as for criminal law, there are no limitation periods in Canada other than for the minor summary conviction offences.
> 
> 🍻


I'm aware of that, my intent was that if everyone was charged there would be no way they could all proceed through in time. We already have recent Court Martials that have been thrown out due to Jordan.


----------



## OldSolduer

trigger324 said:


> I've been told we are supposed to be better than society.


Where do you think we come from? Under a rock? A virgin birth?

Yes the CAF should be better but sometimes all the powerpoints, briefiings, mandatory training etc etc does not erase what you learned while you were growing up.


----------



## trigger324

OldSolduer said:


> Where do you think we come from? Under a rock? A virgin birth?
> 
> Yes the CAF should be better but sometimes all the powerpoints, briefiings, mandatory training etc etc does not erase what you learned while you were growing up.


I thought you left the room. Nice to see you back.

I guess this brings us back to “Only the CAF”


----------



## Retired AF Guy

FJAG said:


> ... there are no limitation periods in Canada other than for the minor summary conviction offences.
> 
> 🍻


Thank you for answering my next question..


----------



## dimsum

OldSolduer said:


> Where do you think we come from?


To be fair, I _have_ thought that question about some people I've met in the CAF.


----------



## Haggis

trigger324 said:


> I've been told we are supposed to be better than society.


Although this is an admirable goal, you've been misinformed.  Yes, we are supposed to hold ourselves to a higher standard but we are still reflective of and composed from the society we recruit from.  This is the same for any profession.


----------



## trigger324

Haggis said:


> Although this is an admirable goal, you've been misinformed.  Yes, we are supposed to hold ourselves to a higher standard but we are still reflective of and composed from the society we recruit from.  This is the same for any profession.


But the uniqueness that is supposed to be the CAF is what’s supposed to set us apart, isn’t it? Do you get thanked for your service when you’re buying your daily Timmies? Does the person serving you your daily Timmies get thanked in the next sentence by that same person that thanked you?


----------



## Remius

Haggis said:


> Although this is an admirable goal, you've been misinformed.  Yes, we are supposed to hold ourselves to a higher standard but we are still reflective of and composed from the society we recruit from.  This is the same for any profession.


Except that if we really want to be honest with ourselves we are not really a true reflection of our society at all.


----------



## Remius

This article written in 2008 tackles that issue.  I still think it is relevant when discussing if the CAF is truly representative of our society.






						Can The Canadian Forces (CF) Reflect  Canadian Society?
					

Can The Canadian Forces (CF) Reflect  Canadian Society?



					www.journal.forces.gc.ca


----------



## YZT580

Kilted said:


> It will be difficult to proceed on this if there are no other witnesses.  32 years is a long time to forget stuff.  He may not have any memory if it, if it happened at all.  The complainant could have confused him for someone else entirely.


Doesn't matter if it proceeds or not, his career is toast.


----------



## Weinie

trigger324 said:


> Could be, and the good General is definitely entitled to the due process that every single one of us speaking to the topic have been agreeing to.


The good General is indeed, entitled, to due process. Regrettably, he will not get due outcome, regardless of the verdict. So whether found guilty or innocent, he will enduringly wear some level of culpability/remonstration, and that will never be removed from the public record/internet wayback machine. He is, forever, doubly jeopardized.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Haggis said:


> Although this is an admirable goal, you've been misinformed.  Yes, we are supposed to hold ourselves to a higher standard but we are still reflective of and composed from the society we recruit from.  This is the same for any profession.


We select people.  We have the liberty to reject people.  We are not a true reflection of society.  The average CAF should be better than the average Canadian society.


----------



## Weinie

trigger324 said:


> *I thought you left the room.* Nice to see you back.
> 
> I guess this brings us back to “Only the CAF”


Uncalled for. Trolling


----------



## trigger324

No that was not. Misread expression.


----------



## Weinie

trigger324 said:


> No that was not. Misread expression.


Or perhaps your "misread expression" of how your comment would be construed. Not the best way to welcome someone back.


----------



## Loachman

trigger324 said:


> I’m being as diplomatic as I possibly can with everyone,



Your diplomatic abilities are not as apparent to at least a few others - including me - as they are to you.



trigger324 said:


> but I may be misread.



The errors in communication may or may or may not be occurring completely at the receiving end.



trigger324 said:


> However I feel passionately about this subject



Obviously.

And there is nothing wrong with that - but see my previous two observations above.


----------



## Loachman

SupersonicMax said:


> We select people.  We have the liberty to reject people.  We are not a true reflection of society.  The average CAF should be better than the average Canadian society.



If you know how to predict future behaviour, especially that of teenagers, and weed out those who will commit some level of common human mistake or even outright criminal act, you could make a fortune.


----------



## OldSolduer

trigger324 said:


> I thought you left the room. Nice to see you back.



I'm like that guy Jack Nicholson portrayed in "The Shining". 

Thank you.


dimsum said:


> To be fair, I _have_ thought that question about some people I've met in the CAF.


I do every day at work as well. Not just people in the CAF either but on BOTH sides of the bars.


----------



## Jarnhamar

We should remember to be excellent to each other even when we don't agree.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Loachman said:


> If you know how to predict future behaviour, especially that of teenagers, and weed out those who will commit some level of common human mistake or even outright criminal act, you could make a fortune.


We won’t weed out every potential offender but I would still say we are above Canada’s average.  Saying we are a reflection of our society is a fallacy.  We can’t even have the same representation from all minorities as within the Canadian population...


----------



## Haggis

Remius said:


> Except that if we really want to be honest with ourselves we are not really a true reflection of our society at all.


I would say we are more so now than at the time the article you posted below was penned.  We do attempt to mould our members towards a specific culture and embody the warrior mindset but not to the extent that the US military has done. We also still have a significant segment of the CAF ( approximately 9%, mostly in Ottawa) who behave like civilians who don't have to decide what to wear to work each day.


----------



## Loachman

We *can* have greater reflection.

But many minority groups seem to lack interest, often for negative impressions of police and military forces back home. Reserve units in larger cities seem to recruit more than the Reg Force does though.

The current crop of RMC Cadets seem to be very diverse, but may well have parents pushing them that way for family prestige purposes, either for the college education or as a commissioned career or perhaps both. At least a few have inflated senses of entitlement - "Do you know who my father is?" MPs can find that quite entertaining on occasion.


----------



## Remius

Haggis said:


> I would say we are more so now than at the time the article you posted below was penned.  We do attempt to mould our members towards a specific culture and embody the warrior mindset but not to the extent that the US military has done. We also still have a significant segment of the CAF ( approximately 9%, mostly in Ottawa) who behave like civilians who don't have to decide what to wear to work each day.


If you have the stats to back it up I would agree but I doubt we are even close to being a reflection of our society.

It’s a catchphrase that been used over the years but we are deluding ourselves if we think that it’s a reality.   That phrase bugs me just as much as people thinking we are peacekeepers.  Nice sentiment but neither is reality.  

and don’t get me started on “warrior culture”.  I wish that would go away.


----------



## Haggis

SupersonicMax said:


> We select people.  We have the liberty to reject people.  We are not a true reflection of society.  *The average CAF should be better than the average Canadian society.*


We are still subject to _some of _the same hiring practices as any other branch of the Public Service and still strive/struggle to meet EE and diversity targets.  In that we don't do well in this regard may be why we are not truly reflective.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Can't hire those who don't apply...


----------



## SupersonicMax

Haggis said:


> We are still subject to _some of _the same hiring practices as any other branch of the Public Service and still strive/struggle to meet EE and diversity targets.  In that we don't do well in this regard may be why we are not truly reflective.


Better in the sense that we recruit, on average, people with a stronger moral fibre than average Canada.


----------



## Remius

Haggis said:


> We are still subject to _some of _the same hiring practices as any other branch of the Public Service and still strive/struggle to meet EE and diversity targets.  In that we don't do well in this regard may be why we are not truly reflective.


Agreed.  Having worked at a CFRC the challenges to meet any “target” are stymied by people’s perception and yes, gender perceptions and traditional gender roles that still exist in people’s minds and society.  The fact is that a lot of women do not want to play in the dirt or blow up stuff.  Certain minorities don’t trust the military based in their own experiences and pre conceptions from their countries of origin.

But we should not kid ourselves that we are anything close to a reflection of our society,  we should however seek out the best and attract them to us.  Our current situation though has probably set that back by years.


----------



## Remius

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Can't hire those who don't apply...


Sure.  But let’s stop saying we are a reflection of society.  We are not.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Remius said:


> Agreed.  Having worked at a CFRC the challenges to meet any “target” are stymied by people’s perception and yes, gender perceptions and traditional gender roles that still exist in people’s minds and society.  The fact is that a lot of women do not want to play in the dirt or blow up stuff.  Certain minorities don’t trust the military based in their own experiences and pre conceptions from their countries of origin.
> 
> But we should not kid ourselves that we are anything close to a reflection of our society,  we should however seek out the best and attract them to us.  Our current situation though has probably set that back by years.


Funny, the same kind of arguments was made back in the 1970s for French Canadians.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Remius said:


> Our current situation though has probably set that back by years.


No it hasn't.......the only reason I give a flying frig about the CAF is because of this website.  I've been a civilian for over 30 years and I can tell you my "not give a flying frig" is still light years above the average Canadian.   I'd wager 99% of Canadians haven't even clicked on a headline link about this.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Remius said:


> Agreed.  Having worked at a CFRC the challenges to meet any “target” are stymied by people’s perception and yes, gender perceptions and traditional gender roles that still exist in people’s minds and society.  The fact is that a lot of women do not want to play in the dirt or blow up stuff.  Certain minorities don’t trust the military based in their own experiences and pre conceptions from their countries of origin.
> 
> But we should not kid ourselves that we are anything close to a reflection of our society,  we should however seek out the best and attract them to us.  Our current situation though has probably set that back by years.



At least female troops are being treated the same as the male, in the US:

One of the Marine Corps' first women grunts might be booted out only two years after making history​
Cpl. Remedios Cruz, who was reduced in rank from sergeant, is facing discharge after pleading guilty to fraternization as part of a deal to avoid going to trial. According to the New York Times, in the Article 32 hearing —the military's version of a grand jury proceeding — the presiding official advised against a full-blown court-martial. 

Cruz's battalion commander disagreed, and recommended she go to trial for all three charges brought against her, which included adultery, accessory to larceny and fraternization, the Times reported. 









						One of the Marine Corps' first women grunts might be booted out only two years after making history
					

The military's effort to integrate women into combat positions was delivered another blow this week as reports surfaced that one of the first female infantry Marines might be discharged less than two years after joining her infantry unit.




					www.businessinsider.com


----------



## Kilted

Remius said:


> Agreed.  Having worked at a CFRC the challenges to meet any “target” are stymied by people’s perception and yes, gender perceptions and traditional gender roles that still exist in people’s minds and society.  The fact is that a lot of women do not want to play in the dirt or blow up stuff.  Certain minorities don’t trust the military based in their own experiences and pre conceptions from their countries of origin.
> 
> But we should not kid ourselves that we are anything close to a reflection of our society,  we should however seek out the best and attract them to us.  Our current situation though has probably set that back by years.


Cultural approches to military service are also significant, regardless of past experiences. We do have a significant number of Sikh members for example.  There are also religious bans in military service, for example Jehovah Witnesses and Amish/other Anabastist groups. I could comment on particular groups that I think are underrepresented, but that would be based solely on my own experiences.


----------



## trigger324

Remius said:


> and don’t get me started on “warrior culture”.  I wish that would go away.


Tell me about it. We can “thank” Big Rick for that. 😐


----------



## daftandbarmy

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Can't hire those who don't apply...



:Tangent on: 

Dude.... don't get me started. I failed, spectacularly, in trying to move our recruiting approaches away from the practises I had used in 1979. Well, at least in 1979 we didn't having spelling mistakes on the posters and brochures (that no one in the 2000s piad any attention to becasue they are on their phones etc). Viz:

Historical Trends Driving Current Practices

The services’ advisory group presentations discussed their tendency to focus recruiting efforts in areas where they have been successful in the past, such as regional markets or particular schools. While this approach is logical and has been relatively successful in meeting accession targets, Census information indicates ongoing changes in youth demographics, and youth interests and career plans have changed over the years, as reported by numerous sources. Such changes may make traditional approaches less successful in the future. The services also noted shifts in the population distribution from more-rural areas to urban and suburban centers. This geographical shift may most directly affect the reserve components (which recruit for local units) but ultimately could affect all components because relocation from more- to less-isolated areas may present more alternatives for youth to consider.



			https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1088624.pdf
		


:Tangent Off:


----------



## Blackadder1916

daftandbarmy said:


> . . .  Well, at least in 1979 we didn't having *spelling mistakes* on the posters and brochures (that no one in the 2000s *piad* any attention to* becasue* they are on their phones etc). Viz:



Patterns


----------



## lenaitch

Remius said:


> and don’t get me started on “warrior culture”.  I wish that would go away.





trigger324 said:


> Tell me about it. We can “thank” Big Rick for that. 😐



A country bumpkin civilian asks the question:  When the overall mandate of the organization is, if called upon, to commit violence on the country's behalf, why is a warrior culture a bad thing?  Or does it mean something else 'on the inside'?  Not that all CAF members are ultimately trigger-pullers by trade, others are ultimately enablers.


----------



## mariomike

Warrior culture,









						On the Toxicity of the ‘Warrior’ Ethos
					

On the Toxicity of the ‘Warrior’ Ethos by Ryan Noordally  Do you remember how successful Zack Snyder’s 2006 film, 300, was?  It enjoyed a popular, if not cult, following amongst military personnel.  Its popularity generated widespread use of the film’s iconography and ‘Spartan’ became a brand...




					army.ca


----------



## SeaKingTacco

SupersonicMax said:


> Better in the sense that we recruit, on average, people with a stronger moral fibre than average Canada.


See, I am not sure that is actually the case. We recruit what we recruit. Whether that makes a CAF recruit ”more moral” than the average Canadian- I am not sure.

In theory, we hold up a high standard and expect people to meet it. Despite our recent public travails, I actually think most people in the military are honest, decent, try hard and believe in what they do.


----------



## Weinie

SupersonicMax said:


> So, you expect everyone to air out everything they have done or that their community has done over the years to contribute to the environment we are in today?  As I have said before several times, we _all_ have biases that led to the environment we are living in today. That includes you, me, senior CAF leadership, junior leaders, etc. Because I have biases doesn’t mean I can’t bring others to realize they do as well. At least I realize I have them and the institution has issues rather than be blind to the problems the institution is facing.
> 
> Good on you for reporting this specific incident. Now, which of your behaviours contributed (in a big or small way) to the environment we live in today? Why did you behave in those ways? These are the questions we should all be asking ourselves to uncover both our personal biases and the institution’s. How many time have you given a PERX to someone on MATA despite having even 1 day of observable work? Why did you do so?  Doesn’t that contribute to the marginalization of women in the grand scheme of things?


So you seem to waver between woke and whiny in your posts.

Along with your credentials as a fighter pilot, you seem to feel you are entitled to/imbued with psychiatric credentials as well. I will take your postings with  the credence that they deserve.

edited to insert/delete words,


----------



## Brad Sallows

> Not sure what that means lol



It means the CAF isn't perfect, but it is better.  Society at large will most likely re-elect those who experience things differently instead of setting them aside.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Weinie said:


> So you seem to waver between woke and whiny in your posts.
> 
> Along with your credentials as a fighter pilot, you seem to feel you are entitled to/imbued with psychiatric credentials as well. I will take your postings with  the credence that they deserve.
> 
> edited to insert/delete words,


Not sure what level you are in the CAF but if seems like you are, by virtue at least of your rank, a leader within the institution.

If leaders can’t at least put their beliefs aside and do a bit of introspection on their own behaviours and find ways to better themselves and, incidentally, their organization, I am not sure those they are worthy of leading.  The first step to getting better is accepting we have issues.


----------



## Good2Golf

Assuming you’re still serving and it seems a position of leadership, what short comings did you self-observe and how are you improving how you lead to address your privileges and biases that have disadvantaged women and minority groups in the CAF?


----------



## lenaitch

mariomike said:


> Warrior culture,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the Toxicity of the ‘Warrior’ Ethos
> 
> 
> On the Toxicity of the ‘Warrior’ Ethos by Ryan Noordally  Do you remember how successful Zack Snyder’s 2006 film, 300, was?  It enjoyed a popular, if not cult, following amongst military personnel.  Its popularity generated widespread use of the film’s iconography and ‘Spartan’ became a brand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> army.ca


Thanks for that.  Good read (apparently a re-read; I don't remember it).


----------



## SupersonicMax

Good2Golf said:


> Assuming you’re still serving and it seems a position of leadership, what short comings did you self-observe and how are you improving how you lead to address your privileges and biases that have disadvantaged women and minority groups in the CAF?


On a personal level, for example, I started using gender-neutral language, I stopped (a long time ago) using so-called fighter pilot speak (that tended exclude women, was crude and was full of sexual innuendos), and I am making an effort to minimize the effects of pregnancy on career development (like writing PERs, despite a short observation period). On a organizational level, in my previous unit, I set aside 2 hours a week on Fridays for my Branch to talk about issues in the unit and tried to incorporate inclusivity in the mix. I am also actively having small group, casual, discussions with peers and subordinates to try and make them view the world from women’s and minorities’ lens and try to foster ideas on how to combat it within the institution.  I am a strong believer that if solutions come from the lowest levels, they tend to work better than if they are forced down the CoC.

The first step, however, was to acknowledge that some things I did contributed to the marginalization of women and visible minorities and that many of our own policies tend to favour the white, anglo-saxon male.


----------



## Good2Golf

Very positive effort, I believe. Good on you.  I actually grew up with many influential women and used neutral pronouns (they as singular neutral, not plural) literally decades before it became expected, particularly as a demonstration of more recent ‘wokeness’. 

Arguably, empathy and respect should not be seen as recent developments; however, it would be entirely fair I think to note that empathy to our own has not been a strong suit in the CAF since as long as I can remember for the early/mid-80s.

I sincerely wish that empathy can be embraced within the CAF where appropriate, as it is not diametrically counter to capability to execute ones mission responsibly.


----------



## OldSolduer

trigger324 said:


> Tell me about it. We can “thank” Big Rick for that. 😐


At the time that was needed. Our - your mandate as a member of the CAF is to kill people, bottom line or support those who do the killing. The CAF or some within it, had forgotten that. Personally I don't buy into the warrior thing but like I said, it was a reminder to those who thought we were only "Peacekeepers". BTW we weren't in the peacekeeping business until 1956.


----------



## Infanteer

Max, I share G2Gs sentiments - those seem like good examples of real ways to improve the situation.  

I think, in the past, empathy took a backseat to "Get 'er Done!" - while one was encouraged to be a good leader and take care of subordinates, success was gauged upon dealing with less and driving the organization to "Get 'er Done!"  Although the pendulum will, like always, swing this way and that, I'd like to think that maybe we'll achieve more balance between to two as we go through this in the CAF.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

SupersonicMax said:


> On a personal level, for example, I started using gender-neutral language, I stopped (a long time ago) using so-called fighter pilot speak (that tended exclude women, was crude and was full of sexual innuendos), and I am making an effort to minimize the effects of pregnancy on career development (like writing PERs, despite a short observation period). On a organizational level, in my previous unit, I set aside 2 hours a week on Fridays for my Branch to talk about issues in the unit and tried to incorporate inclusivity in the mix. I am also actively having small group, casual, discussions with peers and subordinates to try and make them view the world from women’s and minorities’ lens and try to foster ideas on how to combat it within the institution.  I am a strong believer that if solutions come from the lowest levels, they tend to work better than if they are forced down the CoC.
> 
> The first step, however, was to acknowledge that some things I did contributed to the marginalization of women and visible minorities and that many of our own policies tend to favour the white, anglo-saxon male.


Just to show you how perspectives can differ, I never got the sense that the CAF was rigged in favour anglo-saxons (I will stipulate to the Male and white part of your argument). I was born and raised in Western Canada. It was made clear to me throughout my career that, no matter how much effort I spent learning french, it would never overcome the mere fact that I has not been born in the stretch of Canada between Ottawa and Quebec City.

I say this not to claim victimhood (I am not a victim), but only to demonstrate that sometimes well meaning policies can leave many people feeling like an outsider.


----------



## SupersonicMax

SeaKingTacco said:


> Just to show you how perspectives can differ, I never got the sense that the CAF was rigged in favour anglo-saxons (I will stipulate to the Male and white part of your argument). I was born and raised in Western Canada. It was made clear to me throughout my career that, no matter how much effort I spent learning french, it would never overcome the mere fact that I has not been born in the stretch of Canada between Ottawa and Quebec City.
> 
> I say this not to claim victimhood (I am not a victim), but only to demonstrate that sometimes well meaning policies can leave many people feeling like an outsider.


For the anglo-saxon comment, just look at how many trades training courses are solely conducted in English, or if it is conducted in French, the reference material is only available in English. That in itself is a massive advantage for the anglophones.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

SupersonicMax said:


> For the anglo-saxon comment, just look at how many trades training courses are solely conducted in English, or if it is conducted in French, the reference material is only available in English. That in itself is a massive advantage for the anglophones.


That is absolutely an advantage in the first part of one’s career, but not if you aspire to higher rank.

The fact that aviation is (largely) in English is not some anglo-saxon conspiracy- it is that way by international convention.

Again, this usefully points out how perspectives differ.


----------



## SupersonicMax

SeaKingTacco said:


> That is absolutely an advantage in the first part of one’s career, but not if you aspire to higher rank.



It is always a disadvantage.  No matter how familiar I am with English, I am still not as comfortable as I would in French and, especially when I am tired, make mistakes.



SeaKingTacco said:


> The fact that aviation is (largely) in English is not some anglo-saxon conspiracy- it is that way by international convention.


I believed that when I went through training (largely because this is what I was told).  Until I went to France. They conduct the entirety of their flight training in French. Yes, they require a minimum level of English competency but their training is all in French (and even speak with ATC in French). Training is where you learn the basics of your trade and in the case of aircrew training, the basis of safety. There is no real space for mis-interpretation. I am wondering how many people did not develop to their full potential (or failed training) because of the language barrier. There is a way to conduct flight training in French. We just don't have a real will do to so.

This is also not only true for aircrew trades training but also some tech training.


----------



## Furniture

SupersonicMax said:


> It is always a disadvantage.  No matter how familiar I am with English, I am still not as comfortable as I would in French and, especially when I am tired, make mistakes.
> 
> 
> I believed that when I went through training (largely because this is what I was told).  Until I went to France. They conduct the entirety of their flight training in French. Yes, they require a minimum level of English competency but their training is all in French (and even speak with ATC in French). Training is where you learn the basics of your trade and in the case of aircrew training, the basis of safety. There is no real space for mis-interpretation. I am wondering how many people did not develop to their full potential (or failed training) because of the language barrier. There is a way to conduct flight training in French. We just don't have a real will do to so.
> 
> This is also not only true for aircrew trades training but also some tech training.


Alternately, in trades where English is the language of instruction all French speaking members receive English language training prior to coursing. When they are a few years in many achieve at least BBB, while English speakers can spend an entire 20+ year career asking for SLT and never receive it. I was just forced to choose between a coupe of weeks of SLT twice a week or ILP... Which do you think I chose? 

When the French speakers and the English speakers are MCpl/Sgt/WO, who do you think is disadvantaged by the system then? The people who spent a year learning a new language at 18, or the ones who used Rosetta Stone at their own  expense, and on their free time?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

SupersonicMax said:


> It is always a disadvantage.  No matter how familiar I am with English, I am still not as comfortable as I would in French and, especially when I am tired, make mistakes.
> 
> 
> I believed that when I went through training (largely because this is what I was told).  Until I went to France. They conduct the entirety of their flight training in French. Yes, they require a minimum level of English competency but their training is all in French (and even speak with ATC in French). Training is where you learn the basics of your trade and in the case of aircrew training, the basis of safety. There is no real space for mis-interpretation. I am wondering how many people did not develop to their full potential (or failed training) because of the language barrier. There is a way to conduct flight training in French. We just don't have a real will do to so.
> 
> This is also not only true for aircrew trades training but also some tech training.


See, once again, perspectives differ. Your perspective is not wrong- just different than mine.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Furniture said:


> Alternately, in trades where English is the language of instruction all French speaking members receive English language training prior to coursing. When they are a few years in many achieve at least BBB, while English speakers can spend an entire 20+ year career asking for SLT and never receive it. I was just forced to choose between a coupe of weeks of SLT twice a week or ILP... Which do you think I chose?
> 
> When the French speakers and the English speakers are MCpl/Sgt/WO, who do you think is disadvantaged by the system then? The people who spent a year learning a new language at 18, or the ones who used Rosetta Stone at their own  expense, and on their free time?


I'll take learning my trade in my native language. BBB is hardly enough to fully understand courseware to the level a native speaker would.

I was never given SLT, besides one year at RMC (after which I was apparently able to get a BBB, although I believe the tests were easier back then). I learned by being immersed in an environment where I did not have a choice. The beginnings were rough...


----------



## SeaKingTacco

SupersonicMax said:


> I'll take learning my trade in my native language. BBB is hardly enough to fully understand courseware to the level a native speaker would.
> 
> I was never given SLT, besides one year at RMC (after which I was apparently able to get a BBB, although I believe the tests were easier back then). I learned by being immersed in an environment where I did not have a choice. The beginnings were rough...


You have learned that the “BBB” in English is given out too freely (you could have benefitted from more instruction) and I have learned that the “BBB” in French requires one to attend the Sorbonne, apparently.

Sorry- I seriously did not mean to de-rail this into a language debate. What I think that I successfully demonstrated is that even amongst what are perceived by many as the “privileged group“, people perceive unfairness.


----------



## OldSolduer

Well SKT I’ll derail it further. I went on my WO course in Gagetown and learned I was in the Franco section. When I pointed out to the Crse WO I was Anglo, he basically told me to suck it up and carry on. He was a VanDoo. 
So I did. It was a good move. I enjoyed working with Francos and could at least comprehend what they were trying to get across.


----------



## trigger324

OldSolduer said:


> At the time that was needed. Our - your mandate as a member of the CAF is to kill people, bottom line or support those who do the killing. The CAF or some within it, had forgotten that. Personally I don't buy into the warrior thing but like I said, it was a reminder to those who thought we were only "Peacekeepers". BTW we weren't in the peacekeeping business until 1956.


I disagree. Since the vast majority of the public has been described here(on this site) as indifferent among other things to the organization, the message resonated with one group only(the people being pumped up), and to them it went straight to their head.


----------



## Remius

OldSolduer said:


> At the time that was needed. Our - your mandate as a member of the CAF is to kill people, bottom line or support those who do the killing. The CAF or some within it, had forgotten that. Personally I don't buy into the warrior thing but like I said, it was a reminder to those who thought we were only "Peacekeepers". BTW we weren't in the peacekeeping business until 1956.


It’s an interesting subject.  But I personally disagree.  As the article demonstrated or argued, we needed and still need a professional fighting force akin to the roman centurion model and that’s what needed reminding.  We still need reminding today.  That does not mean we can’t encourage a fighting spirit but the warrior culture is a thing we never should have adopted.   Certain smaller specialized units certainly benefit form the “warrior” mentality but it isn’t something that needs to be adopted by the institution as a whole.  Fighting spirit, professional soldiering.  Yes.  Warrior culture, not so much.


----------



## Remius

OldSolduer said:


> Well SKT I’ll derail it further. I went on my WO course in Gagetown and learned I was in the Franco section. When I pointed out to the Crse WO I was Anglo, he basically told me to suck it up and carry on. He was a VanDoo.
> So I did. It was a good move. I enjoyed working with Francos and could at least comprehend what they were trying to get across.


Lol.  Same thing happened to me.  My first official language is French though.  But my entire career had been in English.   Turns out half my section was composed of about half French guys like me who had been used to doing things in English.  So wasn’t a big issue in the end.

sorry for the derail.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Infanteer said:


> I think, in the past, empathy took a backseat to "Get 'er Done!" - while one was encouraged to be a good leader and take care of subordinates, success was gauged upon dealing with less and driving the organization to "Get 'er Done!"  Although the pendulum will, like always, swing this way and that, I'd like to think that maybe we'll achieve more balance between to two as we go through this in the CAF.



Get get' er done mentality is alive and prospering today IMO. 

Leaders constantly tell their subordinates how much they care because that's what they're told they're supposed to tell their subordinates. You see pretty quickly who actually cares and who's making platitudes. 

I think we talk about caring more today than 20 years ago, but I think we care less.


----------



## Infanteer

Jarnhamar said:


> I think we talk about caring more today than 20 years ago, but I think we care less.


I don't know about that.  I'm always suspicious about "things were sure a lot better way back when."  If we cared more 20 years ago, do you think we'd have all these ugly stories bubbling up from the past?


----------



## OldSolduer

Infanteer said:


> I don't know about that.  I'm always suspicious about "things were sure a lot better way back when."  If we cared more 20 years ago, do you think we'd have all these ugly stories bubbling up from the past?


Things weren’t. When the OC said to his CSM “I want this man charged” the “Justice” was swift and unfair. The Summary Trial was conducted within hours of the OC giving direction. You were tried by the very OC who wanted you charged.


----------



## dapaterson

I guess the good news is that if things don't work out with BGen Brodie, there's already a replacement identified.


----------



## mariomike

Infanteer said:


> If we cared more 20 years ago, do you think we'd have all these ugly stories bubbling up from the past?


I think people have always cared about the news. But, all I knew 20 years ago was what I read in the paper.


----------



## QV

OldSolduer said:


> Things weren’t. When the OC said to his CSM “I want this man charged” the “Justice” was swift and unfair. The Summary Trial was conducted within hours of the OC giving direction. You were tried by the very OC who wanted you charged.


Which for disciplinary matters is entirely appropriate and should be the standard.  There is no reason this shouldn't happen when a soldier is absent without authority, or insubordinate, all the minor offences etc.  Today, if a trooper is late it's either ignored or they act as though it's the OJ Simpson trial with all involved and the paper and "investigation"... maybe a month later if you're lucky the trooper is finally dealt with and weakly.  That doesn't foster discipline, that's a joke.

A trooper was given a timing and didn't meet it, absent a compelling reason for being late, the punishment should be swift.  

I was late once as a 'no hook Pte', I was immediately marched in to the RSM (at double time and hatless) where I was given the option of his punishment or go to a summary trial by CO.  I took the RSM's dish and worked duty over several weekends.  I was never late again.


----------



## hattrick72

Furniture said:


> Alternately, in trades where English is the language of instruction all French speaking members receive English language training prior to coursing. When they are a few years in many achieve at least BBB, while English speakers can spend an entire 20+ year career asking for SLT and never receive it. I was just forced to choose between a coupe of weeks of SLT twice a week or ILP... Which do you think I chose?
> 
> When the French speakers and the English speakers are MCpl/Sgt/WO, who do you think is disadvantaged by the system then? The people who spent a year learning a new language at 18, or the ones who used Rosetta Stone at their own  expense, and on their free time?


No postings available in Quebec for your trade? Quick three years and out.


----------



## Kilted

QV said:


> Which for disciplinary matters is entirely appropriate and should be the standard.  There is no reason this shouldn't happen when a soldier is absent without authority, or insubordinate, all the minor offences etc.  Today, if a trooper is late it's either ignored or they act as though it's the OJ Simpson trial with all involved and the paper and "investigation"... maybe a month later if you're lucky the trooper is finally dealt with and weakly.  That doesn't foster discipline, that's a joke.
> 
> A trooper was given a timing and didn't meet it, absent a compelling reason for being late, the punishment should be swift.
> 
> I was late once as a 'no hook Pte', I was immediately marched in to the RSM (at double time and hatless) where I was given the option of his punishment or go to a summary trial by CO.  I took the RSM's dish and worked duty over several weekends.  I was never late again.


Then it should be done through administrative action or other means.  The Military Justice System shouldn't be abused just to get a quick result.  In many cases you are dealing with someone who has no understanding of the law being tried by someone who has no more understanding then what they are required to know to run a summary trial.  If we were to look at any number of summary trials my guess would be that many would be overturned because of evidence that should have been inadmissible, cautions that were not done right, and confusions that were compelled under lawful orders.  It's probably not as bad as it use to be, but then again, there really aren't that many people getting charged anymore.


----------



## ModlrMike

That it takes a month to bring someone to Summary Trial is called due process. A UDI can take a week, JAG advice a week, appointing an assisting member and allowing the accused time to understand the case, one to two weeks.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Kilted said:


> Then it should be done through administrative action or other means.  The Military Justice System shouldn't be abused just to get a quick result.  In many cases you are dealing with someone who has no understanding of the law being tried by someone who has no more understanding then what they are required to know to run a summary trial.  If we were to look at any number of summary trials my guess would be that many would be overturned because of evidence that should have been inadmissible, cautions that were not done right, and confusions that were compelled under lawful orders.  It's probably not as bad as it use to be, but then again, there really aren't that many people getting charged anymore.


I would prefer than minor infractions of discipline, especially by junior troops and officers, be handled through disciplinary means where there is fairness and transparency. The proposed changes from Summary Trials to Summary Hearings offer some hope that we could have expedient and fair correction of minor problems. Administrative action, such as Remedial Measures, should be preserved for repeat problems as that record never goes away.


----------



## QV

ModlrMike said:


> That it takes a month to bring someone to Summary Trial is called due process. A UDI can take a week, JAG advice a week, appointing an assisting member and allowing the accused time to understand the case, one to two weeks.


I think the maintenance of discipline and the prosecuting of crimes needs to be completely separate.

I'm quite comfortable with a CO/RSM dishing out minor punishments swiftly for minor disciplinary infractions.  Due process should be reserved for offences that need to go to a court of some kind.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Infanteer said:


> I don't know about that.  I'm always suspicious about "things were sure a lot better way back when."  If we cared more 20 years ago, do you think we'd have all these ugly stories bubbling up from the past?


You're right, cared more is a poor way to phrase it.

I think 20 years ago we were less inclined to treat members like cold numbers, there was less pressure to accomplish the plethora of no-fail tasks we seem to get, and more time was spent fostering teamwork and relationships. 

We definitely talk about caring more and talk about being more supportive, I don't think it's happening as much as we're imagining it does may be a more accurate statement?


----------



## trigger324

Kilted said:


> In many cases you are dealing with someone who has no understanding of the law being tried by someone who has no more understanding then what they are required to know to run a summary trial.


I’ve managed well over 20 years without being charged(came pretty close a few times) but have seen many of my fellow troops, shipmates, and crewmen get nailed to the wall just for fun by some of these clowns. I specifically think back to a ship’s Coxn who rounded up every CHOD aboard to help him do a random but sweeping locker search at sea in a mess deck of 50 MS and below. For an item that was reported stolen but found in the complainant’s pit immediately after the search concluded. A lot of things, albeit some contraband, were seized from a number of lockers. Many Chiefs during the search even whispered to the lower deckers how sorry they were for doing it.

Later on, conversation in our section with our P1 revealed that in the C&PO’s mess afterwards, a good number of his own mess mates confronted him-“how could you do that to them, ‘swain? you know you can’t do that!!”             

the reply? “Nobody said no”

What I’m illustrating here is an example of a Sr member taking major advantage of a number of junior members just based on their lack of knowledge of their rights and I dare say also that more observations of the same guy, he certainly displayed not much more understanding of running a man overboard drill, let alone a summary trial or more.


----------



## Jarnhamar

QV said:


> I'm quite comfortable with a CO/RSM dishing out minor punishments swiftly for minor disciplinary infractions.  *Due process should be reserved for *offences that need to go to a court of some kind.


You're suggesting we should arbitrability ignore a member's rights by ignoring due process.

What happens when you're innocent of whatever you're being accused of?


----------



## QV

Jarnhamar said:


> You're suggesting we should arbitrability ignore a member's rights by ignoring due process.
> 
> What happens when you're innocent of whatever you're being accused of?


I'm not sure 'rights' is the word I'd involve for soldiers being disciplined for minor disciplinary infractions.  

What has happened over the years is the processes for disciplinary matters have meshed with the processes for crimes and other serious offences.  That can't be because you paralyze real discipline and you take away that power from the officers.  What's next, a unionized ground force?


----------



## trigger324

OldSolduer said:


> You were tried by the very OC who wanted you charged.


That’s a comical coincidence to something that happened to me. One time I filed and lost a redress of grievance that was denied by the Final Authority because he was advised by the same people who made the original decision (🤣) and oddly enough I was supported by the Initial Authority but were unable to make the determination.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

QV said:


> I'm not sure 'rights' is the word I'd involve for soldiers being disciplined for minor disciplinary infractions.
> 
> What has happened over the years is the processes for disciplinary matters have meshed with the processes for crimes and other serious offences.  That can't be because you paralyze real discipline and you take away that power from the officers.  What's next, a unionized ground force?


"Rights" is why we have an armed service....


----------



## Remius

I would argue that an armed service is a physical manifestation of a government or nation’s will.  Not anything designed to protect anyone’s rights or secure them.  Although if said country was going to enforce certain rights it could use the military.   But it could also use it to deny rights.  In Canada my rights are protected by laws and I’ll need a lawyer to defend them not a soldier.

and I’ve always told my troops not to get to up on their high horses about defending freedoms and rights as we could be called upon to take away those same rights and freedoms if the government deemed it necessary.


----------



## brihard

QV said:


> I'm not sure 'rights' is the word I'd involve for soldiers being disciplined for minor disciplinary infractions.
> 
> What has happened over the years is the processes for disciplinary matters have meshed with the processes for crimes and other serious offences.  That can't be because you paralyze real discipline and you take away that power from the officers.  What's next, a unionized ground force?


You need to work to be more sure of it, then. The old myth that we give up our rights on enrolling is fading and needs to die.

In any employment sector, public or private, due process is a thing in disciplinary matters. Disciplining problem employees is a core advisory function of HR professionals, so this isn’t just a military thing. CAF, as a public body, ultimately has to be prepared to defend all of its actions and decisions in court, whether administrative matters that are grieved and appealed for judicial review, or military justice matters.

Because CAF’s internal discipline consists of offences under federal law, with real legal and potentially penal consequences, that bar has to be higher. When a CAF member faces trial for a CSD offense, they’re on the wrong end of the entire Canadian state, and their rights have to be protected to make sure they get the appropriate legal and procedural fairness. This cannot be wished away; it’s the norm now.


----------



## OldSolduer

ModlrMike said:


> That it takes a month to bring someone to Summary Trial is called due process. A UDI can take a week, JAG advice a week, appointing an assisting member and allowing the accused time to understand the case, one to two weeks.


Correct. If you`re the accused would you rather be railroaded or treated fairly.


----------



## Brad Sallows

"Due process" just means there is a process, and it's followed.  The process can be a simple expedient one for simple matters.


----------



## OldSolduer

Brad Sallows said:


> "Due process" just means there is a process, and it's followed.  The process can be a simple expedient one for simple matters.


I would agree with that.


----------



## Jarnhamar

QV said:


> I'm not sure 'rights' is the word I'd involve for soldiers being disciplined for minor disciplinary infractions.


When you reserve due process for certain situations you're saying you're only recognizing their rights in certain situations. Could be semantics. Due process should always apply.

I know what you mean when you're talking about the RSM meriting out extras instead of charges or remedial measures. A lot of people would probably prefer extras from the boss over RM or a charge. The problem is when someone is innocent, it becomes someone being found guilty and sentenced without a trial.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Everyone has a beef about injustice.  Mine is that whenever we were told to sweep an area, it was inevitably clean except for cigarette butts.  I have never smoked.


----------



## Remius

I made sure the moment I had any amount of leadership responsibility that when I had troops do that, that the smokers were the ones that swept for butts.


----------



## ModlrMike

Brad Sallows said:


> "Due process" just means there is a process, and it's followed.  The process can be a simple expedient one for simple matters.


True, but it also means doing things correctly, and allowing the accused the required time to formulate a defence. A rush to trial is in nobody's interest, and would likely be overturned. Even if the charges do not warrant election, you still have two weeks plus or minus before the case can be heard.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Sure, but for simple matters: Did you do that?

Defence: yes/no.


----------



## QV

Brad Sallows said:


> Sure, but for simple matters: Did you do that?
> 
> Defence: yes/no.


Sgt:  I gave a timing of 1400hrs to the section.  Pte XX was late, he arrived at 1430hrs delaying our departure to provide support to...
CO:  Pte XX what is your excuse?
Pte:  I slept in.
CO:  Right, you were absent without leave, you're CB'd for 5 days and have the next 3 duty rotations.

There doesn't need to be a crown brief and disclosure for this kind of stuff.  And neither should a 129 find its way accompanying serious criminal offences roped into the MJ system via 130.  Crimes and discipline need to be separate.  CO/OCs should handle most minor discipline exclusively, and all serious offences go to a court (MJ or other jurisdiction).


----------



## McG

QV said:


> Sgt:  I gave a timing of 1400hrs to the section.  Pte XX was late, he arrived at 1430hrs delaying our departure to provide support to...
> CO:  Pte XX what is your excuse?
> Pte:  I slept in.
> CO:  Right, you were absent without leave, you're CB'd for 5 days and have the next 3 duty rotations.
> 
> There doesn't need to be a crown brief and disclosure for this kind of stuff.  And neither should a 129 find its way accompanying serious criminal offences roped into the MJ system via 130.  Crimes and discipline need to be separate.  CO/OCs should handle most minor discipline exclusively, and all serious offences go to a court (MJ or other jurisdiction).


Two troops get into a fist fight during an exercise & both end-up with injuries that need them to be seen at the field UMS. This is both disciplinary and criminal. Should the CO be able to resolve sumarily?  What if the fight occurred in Latvia or Ukraine within a named CAF mission?


----------



## QV

McG said:


> Two troops get into a fist fight during an exercise & both end-up with injuries that need them to be seen at the field UMS. This is both disciplinary and criminal. Should the CO be able to resolve sumarily?  What if the fight occurred in Latvia or Ukraine within a named CAF mission?


Consensual fight with injuries trifling in nature = straight NDA fighting handled by unit CO regardless of location.

If not consensual, actual assault = MJ system CC 265(1)(a) via NDA S130(1)(b) because it’s Latvia.  If in Canada, it should go downtown and 265(1)(a).  130(1)(a) should be repealed.

edit to add: if a consensual fight goes too far, for example one guy gets knocked out and the other curbs stomps him breaking an arm, then the CO handles the fighting offence for both parties, the assault charge is handled in the appropriate court for the accused.  But the discipline and the crime are kept separate.


----------



## OldSolduer

QV said:


> Sgt:  I gave a timing of 1400hrs to the section.  Pte XX was late, he arrived at 1430hrs delaying our departure to provide support to...
> CO:  Pte XX what is your excuse?
> Pte:  I slept in.
> CO:  Right, you were absent without leave, you're CB'd for 5 days and have the next 3 duty rotations.
> 
> There doesn't need to be a crown brief and disclosure for this kind of stuff.  And neither should a 129 find its way accompanying serious criminal offences roped into the MJ system via 130.  Crimes and discipline need to be separate.  CO/OCs should handle most minor discipline exclusively, and all serious offences go to a court (MJ or other jurisdiction).


I beg to differ. I would prefer a formal charge and hearing. That's just me.


----------



## Brad Sallows

I suppose my employer would handle a fist-fight between employees differently than me being 1/2 hour late for work.


----------



## mariomike

Our fist fights were, almost, always at the union hall. The City had no authority over what went on there. There was also a bar.


----------



## Halifax Tar

mariomike said:


> Our fist fights were, almost, always at the union hall. The City had no authority over what went on there. There was also a bar.


Tiller flats or after rope stores.


----------



## CBH99

OldSolduer said:


> I beg to differ. I would prefer a formal charge and hearing. That's just me.


Question - would a formal charge & hearing lead to a more robust consequence on their career than just dealing with it informally?  

I’m on the fence on this one... points well made on both sides.


----------



## dangerboy

CBH99 said:


> Question - would a formal charge & hearing lead to a more robust consequence on their career than just dealing with it informally?
> 
> I’m on the fence on this one... points well made on both sides.


I am assuming that for formal charge you mean what we have now a trial and the results are entered on the members' conduct sheet and informally the chain of command gives them extra duties or something equivalent that is not recorded anywhere except on informal notes. Conduct sheets stay with the member (charges can be removed after time) while informal measures can be forgotten about when people get moved.


----------



## CBH99

That’s what I’m on the fence about as someone observing the example scenario above.

I would lean towards dealing with it informally.  Deal with it informally, quickly, lesson hopefully learned.  Isn’t going to hamper the member’s career for years & years afterwards.  (I am a fairly max relax guy)

Chronic problem, and member has been informed previously of him being late is a consistent issue?  Look at a formal charge.

0.02


----------



## OldSolduer

CBH99 said:


> That’s what I’m on the fence about as someone observing the example scenario above.
> 
> I would lean towards dealing with it informally.  Deal with it informally, quickly, lesson hopefully learned.  Isn’t going to hamper the member’s career for years & years afterwards.  (I am a fairly max relax guy)
> 
> Chronic problem, and member has been informed previously of him being late is a consistent issue?  Look at a formal charge.
> 
> 0.02


Just make sure his/her chronic issues are documented,


----------



## dapaterson

As noted, the challenge is that too often things are not properly documented, so one posting cycle later, a recurrence is seen as a first offense by newly posted leadership.

Lather, rinse, repeat, and the conduct becomes ingrained in the individual, and understood as acceptable by the organization.


----------



## ModlrMike

dapaterson said:


> As noted, the challenge is that too often things are not properly documented, so one posting cycle later, a recurrence is seen as a first offense by newly posted leadership.
> 
> Lather, rinse, repeat, and the conduct becomes ingrained in the individual, and understood as acceptable by the organization.


This is how we build "problem children".


----------



## rmc_wannabe

So  I will preface this by stating I joined in 2006, have not done the hatless dance, and I have attended a few Summary Trials/ CMs in my time in. I got my Facebook/Reddit Law degree some time back, so if I'm out of my lane, please FJAG, bring me back to reality.

The issue I see coming to a head between "Old Army" discipline and "New Army" discipline is that the 2 acts we reference in said discipline (NDA and CCC) were drafted prior to the creation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms being codified. Both the NDA and CCC are full of contradictory provisions that somehow didn't get fixed prior to 1985.

Case in point:

Section 126 of the NDA states : *126* Every person who, on receiving an order to submit to inoculation, re-inoculation, vaccination, re-vaccination, other immunization procedures, immunity tests, blood examination or treatment against any infectious disease, willfully and without reasonable excuse disobeys that order is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to imprisonment for less than two years or to less punishment.

However;

A Charter challenge on Sections 2a and 7 could be made to deem this unconstitutional. I would also have to think that Section 12 would take effect as well, seeing as the impact of the offense could or could not fit the punishment listed.

This could be why we see the ability for uniformed folks to refuse the COVID -19 vaccine, without receiving a disciplinary action, but still have them face the consequences of not getting vaccinated through administrative means. This is a reasonable consequence and does not need to be dealt with judicially.

When it comes to Misconduct (Sexual or otherwise), a lot of the provisions in the NDA are antiquated. We go full force on matters that could be dealt with administratively or via a more robust HR department. I often feel that if we were to form a Professional Association similar to the RCMP, we would see a more transparent and equitable organization; with no ability to have things die or get rammed through at the CoC level.

For example,  I have conducted a UDI that by its conduct, holding to the principles of Section 11 of the  Charter, should have been inadmissible in a normal court of law. It went through anyways (against my recommendation). That member received 14 days CB and I still feel dirty thinking about it. It could have easily been resolved with an IC or even an RW, but no.  Someone had an axe to grind and used the system in place to settle a score.

IMHO, In a perfect world, the best way for the CAF to deal with Sexual Misconduct, if its criminal in nature (assault, rape, child predation) ; Criminal Court.  full stop.
 If its a conduct issue (unwanted advances, jokes, miscellaneous douchebaggery) treat it as something impacting that person's future employment. Administrative measures are underused for this. Hell, releasing personnel for repeat offenses should be the norm.

No one is entitled to employment in the CAF. We tell people that on the recruiting forums, yet are far more empathetic to people who grab ass and use C U Next Tuesday as a common vernacular. This needs to change and if it doesn't we will be stuck in this quagmire for decades.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

rmc_wannabe said:


> So  I will preface this by stating I joined in 2006, have not done the hatless dance, and I have attended a few Summary Trials/ CMs in my time in. I got my Facebook/Reddit Law degree some time back, so if I'm out of my lane, please FJAG, bring me back to reality.
> 
> The issue I see coming to a head between "Old Army" discipline and "New Army" discipline is that the 2 acts we reference in said discipline (NDA and CCC) were drafted prior to the creation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms being codified. Both the NDA and CCC are full of contradictory provisions that somehow didn't get fixed prior to 1985.
> 
> Case in point:
> 
> Section 126 of the NDA states : *126* Every person who, on receiving an order to submit to inoculation, re-inoculation, vaccination, re-vaccination, other immunization procedures, immunity tests, blood examination or treatment against any infectious disease, willfully and without reasonable excuse disobeys that order is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to imprisonment for less than two years or to less punishment.
> 
> However;
> 
> A Charter challenge on Sections 2a and 7 could be made to deem this unconstitutional. I would also have to think that Section 12 would take effect as well, seeing as the impact of the offense could or could not fit the punishment listed.
> 
> This could by why we see the ability for uniformed folks to refuse the COVID -19 vaccine, without receiving a disciplinary action, but still have them fact the consequences of not getting vaccinated through administrative means. This is a reasonable consequence and does not need to be dealt with judicially.
> 
> When it comes to Misconduct (Sexual or otherwise), a lot of the provisions in the NDA are antiquated. We go full force on matters that could be dealt with administratively or via a more robust HR department. I often feel that if we were to form a Professional Association similar to the RCMP, we would see a more transparent and equitable organization; with no ability to have things die or get rammed through at the CoC level.
> 
> For example,  I have conducted a UDI that by its conduct, holding to the principles of Section 11 of the  Charter, should have been inadmissible in a normal court of law. It went through anyways (against my recommendation). That member received 14 days CB and I still feel dirty thinking about it. It could have easily been resolved with an IC or even an RW, but no.  Someone had an axe to grind and used the system in place to settle a score.
> 
> IMHO, In a perfect world, the best way for the CAF to deal with Sexual Misconduct, if its criminal in nature (assault, rape, child predation) ; Criminal Court.  full stop.
> If its a conduct issue (unwanted advances, jokes, miscellaneous douchebaggery) treat it as something impacting that person's future employment. Administrative measures are underused for this. Hell releasing personnel for repeat offenders should be the norm.
> 
> No one is entitled to employment in the CAF. We tell people that on the recruiting forums, yet are far more empathetic to people who grab ass and use C U Next Tuesday as a common vernacular. This needs to change and if it doesn't we will be stuck in this quagmire for decades.


Without getting into the details of the UDI that you reference, an IC or RW are more severe in practical terms than 14 days CB. They also have less procedural fairness than a summary trial. That being said, even administrative measures must still have a level of procedural fairness commensurate with the measure being applied. 

Regarding Sexual Misconduct, DAOD 9005-1 Sexual Misconduct Response provides the policy guidance on how to handle incidents across the spectrum of sexual misconduct.  It directs that incidents of sexual misconduct can be addressed through: administrative action; the military justice system; and the civilian criminal justice system. The DAOD reminds Commanding Officers that DMCA 2 must be contacted by the CO of any CAF personnel convicted of sexual misconduct by summary trial, court martial or civilian court. All that to say, Administrative action can certainly accompany disciplinary action.


----------



## SupersonicMax

I wish that very minor offenses (those that are typically caught under 129) were dealt with more swiftly through a non judicial disciplinary process. For such offense, the CoC or the accused could always elect a summary trial or a CM where the burden of proof increases. Those disciplinary hearings (not trials) would be held by officers within the CoC (not necessarily the CO) with commensurate powers of punishment.  A little bit like Captain’s Mast in the USN. Hearings could be scheduled within hours or at the very least least days.

No need for a UDI to find out someone showed up late or that a fist fight occured in the workplace. The hearing would hear the point of view of an accused and the chair would make a determination on whether or not a punishment is warranted and if so, hand out a punishment.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

From some focus groups I have been a part of, we are moving to a hearing system similar to what you envision. It is likely some five years away, but we will shift from Summary Trials to Summary Hearings. Powers of punishment will be curtailed in some areas, but there will also be more relevant career repercussions available.


----------



## ModlrMike

I might agree, but to a point. I think that those offences that are not necessarily electable, could be dealt with more expediently via the CO's discretionary powers. The challenge would be to describe the threshold between charge and CO's hearing. Of the "baby five" the most thorny is likely to be absence without leave. While the others are effectively binary in nature (129 does have a subjective component), the question of how late a person needs to be to rise to the level of charge is the issue. Chronic lateness could, and probably should be dealt with via Remedial Measures. Charging a person for chronic lateness is more difficult, because arguably each instance is a separate offence. If any of these have previously been dealt with at a tribunal, then double jeopardy may be an issue.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Admin and disciplinary measures are separate processes.  There is no « double jeopardy » when prosecuting someone for an offense through a summary trial or court martial, and then applying administrative measures for the same offense. One serves to punish and dissuade, the other to correct a deficiency.


----------



## ModlrMike

I didn't say that. I said if the member was dealt with via tribunal (CO's discretion), then jeopardy might attach if these offences are brought forward later as part of a larger case. I'm quite aware that administrative and disciplinary measures are separate.


----------



## lenaitch

rmc_wannabe said:


> So  I will preface this by stating I joined in 2006, have not done the hatless dance, and I have attended a few Summary Trials/ CMs in my time in. I got my Facebook/Reddit Law degree some time back, so if I'm out of my lane, please FJAG, bring me back to reality.
> 
> The issue I see coming to a head between "Old Army" discipline and "New Army" discipline is that the 2 acts we reference in said discipline (NDA and CCC) were drafted prior to the creation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms being codified. Both the NDA and CCC are full of contradictory provisions that somehow didn't get fixed prior to 1985.
> 
> Case in point:
> 
> Section 126 of the NDA states : *126* Every person who, on receiving an order to submit to inoculation, re-inoculation, vaccination, re-vaccination, other immunization procedures, immunity tests, blood examination or treatment against any infectious disease, willfully and without reasonable excuse disobeys that order is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to imprisonment for less than two years or to less punishment.
> 
> However;
> 
> A Charter challenge on Sections 2a and 7 could be made to deem this unconstitutional. I would also have to think that Section 12 would take effect as well, seeing as the impact of the offense could or could not fit the punishment listed.
> 
> This could be why we see the ability for uniformed folks to refuse the COVID -19 vaccine, without receiving a disciplinary action, but still have them face the consequences of not getting vaccinated through administrative means. This is a reasonable consequence and does not need to be dealt with judicially.
> 
> When it comes to Misconduct (Sexual or otherwise), a lot of the provisions in the NDA are antiquated. We go full force on matters that could be dealt with administratively or via a more robust HR department. I often feel that if we were to form a Professional Association similar to the RCMP, we would see a more transparent and equitable organization; with no ability to have things die or get rammed through at the CoC level.
> 
> For example,  I have conducted a UDI that by its conduct, holding to the principles of Section 11 of the  Charter, should have been inadmissible in a normal court of law. It went through anyways (against my recommendation). That member received 14 days CB and I still feel dirty thinking about it. It could have easily been resolved with an IC or even an RW, but no.  Someone had an axe to grind and used the system in place to settle a score.
> 
> IMHO, In a perfect world, the best way for the CAF to deal with Sexual Misconduct, if its criminal in nature (assault, rape, child predation) ; Criminal Court.  full stop.
> If its a conduct issue (unwanted advances, jokes, miscellaneous douchebaggery) treat it as something impacting that person's future employment. Administrative measures are underused for this. Hell, releasing personnel for repeat offenses should be the norm.
> 
> No one is entitled to employment in the CAF. We tell people that on the recruiting forums, yet are far more empathetic to people who grab ass and use C U Next Tuesday as a common vernacular. This needs to change and if it doesn't we will be stuck in this quagmire for decades.



There are library shelves full of statutes that pre-date the Charter.  The Charter is the filter through which the courts interpret any legislation, regardless of when it was drafted.  As well, Crown lawyers will conduct an Charter analysis of any proposed legislation.  To do a comprehensive review of every piece of legislation in the face of the Charter would be an onerous and paralyzing undertaking, particularly since legislators and staff can only guess, learnedly but still a guess, how the Court will rule on any particular set of facts.  Pre-dating the Charter does not, by itself, make legislation outdated.

In my law enforcement career I had very limited exposure to CAF members tangled up in the criminal justice system off-base.  I do recall, back in the '70s, a member in court with an accompanying officer, directed to plead guilty (I believe it was impaired driving) and leaving with said officer.  It seems the civilian system was only too happy to let the military  system 'take care of their own'.  Similarly, during the 1976 Olympics in Kingston, a couple of CAF members were causing a ruckus at a local watering hole.  Our instructions were to turn them over to the city PS who, in turn, handed them over to the MPs.   Everybody happy (well, probably except the lads).


----------



## McG

There may be more to this if it has been sent to provincial prosecutors.








						Investigation into Maj.-Gen. Fortin referred to Quebec prosecutor
					

OTTAWA — Canada’s military police say they have referred their investigation into the general who oversaw Canada’s vaccination campaign to Quebec’s prosecution…




					torontosun.com


----------



## Remius

I think the alleged offense would have taken place at St,Jean if it is being referred to a Quebec prosecutor?  Maybe on civilian jurisdiction?


----------



## dapaterson

My understanding is that MGen Fortin us a graduate of CMR, and thus presumably a 1989 incident may have occurred in Quebec.

The reason for referral to a civilian prosecutor and not military I do not know.


----------



## ModlrMike

At some point the Government is probably going to chew on the wrong person. It might make the Norman affair trivial by comparison.


----------



## SupersonicMax

OldSolduer said:


> I'm not sure what is going on here but my tin foil hat is screaming "he's been set up" by party or parties unknown at this time. I think maybne G2G is onto something.
> Did the MGen tell a political appointee to go "piss up a rope" or wouldn't toady up to them and this is the fallout? 🚂


Not sure where you could infer that from the articles about MGen Fortin??


----------



## McG

Apparently the CFNIS cannot lay criminal charges in Quebec.








						Allegation of sexual misconduct against Maj.-Gen. Dany Fortin referred to Quebec prosecution office
					

Investigators have referred an allegation of sexual misconduct against Maj.-Gen. Dany Fortin to Quebec prosecutors, Canadian military police said Wednesday.




					www.thestar.com


----------



## brihard

Quebec crown have charge approval authority. They will weigh whether there’s a reasonable prospect of conviction and whether the matter is in the public interest to proceed with.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

McG said:


> Apparently the CFNIS cannot lay criminal charges in Quebec.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Allegation of sexual misconduct against Maj.-Gen. Dany Fortin referred to Quebec prosecution office
> 
> 
> Investigators have referred an allegation of sexual misconduct against Maj.-Gen. Dany Fortin to Quebec prosecutors, Canadian military police said Wednesday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thestar.com


I find it  hard to believe that Quebec law supersedes the NDA.

Unless the alleged offence did not occur on DND property or there wasn’t a military nexus?


----------



## dapaterson

SeaKingTacco said:


> I find it  hard to believe that Quebec law supersedes the NDA.
> 
> Unless the alleged offence did not occur on DND property or there wasn’t a military nexus?


From memory, the Code of Service Discipline previously had a fairly strict statute of limitations; it may be that the CSD as it read in 1989 would not support charges in 2021, and thus the CFNIS would be obliged to refer to civilian authority.

That's me spitballing without all the information, to take it with a huge grain of salt.

Of course, the NDA only provides free counsel for CSD charges, so that's another thing to watch here.


----------



## Kilted

SeaKingTacco said:


> I find it  hard to believe that Quebec law supersedes the NDA.
> 
> Unless the alleged offence did not occur on DND property or there wasn’t a military nexus?


Military Law is Common Law, Quebec Law is Civil Law.


----------



## dapaterson

Kilted said:


> Military Law is Common Law, Quebec Law is Civil Law.


Which has nothing to do with criminal law.

MPs can lay criminal charges (non NDA) in jurisdictions other than Quebec, Quebec has chosen not to grant them that authority.  I am uncertain whether that extends to all forces in QC or not.


----------



## brihard

More cynical thought: simple buck passing, suspecting and hoping that the Québec _procureur_ will decide against laying a charge.


----------



## FJAG

rmc_wannabe said:


> So  I will preface this by stating I joined in 2006, have not done the hatless dance, and I have attended a few Summary Trials/ CMs in my time in. I got my Facebook/Reddit Law degree some time back, so if I'm out of my lane, please FJAG, bring me back to reality.
> 
> The issue I see coming to a head between "Old Army" discipline and "New Army" discipline is that the 2 acts we reference in said discipline (NDA and CCC) were drafted prior to the creation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms being codified. Both the NDA and CCC are full of contradictory provisions that somehow didn't get fixed prior to 1985.
> 
> Case in point:
> 
> Section 126 of the NDA states : *126* Every person who, on receiving an order to submit to inoculation, re-inoculation, vaccination, re-vaccination, other immunization procedures, immunity tests, blood examination or treatment against any infectious disease, willfully and without reasonable excuse disobeys that order is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to imprisonment for less than two years or to less punishment.
> 
> However;
> 
> A Charter challenge on Sections 2a and 7 could be made to deem this unconstitutional. I would also have to think that Section 12 would take effect as well, seeing as the impact of the offense could or could not fit the punishment listed.
> 
> This could be why we see the ability for uniformed folks to refuse the COVID -19 vaccine, without receiving a disciplinary action, but still have them face the consequences of not getting vaccinated through administrative means. This is a reasonable consequence and does not need to be dealt with judicially. ...


I won't get into lengthy debates about whether or not people can be forced to take inoculations (I personally think they can or suffer career consequences) but I will address the above items.

When the Charter was passed there was an extensive review by the crown in general and JAG lawyers in particular to "clean up" the law as it stood. Many amendments were made but not as many as you might think because prior to the Charter we had the Bill of Rights and various other laws that already had cleaned house over the years. In spite of this lawyers continue to make Charter arguments and judges strike down provisions routinely because law is basically a dynamic process and no one is 100% sure of where the law stands until the Supreme Court of Canada makes a final ruling. Even then, some of the findings apply to very narrow issues and it may take a long time before a broader issue is defined.

There is no definitive ruling as to s 126. There was a case from 2000 called R v Kipling where the issue was specifically addressed but in a very muddled way in a very public forum. The trial judge terminated proceedings against Kipling during a plea in bar of trial (i.e. a motion to dismiss before the actual trial takes place) raising an issue that the anthrax vaccine to be injected was unlicensed for use in Canada and that the individual must provide informed consent in order to be vaccinated. In short the Court Martial Appeal Court's decision overturned the trial judge's decision and ordered a new trail in front of a different trial judge. The government chose not to proceed and since then has never made an issue over s 126 again. In the result the provision is still on the books and could be used if anyone is prepared to make an issue of it. It is the Kipling decision and the government's decision not to proceed which is why there are occasionally non compliance issues. However, make no mistake about it, if there is a non compliance with a vaccination results in a member becoming ineligible for for an operational deployment then career action could certainly result.

The punishment listed has no effect on the validity of s 126. It's the appropriateness of the actual sentence issued that matters and it could be significantly less than the maximum available.

🍻


----------



## TCM621

lenaitch said:


> There are library shelves full of statutes that pre-date the Charter.  The Charter is the filter through which the courts interpret any legislation, regardless of when it was drafted.  As well, Crown lawyers will conduct an Charter analysis of any proposed legislation.  To do a comprehensive review of every piece of legislation in the face of the Charter would be an onerous and paralyzing undertaking, particularly since legislators and staff can only guess, learnedly but still a guess, how the Court will rule on any particular set of facts.  Pre-dating the Charter does not, by itself, make legislation outdated.
> 
> In my law enforcement career I had very limited exposure to CAF members tangled up in the criminal justice system off-base.  I do recall, back in the '70s, a member in court with an accompanying officer, directed to plead guilty (I believe it was impaired driving) and leaving with said officer.  It seems the civilian system was only too happy to let the military  system 'take care of their own'.  Similarly, during the 1976 Olympics in Kingston, a couple of CAF members were causing a ruckus at a local watering hole.  Our instructions were to turn them over to the city PS who, in turn, handed them over to the MPs.   Everybody happy (well, probably except the lads).


I remember when I joined, it wasn't uncommon for the cops to drop guys off at the gate to the MPs or the unit CWO. The cops saved themselves some paperwork and they knew that they would be more likely to be punished by the military than the civil courts.


----------



## captloadie

Perhaps there is also some signaling happening in the direction the CAF will be going in the future wrt to Sexual misconduct cases. It is in fact an interesting way to move the pendulum back to a place where societal norms begin to dictate what "offences" should be dealt with in a disciplinary manner, and those that should be dealt with administratively.

I believe we are potentially on a path that will see military justice deal only with offences that are purely military in context, and refer everything else to the civilian legal system. The military would then provide administrative sanctions as necessary.


----------



## TCM621

captloadie said:


> Perhaps there is also some signaling happening in the direction the CAF will be going in the future wrt to Sexual misconduct cases. It is in fact an interesting way to move the pendulum back to a place where societal norms begin to dictate what "offences" should be dealt with in a disciplinary manner, and those that should be dealt with administratively.
> 
> I believe we are potentially on a path that will see military justice deal only with offences that are purely military in context, and refer everything else to the civilian legal system. The military would then provide administrative sanctions as necessary.


We are going pretty far afield from sexual misconduct into how the CAF deals with crimes and other transgressions generally.  The biggest problem with the Criminal Courts is time. According to StatsCan, the median processing time across Canada is 112 days, and according to the Justice Department the median time for crimes against a person is 186 days. Can the CAF wait 186 days to deal with a fight? In some cases, sure but in others not at all. For many people in the CAF, they are in high stress jobs and when you combine that with the type of person who tend to excel at those jobs, things like fights and excessive drinking are a risk. That doesn't mean we look the other way and "let the boys blow off steam" but we should recognize we are putting people in a pressure cooker that is unlike any other and be prepared to deal with it. Let's not forget that those same jobs that come with the greatest risk are also the ones that are most critical to being a military. We need to be able to deal with these things quickly and effectively.  As a side note, I wonder how the wait between action and punishment affects how the offender sees their behaviour? I know that extras while hung over _feels_ like a much better deterrent than a 200 hundred dollar fine I don't even seen.

The civilianization of our discipline is causing many of our problem IMO. It has created a system where supervisors let minor things slide because they don't want to do the paperwork. This especially true for things they personally think are "stupid", "a waste of time" or anachronistic. Look at boots, for example. Do clean, black boots make you better at shooting, fixing aircrafts or operating radars? No but it is the rule and how they follow that rule says a lot about the person and you not enforcing that rule says a lot about you, and the organization, that has nothing to do with boot care. Ignoring rules begets ignoring rules. It also says a lot about how you care for equipment, it lowers your perceived authority/competence and says it is ok to ignore rules you disagree with. These aren't huge effects, in fact they are fairly minor, but combine that with the fact that you didn't get a PDR this year because your boss thinks they are a waste of time and the fact that the leadership were willing to bend the rules to accomplish a no-fail training mission and you get a culture where rules, guidelines and, in extreme cases, laws are treated as things to follow when they don't interfere. Put someone of flexible morals in that system for 20 years and you get senior personnel who think frat rules don't apply to them or that the grievance process is a suggestion.


----------



## captloadie

TCM621 said:


> For many people in the CAF, they are in high stress jobs and when you combine that with the type of person who tend to excel at those jobs, things like fights and excessive drinking are a risk. That doesn't mean we look the other way and "let the boys blow off steam" but we should recognize we are putting people in a pressure cooker that is unlike any other and be prepared to deal with it. Let's not forget that those same jobs that come with the greatest risk are also the ones that are most critical to being a military. We need to be able to deal with these things quickly and effectively.


You mean in organizations with a toxic masculinity problem that does not teach them how to properly focus that aggression? Is this not one of the issues that for some leads to some forms of sexual aggression and assault towards others they come in contact with? Or are we coming back to accepting General Lawsons view that we are hardwired to think that way?


----------



## daftandbarmy

captloadie said:


> Perhaps there is also some signaling happening in the direction the CAF will be going in the future wrt to Sexual misconduct cases. It is in fact an interesting way to move the pendulum back to a place where societal norms begin to dictate what "offences" should be dealt with in a disciplinary manner, and those that should be dealt with administratively.
> 
> I believe we are potentially on a path that will see military justice deal only with offences that are purely military in context, and refer everything else to the civilian legal system. The military would then provide administrative sanctions as necessary.



Although I hate to quote traitorous rebels  , this quote came to mind as an important consideration should we seek to strengthen discipline in all its forms, and for all purposes:


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

captloadie said:


> You mean in organizations with a toxic masculinity problem that does not teach them how to properly focus that aggression?


All those who are sexist as can be please post something stu.....wait, it's right above me.


----------



## YZT580

The purpose of any law is to draw a boundary, a line in the sand as it were, and allows all of society to function freely provided the people stay within the lines.  When someone crosses the line they are beyond the pale and are therefore "punished".  Punishment, be it a fine, demotion, dismissal or even the death penalty is the price that society puts upon the offense.  It is not a corrective measure although we try and describe it as such.  Disciplinary actions on the other hand are taken to warn the individual that certain behaviour is not acceptable: it is a corrective action and hopefully can be applied before the individual's actions cross the line.  You really don't want an organization that depends upon the law to dictate behaviour.  For discipline to be effective it has to start within a group.  Assume the normal bar routine and a few rounds have been downed and one of your group starts to 'come on' to someone.  The discipline should start with you, the other members around the table, to inform the offender that his behaviour is not acceptable.  Perhaps they don't take the hint, it goes to the next level where the Noncom has to get involved.  It is you as a group who should be presenting it to them to straighten the recalcitrant individual out: again discipline.  No file information is required if the individual's attitude demonstrates improvement or change.   If there is still no change and the officer has to get involved you have reached the borders of the law.  That is the way the system is supposed to work.  The main reason it doesn't it due to you, at the base, are leaving it to the higher ups instead of living up to your obligations.  I would bet that those of you who have never observed problems within your organization are members of a group that actively maintains a standard of behaviour and expect, no demand that all others do the same.


----------



## Brad Sallows

"toxic masculinity"

What is that, exactly?


----------



## Blackadder1916

Brad Sallows said:


> "toxic masculinity"
> 
> What is that, exactly?



A tongue in cheek response

or

A dictionary response








						Definition of macho | Dictionary.com
					

Macho definition, having or characterized by qualities considered manly, especially when manifested in an assertive, self-conscious, or dominating way. See more.




					www.dictionary.com
				





> adjective
> 1.   having or characterized by qualities considered manly, especially when manifested in an assertive, self-conscious, or dominating way.
> 2.   having a strong or exaggerated sense of power or the right to dominate.
> 
> noun, plural ma·chos.  Also ma·cho·ism
> 3.   assertive or aggressive manliness; machismo.
> 4.   an assertively virile, dominating, or domineering male.



Or a discussion









						The Problem With a Fight Against Toxic Masculinity
					

The popular term points toward very real problems of male violence and sexism. But it risks misrepresenting what actually causes them.




					www.theatlantic.com


----------



## Brad Sallows

So, bullsh!t then.  There's nothing wrong with being assertive, self-conscious, dominating (or confident, outspoken, opinionated, cut-to-the-chase, focused, strong-willed, ambitious, workaholic, objective, etc).


----------



## daftandbarmy

Brad Sallows said:


> "toxic masculinity"
> 
> What is that, exactly?



The essence of victory... in a frontal assault anyways


----------



## TCM621

Brad Sallows said:


> So, bullsh!t then.  There's nothing wrong with being assertive, self-conscious, dominating (or confident, outspoken, opinionated, cut-to-the-chase, focused, strong-willed, ambitious, workaholic, objective, etc).



That is exactly what they are saying. Toxic masculinity comes from the same philosophical place as the idea that "hard work" is a white idea and therefore bad. Stereotypes are back in style now.


----------



## MilEME09

Raymond J. de Souza: Sajjan's demise is imminent and he has only himself to blame
					

Why did Sajjan run so quickly away from a serious allegation against Vance? Is it possible that he thought he owed Vance a favour?




					nationalpost.com
				




To this day it blows my mind the minister is still in his seat


----------



## Remius

MilEME09 said:


> Raymond J. de Souza: Sajjan's demise is imminent and he has only himself to blame
> 
> 
> Why did Sajjan run so quickly away from a serious allegation against Vance? Is it possible that he thought he owed Vance a favour?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nationalpost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To this day it blows my mind the minister is still in his seat


It’s just a filler seat.  The LPC doesn’t really care about defence.


----------



## dimsum

Remius said:


> It’s just a filler seat.  The LPC doesn’t really care about defence.


To be fair, no party really cares.  Some are practically openly hostile, but no party can honestly hand-on-heart prove they've had a history of caring, other than just enough to be able to say "well we're 0.1% better than the others".


----------



## CBH99

I don't disagree.

Just for the sake of thought and discussion, could the Conservatives under Harper not be able to say that for at least a few years?  

While a lot of it was necessity due to operations in Afghanistan, we did get a lot of shiny new kit in record time during those few years.  (Or at least was ordered.)


----------



## Haggis

Remius said:


> It’s just a filler seat.  The LPC doesn’t really care about defence.


A filler seat occupied by a visible minority MP from a strongly Liberal ethnically diverse riding with very deep pockets.


----------



## CBH99

Haggis said:


> A filler seat occupied by a visible minority MP from a strongly Liberal ethnically diverse riding with very deep pockets.


A visible minority installed at the beginning of the PM's tenure, and a PM that was very focused on putting women and visible minorities into prominent roles.  From an ethnically diverse riding, very deep pockets indeed, who was a CAF member with overseas deployments.  On paper, he actually looks like the most ideal person one could think of for that position.

I don't mean to sound petty or negative (I apologize, I know I've been a bit of a broken record on this since Covid has been a topic of constand updates/discussion) - but if there is one thing that Covid has really highlighted for me, it's that senior government officials do not require competence, or the ability to execute decisions quickly.  The more of a 'yes man' or 'yes woman' they are, and don't rock the boat - the more valued they seem to be.

So he's a visible minority from an ethnically diverse riding, strong liberal supporters with deep pockets, and he doesn't rock the boat or speak up much.  From the PM's position, what more can you ask for, really??  Checks all the boxes.


I'm obviously inclined to agree with you, in all seriousness.  Blows my mind he still has his position after everything.  But then when I thought about it from a purely political perspective, it doesn't surprise me at all.


----------



## Haggis

CBH99 said:


> Blows my mind he still has his position after everything.  But then when I thought about it from a purely political perspective, it doesn't surprise me at all.


He hasn't crossed swords with the PM/PMO yet, as JWR and Philpot did. He toes the party line and the messaging from the MND on major issues is consistent with that of the PM/PMO. Until he says or does something that undermines the Trudeau/Liberal brand or makes him a liability to the cult, he's safe.


----------



## Mills Bomb

MilEME09 said:


> Raymond J. de Souza: Sajjan's demise is imminent and he has only himself to blame
> 
> 
> Why did Sajjan run so quickly away from a serious allegation against Vance? Is it possible that he thought he owed Vance a favour?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nationalpost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To this day it blows my mind the minister is still in his seat



I think everyone is surprised. The hypocrisy seems to be painfully obvious to anyone who's even remotely following these stories and certainly all CAF members who are following what's happening. The Special Forces Commander was put on leave because he allegedly vouched for a sexual predator, but the MND vouched for his friend Vance (Who faces even worse allegations) and turned that evidence away for a couple years while even giving him a raise. Not to mention Fortin getting canned for an allegation dating back to 1989. And yet, somehow Sajjan is still there.

I think the CAF will collective breath a sigh of relief when the "Architect of Medusa" is finally gone. He's not doing the CAF any favours at this point, and he's certainly not popular with the troops (If you're on Facebook you've likely the seen some of the memes at his expense already). The day can't come quick enough and I don't think his legacy will be very respected by most military members. It's unfortunate the voting public probably has very little interest in this topic as it seems we really need some good people to fill all these voids. If MND Sajjan wants to make things right on his way out, perhaps he could attempt to fix procurement or at least do something significantly useful to make up for this huge mess that happened during his watch.


----------



## Good2Golf

Mills Bomb said:


> If MND Sajjan wants to make things right on his way out, perhaps he could attempt to fix procurement or at least do something significantly useful to make up for this huge mess that happened during his watch.


He has little to do with procurement...it’s up to PMO-PCO-TB-FIN-PSPC that holds the reigns tightly on procurement, defence or otherwise.


----------



## Mills Bomb

Good2Golf said:


> He has little to do with procurement...it’s up to PMO-PCO-TB-FIN-PSPC that holds the reigns tightly on procurement, defence or otherwise.


I suppose that's a reminder why one of his early promises of getting the PRES new night vision was a bust. Hopefully he does something to make up for all this, but maybe it's best he just leaves quietly at this point.


----------



## Kilted

I feel like the best chance to get rid of him is the long awaited election.


----------



## dangerboy

Mills Bomb said:


> I suppose that's a reminder why one of his early promises of getting the PRES new night vision was a bust. Hopefully he does something to make up for all this, but maybe it's best he just leaves quietly at this point.


He tried, DSSPM worked hard to try and make that promise happen, but as mentioned above there are factors outside of DND's control


----------



## MilEME09

dangerboy said:


> He tried, DSSPM worked hard to try and make that promise happen, but as mentioned above there are factors outside of DND's control


Which is part of our problem, really the minister of national defense barely controls any aspects of National defense any more.

Though in this situation that is a blessing in disguise


----------



## Mills Bomb

I suppose at this point if the CAF is going to progress into the future (Procurement, etc.) and get a MND it deserves, it will be determined in the next election.

I've pondered several times since the Fortin incident if it's even worth anyone attempting to work up to the top of the CAF at this point? It would seem at any point someone could bring up an "allegation" from 30+ years ago, and you're done and canned in the most public fashion, regardless of how important your roll is. It would be interesting to know what the other senior officers are thinking right now and how on edge they must be. I think it's safe to say that anyone who's been in the CAF for 30+ years is very likely at risk of doing some minor thing that could now get them fired and humiliated?

Remaining optimistic but this has been an interesting year for sure.


----------



## YZT580

Great way for finance to reduce pension costs.  Get 30 years out of 'em then "thanks for that don't let the door hit you on the way out"


----------



## MilEME09

At this point I would appoint someone from the senate defense committee to be MND, that committee has spent a long time and written many reports on the forces that have never been acted on but make sense. Someone with experience navigating the department but knows the issues would do us well.


----------



## OldSolduer

MilEME09 said:


> At this point I would appoint someone from the senate defense committee to be MND, that committee has spent a long time and written many reports on the forces that have never been acted on but make sense. Someone with experience navigating the department but knows the issues would do us well.


It doesn’t matter who MND is they will be on a very short leash and replaced at the whim of a young spoilt brat who happens to be the PM,


----------



## Jarnhamar

Screw it, I'll do the MND gig. Justin shoot me a PM.


----------



## Haggis

Jarnhamar said:


> Screw it, I'll do the MND gig. Justin shoot me a PM.


Let me know if you need a reference.


----------



## blacktriangle

Jarnhamar said:


> Screw it, I'll do the MND gig. Justin shoot me a PM.


The only thing our boy JT knows how to shoot is a money cannon...


----------



## Haggis

OldSolduer said:


> It doesn’t matter who MND is they will be on a very short leash and replaced at the whim of a young spoilt brat who happens to be the PM,


Demoting Sajjan might hurt his re-election chances unless the PM 'forgave' him before the writ was dropped.  His riding of Vancouver South was created in 2004 and has been held by the Liberals since, except for one term from 2011- 2015 when it went CPC.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Haggis said:


> Let me know if you need a reference.


Solid!


reveng said:


> The only thing our boy JT knows how to shoot is a money cannon...


He knows how to shoot his hand across a reporter's rump. A real fire-and-forget kinda guy.


----------



## Ostrozac

MilEME09 said:


> At this point I would appoint someone from the senate defense committee to be MND, that committee has spent a long time and written many reports on the forces that have never been acted on but make sense. Someone with experience navigating the department but knows the issues would do us well.


Are you suggesting the committee member with the highest public profile? A man with over a decade of experience as a Senator? A man likely to be completely consistent with the ethical standards of Cabinet? Unfortunately for that plan, Mike Duffy reaches compulsory retirement age and will be removed from the Senate later this week.


----------



## blacktriangle

Jarnhamar said:


> Solid!
> 
> He knows how to shoot his hand across a reporter's rump. A real fire-and-forget kinda guy.


Definitely hard to have accountability at the top, when the _very _top is potentially guilty of the same or similar behaviour. Especially when they don't show the smallest bit of remorse, empathy, anything really. Just denial.

Sad.


----------



## Haggis

reveng said:


> Definitely hard to have accountability at the top, when the _very _top is potentially guilty of the same or similar behaviour. Especially when they don't show the smallest bit of remorse, empathy, anything really. Just denial.
> 
> Sad.


He just experienced it differently.


----------



## OldSolduer

reveng said:


> Definitely hard to have accountability at the top, when the _very _top is potentially guilty of the same or similar behaviour. Especially when they don't show the smallest bit of remorse, empathy, anything really. Just denial.
> 
> Sad.


He is the son of PET who was in some people’s eyes was the Son of God. He’s entitled and spoilt by a fawning bunch of synchophants.


----------



## CBH99

Jarnhamar said:


> Solid!
> 
> He knows how to shoot his hand across a reporter's rump. A real fire-and-forget kinda guy.


I was going to say, he knows how to shoot himself in the foot 😅

Buuuttttt... late to the party and your quip was better


----------



## trigger324

I know it’s trendy to slam Trudeau and all these days, but the reality is this. As long as this guy is his opponent, he’s well on his way.  


			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-otoole-kenney-ford-1.6035975


----------



## CBH99

trigger324 said:


> I know it’s trendy to slam Trudeau and all these days, but the reality is this. As long as this guy is his opponent, he’s well on his way.
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-otoole-kenney-ford-1.6035975


I obviously can’t speak for others, but my OWN approach is — and forgive me, this will sound like caveman talk.  But...

good ideas are good.  We should explore and pursue them.

bad ideas are bad.  We should not pursue these, especially if there are some clear alternatives.  


I look at ideas or suggestions, and gauge for myself whether they make sense to me, seem like they would have a positive or negative impact on a situation, and base my support for ideas on the merit of the idea itself


I don’t care what colour of tie someone wears, or what banner they are under.  


As for what you stated about O’Toole, I couldn’t agree more.  

The conservatives seemed to have picked the most forgettable, least vocal candidate to lead them into the next election.  (My own opinion.)   I casually follow politics, and stay pretty frequent on current affairs — and I could barely describe what he looks like.   (Not good when he wants people to vote for him...)


----------



## PuckChaser

Can we get back on topic? I don't want to have to waste my time cleaning up random political tangents that are completely unrelated.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Edit to stay on topic


----------



## CBH99

PuckChaser said:


> Can we get back on topic? I don't want to have to waste my time cleaning up random political tangents that are completely unrelated.


You are totally right.  My mistake.  

I’ve been reading so many posts I actually forgot what thread this was.

Seen.


----------



## MilEME09

Back on topic, the million dollar question here is what is the way forward?

We already have a pretty substantial change in senior CAF leadership, but what about the department? What power should the ombudsman have? And how much power should an independent investigation arm have? Just investigation or charges and referral to courts?


----------



## CBH99

My own 2 cents...

-  As police officers, I believe military police have the duty and obligation to conduct a thorough investigation of the matter, regardless of who is involved.  The victim, nor the accused, shouldn't matter.  Look into it, and if it appears to have merit, investigate as they normally would/should.

There should be absolutely zero fear of any sort of pushback or reprisal from senior leadership, for a designated member (for example, an MP) to do an investigation based on a complaint, and pursue the investigation if it has merit.  

Not going to follow up on a complaint, or look into something, because that member may have the ability to come after you professionally?  This shouldn't be an issue.  At all.  And if someone is the type of person to try to intimidate or manipulate someone into not pursuing something, by giving them the impression there will be consequences if they do?  Don't like clowns like them around anyway.

_I would say MOST chains of command are pretty good about prudent follow up, and fixing things.  I've read plenty of examples of where a senior member heard the complaint, and immediately went and dealt with it.  I know, and was surprised to read some of the posts here in the forum, that isn't always the case.  Obviously, my suggestions here are towards the ugly situations we've been hearing about lately_




-  I don't know if the power/role of the ombudsman, as it stands now, needs to change.  Do they have any more or less power than others in similar roles?  Is it currently a problem?  (I honestly don't know?)

My understanding is that when the ombudsman has come to MND, or the CDS, and reported these types of matters - instead of being pursued and dealt with, they were swept under the rug and kept quiet.  That to me sounds like a problem with the MND and CDS, not the ombudsman.  

If he came to the CDS and reported something of this nature, and was told it would be looked into - and subsequently it wasn't - should the ombudsman have the power to bypass the CDS/MND?  How far does that go?  (I see a ton of dangers here, but again - I really don't have any experience with the ombudsman or know much about them.)



-  If the CAF/DND decides it needs an independent investigative arm to ensure investigations and cases aren't interfered with, I would say they have the power to investigate and recommend charges.  If an independent investigation does a thorough look into something, collects the statements, and pulls it all together and says "We have reasonable grounds to believe Person X did in fact do this" - final report should include the option to recommend charges.

Now, do they recommend charges to the MP's?  RCMP?  



Humor me here guys...but if someone files a complaint about sexual misconduct, or sexual assault, and that complaint is forwarded to the appropriate persons - and those persons are doing an impartial investigation, looking into the matter, talking to witnesses, collecting evidence if there is any, and preparing the matter to be presented - could the MP's not just threaten to charge the party that is interfering?  

If a senior member deliberately tries to interfere with the investigation, hide evidence, cover up for the accused, or tries to use their position and rank in a way that interferes with, discourages, or prevents that investigation from proceeding without influence - why not just charge them?  If worried about reprisal, just do a press release.  (I think after this has all blown over, with this number of senior members in the spotlight - if anybody did try to influence an investigation, they wouldn't want to be lumped in with all of this.)

"Col. Bob tried to interfere with a sexual assault investigation by threatening investigators with professional reprisals, and refusing to cooperate. He then threatened the investigators with X, Y, Z if they pursued their investigation.  The accused has served under Col. Bob for several years, and are friends outside of work."  <------  If someone is scum enough to try to interfere with a legitimate and reasonable investigation, shouldn't they too be held accountable?


----------



## OldSolduer

Here's what I think:

This will not be resolved overnight or in the next fiscal year or decade. It will never be totally resolved as there will always be  a predator out there.

Best you - we - can hope for is to minimize their presence.

I watched an episode of a military themed "soap opera". One of the sub stories was an attractive female chief being hounded by a senior officer and the subsequent steps taken to try to correct the situation. And I'm sure it was simplified in the show.


----------



## FJAG

Regardless of what system of complaint, investigation and disposition you have for these types of matters, you will always have some people who will have the opinion that not enough was done; some who will think that the disposition was excessive; and some who won't form their own opinion based on a study of the facts but simply fall in with whatever Coles Notes version their like-minded friends have given them.

Finding a universally acceptable solution is a fool's errand. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try hard to improve the system but in doing so we must ensure that there is fairness for both the complainant and the accused and that the investigative/adjudicative process is competent, free from bias and interference, and capable of resolving issues within a reasonable time.

🍻


----------



## MilEME09

CBH99 said:


> My own 2 cents...
> 
> -  As police officers, I believe military police have the duty and obligation to conduct a thorough investigation of the matter, regardless of who is involved.  The victim, nor the accused, shouldn't matter.  Look into it, and if it appears to have merit, investigate as they normally would/should.
> 
> There should be absolutely zero fear of any sort of pushback or reprisal from senior leadership, for a designated member (for example, an MP) to do an investigation based on a complaint, and pursue the investigation if it has merit.
> 
> Not going to follow up on a complaint, or look into something, because that member may have the ability to come after you professionally?  This shouldn't be an issue.  At all.  And if someone is the type of person to try to intimidate or manipulate someone into not pursuing something, by giving them the impression there will be consequences if they do?  Don't like clowns like them around anyway.
> 
> _I would say MOST chains of command are pretty good about prudent follow up, and fixing things.  I've read plenty of examples of where a senior member heard the complaint, and immediately went and dealt with it.  I know, and was surprised to read some of the posts here in the forum, that isn't always the case.  Obviously, my suggestions here are towards the ugly situations we've been hearing about lately_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -  I don't know if the power/role of the ombudsman, as it stands now, needs to change.  Do they have any more or less power than others in similar roles?  Is it currently a problem?  (I honestly don't know?)
> 
> My understanding is that when the ombudsman has come to MND, or the CDS, and reported these types of matters - instead of being pursued and dealt with, they were swept under the rug and kept quiet.  That to me sounds like a problem with the MND and CDS, not the ombudsman.
> 
> If he came to the CDS and reported something of this nature, and was told it would be looked into - and subsequently it wasn't - should the ombudsman have the power to bypass the CDS/MND?  How far does that go?  (I see a ton of dangers here, but again - I really don't have any experience with the ombudsman or know much about them.)
> 
> 
> 
> -  If the CAF/DND decides it needs an independent investigative arm to ensure investigations and cases aren't interfered with, I would say they have the power to investigate and recommend charges.  If an independent investigation does a thorough look into something, collects the statements, and pulls it all together and says "We have reasonable grounds to believe Person X did in fact do this" - final report should include the option to recommend charges.
> 
> Now, do they recommend charges to the MP's?  RCMP?
> 
> 
> 
> Humor me here guys...but if someone files a complaint about sexual misconduct, or sexual assault, and that complaint is forwarded to the appropriate persons - and those persons are doing an impartial investigation, looking into the matter, talking to witnesses, collecting evidence if there is any, and preparing the matter to be presented - could the MP's not just threaten to charge the party that is interfering?
> 
> If a senior member deliberately tries to interfere with the investigation, hide evidence, cover up for the accused, or tries to use their position and rank in a way that interferes with, discourages, or prevents that investigation from proceeding without influence - why not just charge them?  If worried about reprisal, just do a press release.  (I think after this has all blown over, with this number of senior members in the spotlight - if anybody did try to influence an investigation, they wouldn't want to be lumped in with all of this.)
> 
> "Col. Bob tried to interfere with a sexual assault investigation by threatening investigators with professional reprisals, and refusing to cooperate. He then threatened the investigators with X, Y, Z if they pursued their investigation.  The accused has served under Col. Bob for several years, and are friends outside of work."  <------  If someone is scum enough to try to interfere with a legitimate and reasonable investigation, shouldn't they too be held accountable?


There would be a lot less obstruction if a few people were charged with it and held accountable. Not saying make someone an example, just follow the law, enforce it, and make sure these cases are known by the wider CAF so it's known this won't fly any more.


----------



## CBH99

FJAG, Brihard, Haggis - and others who are knowledgeable about how these things work.

*Very curious to hear your opinions on this, re: what are some things that could change moving forwards from this??*



I'm going to suggest a possibility here, and that's all it is.  A possibility.  Curious to hear from others what they think about this thought.  <Puts on flame resistant suit, ballistic gear, etc.>

Is it possible that the system, as it's designed now, actually IS adequate for handling/investigating/prosecuting these types of issues?  And that the problem isn't that the system needs a complete overhaul, the problem is that the system & options available aren't being utilized the way it should be?

-  Some of these complaints were made quite recently, yet the incident itself happened YEARS ago.  Regardless of any system in place, coming forwards years later, or more, would make it difficult to gather evidence to be used in a prosecution.  (I would think.)

-  While there absolutely seems to be a serious problem, especially at the top (that's the optics of it, anyway) - IF senior people conducted themselves as we expect them to, would we still be under the impression that the system needs some changing?  (By conduct I don't just mean sexual misconduct.  I'm also referring to sweeping things under the rug, failing to inform others of concerns/investigations, turning the other cheek because the accused is an old pal, etc etc.)



I'm not trying to over-complicate it.  I just am curious to hear the input from those of you who have more experience in these kinds of things than the rest of us.


----------



## Jarnhamar

MilEME09 said:


> We already have a pretty substantial change in senior CAF leadership


It's going to take more than a couple of rounds of  "2IC take over" before we replace the ranks of toxic and ill-behaved leaders ready to take on the senior leadership roles IMO.


----------



## CBH99

MilEME09 said:


> There would be a lot less obstruction if a few people were charged with it and held accountable. Not saying make someone an example, just follow the law, enforce it, and make sure these cases are known by the wider CAF so it's known this won't fly any more.


Totally agreed.

Deliberately trying to influence, block, or manipulate an investigation because of personal involvement, the accused is a friend, or by their rank - they should be made an example of.  I think, anyway.

I am an extremely firm believer in conducting one's self honorably at all times, not just when people are around or if on camera.  And part of that is knowing when we can be pretty relaxed about things, and when it's time to put the 'game face' on and go to work.  If someone has filed a complaint of sexual misconduct or sexual assault, and the quick version sounds credible - time to put bias, friendships, rank aside and do the right thing.  Prudently.

If I was a ranking officer, and I was trying to protect someone who was the subject of a serious sexual misconduct complaint by not providing evidence, not giving truthful statements, saying I'll file certain paperwork and then not doing so, obstructing the investigator, etc etc - I hope I'd be charged, and let it be known.  Darn straight.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> It's going to take more than a couple of rounds of  "2IC take over" before we replace the ranks of toxic and ill-behaved leaders ready to take on the senior leadership roles IMO.



Everything everyone has ever done prior to a very few months ago is already baked in.  Maybe a CANFORGEN urging everyone with a questionable past act to release now?


----------



## hattrick72

Brad Sallows said:


> Everything everyone has ever done prior to a very few months ago is already baked in.  Maybe a CANFORGEN urging everyone with a questionable past act to release now?


Only way that would work is if they didn't release and were found guilty of a transgression after a set date, they lose their pension, or take a Pte's pension.....

Not a possibility within our laws unfortunately.


----------



## TCM621

CBH99 said:


> I obviously can’t speak for others, but my OWN approach is — and forgive me, this will sound like caveman talk.  But...
> 
> good ideas are good.  We should explore and pursue them.
> 
> bad ideas are bad.  We should not pursue these, especially if there are some clear alternatives.
> 
> 
> I look at ideas or suggestions, and gauge for myself whether they make sense to me, seem like they would have a positive or negative impact on a situation, and base my support for ideas on the merit of the idea itself
> 
> 
> I don’t care what colour of tie someone wears, or what banner they are under.
> 
> 
> As for what you stated about O’Toole, I couldn’t agree more.
> 
> The conservatives seemed to have picked the most forgettable, least vocal candidate to lead them into the next election.  (My own opinion.)   I casually follow politics, and stay pretty frequent on current affairs — and I could barely describe what he looks like.   (Not good when he wants people to vote for him...)


He is a slight upgrade over Scherer but he doesn't have the ability to connect with voters. Voters aren't voting for Trudeau because he has amazing policy so you can't win just having better policies. O'Toole is just very pedestrian. 

I like Pierre Poilievre because he has a bit of showmenship when he speaks or puts out YouTube videos. I have no idea where his ambitions lie though or what his platform would look like.


----------



## FJAG

CBH99 said:


> FJAG, Brihard, Haggis - and others who are knowledgeable about how these things work.
> 
> *Very curious to hear your opinions on this, re: what are some things that could change moving forwards from this??*
> 
> I'm going to suggest a possibility here, and that's all it is.  A possibility.  Curious to hear from others what they think about this thought.  <Puts on flame resistant suit, ballistic gear, etc.>
> 
> Is it possible that the system, as it's designed now, actually IS adequate for handling/investigating/prosecuting these types of issues?  And that the problem isn't that the system needs a complete overhaul, the problem is that the system & options available aren't being utilized the way it should be?
> 
> -  Some of these complaints were made quite recently, yet the incident itself happened YEARS ago.  Regardless of any system in place, coming forwards years later, or more, would make it difficult to gather evidence to be used in a prosecution.  (I would think.)
> 
> -  While there absolutely seems to be a serious problem, especially at the top (that's the optics of it, anyway) - IF senior people conducted themselves as we expect them to, would we still be under the impression that the system needs some changing?  (By conduct I don't just mean sexual misconduct.  I'm also referring to sweeping things under the rug, failing to inform others of concerns/investigations, turning the other cheek because the accused is an old pal, etc etc.)
> 
> I'm not trying to over-complicate it.  I just am curious to hear the input from those of you who have more experience in these kinds of things than the rest of us.


I'm not going to argue against the possibilities that you put forward. I've been out of the system too long and know too few of the details to be able to argue either way as to whether or not the system is optimal or insufficient. I suspect it's insufficient but I'm one of those folks who thinks that the problem is rampant across pretty much any society/institution where a hierarchical structure exists. (Take universities as an example that generally deal poorly with these issues as between teacher/student and peer/peer incidents)

I do tend to be a believer in an inspector general system, one where the IG has a broad mandate to examine the actions of DND/CAF and all of its subordinate departments, defence contractors etc to ensure they are: operating in compliance with generally established policies of the government; to audit the effectiveness of defence outputs and processes; and to discover the possibility of misconduct, waste, fraud, or theft. In some respects I'm looking at a mixing of ombudsman matters with those of the auditor general, the ADM(Review Services) and possibly the Grievance System.

I'd still like to leave administrative and criminal investigations for sexual impropriety and assault go through DND/CAF's internal processes but with an off ramp to the IG for the investigation of grievances of improper handling and the like.

The question of who the IG reports to is a tricky one. Generally IGs report directly to the individual for the entire organization which in this case is the MND. That, however, can lead at least to a perception that the IG is beholden to the MND and skew assessments and actions accordingly.

I'm more in favour of an outside agency which in this case would be an independent office established and funded directly by parliament, with aggressive investigation and review powers, and reporting to parliament with the IG having security of tenure for a fixed term (say 5 years). Honestly, I'd go so far as to have the IG appointed through a public hearing process (say by SCONDA) not controlled by the government of the day. The function should be an enduring one that spans administrations and holds them accountable for defence issues by exposing them to the light of parliamentary and public scrutiny.

In other words I tend to favour an agency that stands outside DND/CAF, has a complete and independent staff to assess and investigate a wide variety of defence related issues and provide Parliament with an honest broker assessment as to the performance of DND/CAF as a whole.

🍻


----------



## TCM621

Brad Sallows said:


> Everything everyone has ever done prior to a very few months ago is already baked in.  Maybe a CANFORGEN urging everyone with a questionable past act to release now?


Or what? Seriously. The ones that knew they did wrong and are a still in will continue to think they are above the rules. The ones that did something but didn't think it was wrong would still continue think they didn't do anything wrong. Every single other person who saw that CANFORGEN would take it as proof the CAF is a horrible organization and be more likely to quit or they will think that the CAF is on a witch hunt and be more likely to release. 

If there is a credible claim of sexual assault in the past, investigate it and act accordingly. There is no statute of limitations on sexual assault. For sexual misconduct, we have to be a lot more discerning. If a 22 year old Jr officer (of either gender) had sex with a 22 year old Cpl (of either gender) does that have any bearing on their ability to run 1 CAD, MARLANT, DGPR, or any other higher GOFO position at 50? Not unless it is was the start of a pattern of behaviour that lasted until they were CDS it doesn't. That 22 year old officer definitely needs to be corrected but 28 years later it doesn't matter if they were corrected or self corrected. They are likely completely different people at 50 than 22. 

It is a black mark but lots of senior Personnel have their own black marks. It could be an ND, an AWOL or drunkenness charge, it could be an IC for losing their temper to a boss 30 years ago. If they have shown over a long career to not be the same person who committed those transgressions and is otherwise the right person for the job, they should get that job and we all move on.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

TCM621 said:


> Or what? Seriously. The ones that knew they did wrong and are a still in will continue to think they are above the rules. The ones that did something but didn't think it was wrong would still continue think they didn't do anything wrong. Every single other person who saw that CANFORGEN would take it as proof the CAF is a horrible organization and be more likely to quit or they will think that the CAF is on a witch hunt and be more likely to release.
> 
> If there is a credible claim of sexual assault in the past, investigate it and act accordingly. There is no statute of limitations on sexual assault. For sexual misconduct, we have to be a lot more discerning. If a 22 year old Jr officer (of either gender) had sex with a 22 year old Cpl (of either gender) does that have any bearing on their ability to run 1 CAD, MARLANT, DGPR, or any other higher GOFO position at 50? Not unless it is was the start of a pattern of behaviour that lasted until they were CDS it doesn't. That 22 year old officer definitely needs to be corrected but 28 years later it doesn't matter if they were corrected or self corrected. They are likely completely different people at 50 than 22.
> 
> It is a black mark but lots of senior Personnel have their own black marks. It could be an ND, an AWOL or drunkenness charge, it could be an IC for losing their temper to a boss 30 years ago. If they have shown over a long career to not be the same person who committed those transgressions and is otherwise the right person for the job, they should get that job and we all move on.


Sexual Assault is included in Sexual Misconduct. If you are in the CAF, making up your own terminology is not helpful. Your example of a Lt having sex with a Cpl will depend on the context. If they knew each other outside of work, the Cpl was not in the Lt's chain of command and the relationship was consensual then sure. If, on the other hand, the Cpl has come forward twenty years later with an account of pressure being used by their Platoon Commander to have sex with them then yes, I will judge the Lt's ability to command now that they are a senior officer.


----------



## TCM621

TangoTwoBravo said:


> Sexual Assault is included in Sexual Misconduct. If you are in the CAF, making up your own terminology is not helpful. Your example of a Lt having sex with a Cpl will depend on the context. If they knew each other outside of work, the Cpl was not in the Lt's chain of command and the relationship was consensual then sure. If, on the other hand, the Cpl has come forward twenty years later with an account of pressure being used by their Platoon Commander to have sex with them then yes, I will judge the Lt's ability to command now that they are a senior officer.


Who is making up their own terminology? Sexual assault is a crime sexual misconduct is an action. They should be differentiated from one another. I would argue that your first example isn't misconduct at all and the second one borders on sexual assault given section 273.2c states a person can not be seen to give consent if:



> the accused induces the complainant to engage in the activity by abusing a position of trust, power or authority;




Misconduct that isn't sexual assault would be like sleeping with one of your Cpls after a mess dinner or on TD. If the  officer reports it, hey stuff happens and you deal with it. If they don't and the CoC finds out after the fact (but contemporaneously) they absolutely should have a 1 chat probably followed with some sort of paperwork with that officer. If it comes out 20 years later that Lt Bloggins had a brief relationship with Cpl Barnes who worked for him, then it should have been dealt with at the time and there is zero value in addressing it now. There was no victim who needs justice, there is no conflict of interest that could affect unit cohesion and any indication that it may have given about that person's character has ceased to be relevant because you now have 20 years of information as to the type of person they are. 

Anything else is a straight up witch hunt. Any person on this forum over the age of 30 who says they have never down anything that anyone could consider inappropriate is either lying or needs to get out more. Anyone under 30, odds are your time will come. The allure of sex makes people push the boundaries in an effort to get it. It is hard enough navigating the boundaries of the time but you can't navigate the boundaries 20 years in the future. Hell, I'm not sure I could navigate the boundaries now. Thank God I don't need to. 

What ever happened to redemption? What ever happened to the idea that one could change one's fate and that we should celebrate those who do? Are you all so virtuous that you never did anything wrong let alone illegal? If there is no hope at redemption why bother changing? We need to acknowledge that yes that thing in the past was bad and you were wrong to do it but you have changed to become someone who wouldn't do that thing any more and your should be praised for that.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Jarnhamar said:


> It's going to take more than a couple of rounds of  "2IC take over" before we replace the ranks of toxic and ill-behaved leaders ready to take on the senior leadership roles IMO.



I agree.  And it goes beyond the Sexual stuff, not to down play that.  I think we have both said it in this thread; its 100% about basic discipline.  And we are lacking that.  The CAF needs to embrace and act on "Never Pass a Fault".


----------



## Jarnhamar

TCM621 said:


> Anything else is a straight up witch hunt.



A Lt.-Gen (VCDS), the second-highest ranking officer in the Canadian Forces, as well as the most senior non-commissioned member of the Canadian Forces, stood by and ignored an out of control party where troops were sexually assaulted. 

The CDS (who was probably sexting his mistress at the time) blamed the victims. 


Maybe we need a witch hunt at this point.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

TCM621 said:


> Who is making up their own terminology? Sexual assault is a crime sexual misconduct is an action. They should be differentiated from one another. I would argue that your first example isn't misconduct at all and the second one borders on sexual assault given section 273.2c states a person can not be seen to give consent if:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Misconduct that isn't sexual assault would be like sleeping with one of your Cpls after a mess dinner or on TD. If the  officer reports it, hey stuff happens and you deal with it. If they don't and the CoC finds out after the fact (but contemporaneously) they absolutely should have a 1 chat probably followed with some sort of paperwork with that officer. If it comes out 20 years later that Lt Bloggins had a brief relationship with Cpl Barnes who worked for him, then it should have been dealt with at the time and there is zero value in addressing it now. There was no victim who needs justice, there is no conflict of interest that could affect unit cohesion and any indication that it may have given about that person's character has ceased to be relevant because you now have 20 years of information as to the type of person they are.
> 
> Anything else is a straight up witch hunt. Any person on this forum over the age of 30 who says they have never down anything that anyone could consider inappropriate is either lying or needs to get out more. Anyone under 30, odds are your time will come. The allure of sex makes people push the boundaries in an effort to get it. It is hard enough navigating the boundaries of the time but you can't navigate the boundaries 20 years in the future. Hell, I'm not sure I could navigate the boundaries now. Thank God I don't need to.
> 
> What ever happened to redemption? What ever happened to the idea that one could change one's fate and that we should celebrate those who do? Are you all so virtuous that you never did anything wrong let alone illegal? If there is no hope at redemption why bother changing? We need to acknowledge that yes that thing in the past was bad and you were wrong to do it but you have changed to become someone who wouldn't do that thing any more and your should be praised for that.


Have you read DAOD 9005-1 Sexual Misconduct Response? That policy describes the spectrum of sexual misconduct, ranging from relatively minor matters through to criminal code violations including sexual assault. 

The outcomes from an instance of sexual misconduct will very likely be quite different based on the severity of the sexual misconduct and whether there is a pattern. A Lt could be placed on IC for a founded instance of sexual harassment, which is included in Sexual Misconduct, and still have a great career. If that Lt is later the respondent in another founded case of sexual harassment then they can expect to face a greater level of remedial measures. A Lt who sexually assaults a subordinate would have their file sent to DMCA for consideration for a category 2 release in addition to any criminal justice sentencing. Whether they would be released 2A would depend again on the details of the incident.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Jarnhamar said:


> A Lt.-Gen (VCDS), the second-highest ranking officer in the Canadian Forces, as well as the most senior non-commissioned member of the Canadian Forces, stood by and ignored an out of control party where troops were sexually assaulted.
> 
> The CDS (who was probably sexting his mistress at the time) blamed the victims.
> 
> 
> Maybe we need a witch hunt at this point.


----------



## dapaterson

DM and A/CDS on The Current.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1397144361264197633


----------



## OldSolduer

Jarnhamar said:


> A Lt.-Gen (VCDS), the second-highest ranking officer in the Canadian Forces, as well as the most senior non-commissioned member of the Canadian Forces, stood by and ignored an out of control party where troops were sexually assaulted.
> 
> The CDS (who was probably sexting his mistress at the time) blamed the victims.
> 
> 
> Maybe we need a witch hunt at this point.


A witch hunt - no. Invariably you’ll catch people who have no involvement at all. Evidence based.
No Spanish Inquisition either


----------



## Good2Golf

Hasn’t she been the DM since late-2017, before the whole Ombudsman/Vance-to-MND sexual misconduct discussion in 2018?


----------



## Jarnhamar

OldSolduer said:


> A witch hunt - no. Invariably you’ll catch people who have no involvement at all. Evidence based.
> No Spanish Inquisition either



I may not give off the impression but I do share your concern about innocent people getting accidentally or purposefully accused of sexual misconduct.

Right now innocent people are being harassed, intimidated, and assaulted. It's been going on for years and we don't seem any closer to fixing it, hence why I think drastic measures may be in order.


Going back to the party plane:

LGen Alain Parent quietly retired.

CFCWO West retired and got a job advising the Canadian Armed Forces Strategic Response Team on Sexual Misconduct.

One of the corporals who was assaulted on the flight is being medically released due to the incident.


----------



## OldSolduer

Jarnhamar said:


> I may not give off the impression but I do share your concern about innocent people getting accidentally or purposefully accused of sexual misconduct.
> 
> Right now innocent people are being harassed, intimidated, and assaulted. It's been going on for years and we don't seem any closer to fixing it, hence why I think drastic measures may be in order.
> 
> 
> Going back to the party plane:
> 
> LGen Alain Parent quietly retired.
> 
> CFCWO West retired and got a job advising the Canadian Armed Forces Strategic Response Team on Sexual Misconduct.
> 
> One of the corporals who was assaulted on the flight is being medically released due to the incident.


Understood.
WRT the party flight I still get my hackles up over that.


----------



## trigger324

I get a kick out of the expression “witch hunt” the way it’s used in this thread. A short couple weeks ago we were discussing tracking down the people  responsible for the sexual misconduct, giving them their “day in court” after any complaints are investigated, and then rooting outand/or disciplining the guilty parties if, when, and as required. Everyone was in agreement so it seemed, but it was clear half of us couldn’t figure out that the other half was in agreement and vice versa. But the points raised were that half that crowd didn’t like HOW the other half expressed it and vice versa. And now, from what I can gather, we’ve still got a possible witch hunt on our hands. With the above in mind, what is the witch hunt? 🤷


----------



## rmc_wannabe

OldSolduer said:


> Understood. WRT the party flight I still get my hackles up over that.



That flight was a textbook example of why a lot of junior members have zero faith in their Command Teams. The expression "Shit rolls down hill" has been touted for so long that it has become a mantra for passing the buck. It is why there is such skepticism and hesitance amongst the junior ranks that this will be nothing more than hand wringing and pointing the finger at Cpl Bloggins for not stepping up. That was what Op HONOUR started to turn into and unless we start looking at this holistically as a problem that all ranks have and will need to police amongst peers, we will still be chasing our tails trying to figure out why there is no trust left in the CoC.

Reconciliation is a word that has been left out of this situation and it needs to be looked at. We have a problem with how things were/are being handled with Sexual Misconduct; yes we need to know how to fix the problem, but we also need to know what "fixed" looks like. What is the end goal? Are we going to have our own Night of the Long Knives and cull every GOFO from CDS down and call it "progress" or are we going to find a mechanism to get people on track and right the wrongs of the past IOT move forward. So far, the optics of all of this seems to be to sensationalize those that have been put under investigation and grind an axe for things done wrong 30 years after the fact.

What does reformed look like for a perpetrator? Can some people be reformed? Are we showing people the door on a Zero Tolerance basis or are we finding a way to rehabilitate the individual with adequate input from the victims involved?

I don't have answers to those questions, but I sure hope the questions are being asked and that we aren't using a sledgehammer when a scalpel will do.

EDIT to Add: this is strictly speaking to non-criminal acts of misconduct. Sexual Assault should be dealt with fairly, swiftly, and with the full force of both disciplinary and administrative measures coming to bear; up to and including dismissal with disgrace.


----------



## TCM621

Jarnhamar said:


> A Lt.-Gen (VCDS), the second-highest ranking officer in the Canadian Forces, as well as the most senior non-commissioned member of the Canadian Forces, stood by and ignored an out of control party where troops were sexually assaulted.
> 
> The CDS (who was probably sexting his mistress at the time) blamed the victims.
> 
> 
> Maybe we need a witch hunt at this point.


The VCDS isn't going to be bothered by a witch hunt because they would like be in charge of those conducting the hunt.

The party flight was an example of the CDS not doing his job. It was also a case involving two of the most senior members of the military. I am concerned with situations where the member was on a party flight 20 years ago as an Lt and danced in a sexual manner with a cpl in the flight.



trigger324 said:


> I get a kick out of the expression “witch hunt” the way it’s used in this thread. A short couple weeks ago we were discussing tracking down the people  responsible for the sexual misconduct, giving them their “day in court” after any complaints are investigated, and then rooting outand/or disciplining the guilty parties if, when, and as required. Everyone was in agreement so it seemed, but it was clear half of us couldn’t figure out that the other half was in agreement and vice versa. But the points raised were that half that crowd didn’t like HOW the other half expressed it and vice versa. And now, from what I can gather, we’ve still got a possible witch hunt on our hands. With the above in mind, what is the witch hunt? 🤷



It has been explained to you a number of time but you jus refuse to accept the answer. The problem is that the solution you and many others are advocating for doesn't allow for justice. You called doing an in-depth investigation "the old school, old guard way of handling everything" and said cI’m glad to see the new, younger wave who has no patience for these types of shenanigans in 2021 working to get past that mindset."

Later you clarified that of course you meant people would still get due process but I don't think you and I agree on what due process looks like. If you accuse someone of something that could end their career and possibly their professional prospects after their career, it behooves you to take your time and get it right


----------



## Remius

I mentioned alcohol being an issue in the workplace.  I think that is one of those drastic steps necessary to change the culture.  Stop subsidizing booze and booze fuelled activities.

This next suggestion is going to be unpopular.   But embed in every unit or command team an independent sexual harassment advisor observer.  At least for a time until this gets under control.  

i know we have unit harassment advisors and some people doing this but they always seem far away a too far removed.  You have to call someone in half the time.  Create a job for this and make them give quarterly reports on units or work environment health and trends in regards to sexual harassment issues.  Make it part of an establishment and not just some secondary tasks requiring a DLN course.  

Just spit balling.  Make it like a standards cell maybe.  With regular visits.


----------



## McG

Remius said:


> I mentioned alcohol being an issue in the workplace.  I think that is one of those drastic steps necessary to change the culture.  Stop subsidizing booze and booze fuelled activities.


Is booze subsidized?  Messes are not allowed to sell below cost, and I believe bar sales are also required to cover the cost of PSP bar staff wages.


----------



## Remius

McG said:


> Is booze subsidized?  Messes are not allowed to sell below cost, and I believe bar sales are also required to cover the cost of PSP bar staff wages.


To an extent yes.  Booze is much cheaper in most messes.  I’ve been to enough events with free beer tickets, free bottles of wine etc etc.  How many mess event are we expected to attend?  Or forced to? Or paid to go to in the Reserves at any rate?    So while you may have to pay for your drinks you get a half day to attend?  

alcohol is a major factor in a lot of these cases.

Do messes pay rent?  Property taxes?  Where to mess dues come from?  From rules that say we must pay.  So yes, it is subsidized one way or another.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Remius said:


> *This next suggestion is going to be unpopular.   But embed in every unit or command team an independent sexual harassment advisor observer.  At least for a time until this gets under control. *



I think you've just described the chain of command, anchored on the RSM/CSM/Pl WO and equivalents, right? 

Recognize and support those doign a good job on managing the SH issues under their command, and get support/ provide closer overwatch on thise that ned help/ aren't doing such a great job.

I assume that the Adjt/G1 staff networks could be a good arbiter of how things are going in this regard.

The last thing that we need is a sexual harassment 'Commissar'.


----------



## Remius

daftandbarmy said:


> I think you've just described the chain of command, anchored on the RSM/CSM/Pl WO and equivalents, right?
> 
> Recognize and support those doign a good job on managing the SH issues under their command, and get support/ provide closer overwatch on thise that ned help/ aren't doing such a great job.
> 
> I assume that the Adjt/G1 staff networks could be a good arbiter of how things are going in this regard.
> 
> The last thing that we need is a sexual harassment 'Commissar'.


The issue is that those in that CoC are failing.   And yeah, Commisar is an apt term that came to mind.

maybe that is is what is required.  Sadly.


----------



## Jarnhamar

trigger324 said:


> I get a kick out of the expression “witch hunt” the way it’s used in this thread.


Sounds like something a witch would say. How well do you float?



TCM621 said:


> The VCDS isn't going to be bothered by a witch hunt because they would like be in charge of those conducting the hunt.


I suspect you're right. The former CDS allegedly said he owns the NIS, suggesting he was untouchable. I wonder how accurate that was. Doesn't exactly feel like there is a big drive to deal with Vance.

For clarity sake, I'm not promoting an actual witch hunt. Witch hunts were kangaroo courts with innocent people. We know sexual misconduct is a huge problem in the CAF.

I'm suggesting we investigate any and every allegation of misconduct. Get it out in the open. If it was someone just being an idiot 18-year old, 30 years ago and has been solid since then apply common sense. If an allegation leads to uncovering a career of harassment and victims then throw the book at them.  

When a new CAF member displays this type of behavior punish them hard they remember it for the rest of their career.  Crushing this behavior as Ptes and OCdts will ideally change our culture in a generation or two.


----------



## kev994

Jarnhamar said:


> Sounds like something a witch would say. How well do you float?
> 
> 
> I suspect you're right. The former CDS allegedly said he owns the NIS, suggesting he was untouchable. I wonder how accurate that was. Doesn't exactly feel like there is a big drive to deal with Vance.
> 
> For clarity sake, I'm not promoting an actual witch hunt. Witch hunts were kangaroo courts with innocent people. We know sexual misconduct is a huge problem in the CAF.
> 
> I'm suggesting we investigate any and every allegation of misconduct. Get it out in the open. If it was someone just being an idiot 18-year old, 30 years ago and has been solid since then apply common sense. If an allegation leads to uncovering a career of harassment and victims then throw the book at them.
> 
> When a new CAF member displays this type of behavior punish them hard they remember it for the rest of their career.  Crushing this behavior as Ptes and OCdts will ideally change our culture in a generation or two.


If someone was an idiot and broke the law 30 years ago but the victim was ignored back then you would have us look at later behaviour to decide whether it’s worth pursuing?
Edit: this kinda sounds like the ‘good guy’ letter that we already know didn’t go over well.


----------



## Jarnhamar

kev994 said:


> If someone was an idiot and broke the law 30 years ago but the victim was ignored back then you would have us look at later behaviour to decide whether it’s worth pursuing?


It depends on the situation, the law broken and the extent someone was victimized.

If someone got undressed and ran through the opposite genders dorm room 30 years ago, or hid their clothes while everyone was skinny dipping 20 years ago, I consider that being an idiot.

If someone hurt someone else or seriously victimized them, then nail them. Whether it was 3 days ago or 30 years. 
I don't consider actually hurting someone else or victimizing them as just being an idiot, I assume you don't either.


----------



## CBH99

kev994 said:


> If someone was an idiot and broke the law 30 years ago but the victim was ignored back then you would have us look at later behaviour to decide whether it’s worth pursuing?
> Edit: this kinda sounds like the ‘good guy’ letter that we already know didn’t go over well.


I think what Jarn was suggesting was in the context of what would be reasonable, and realistic, in terms of cracking down.

Obviously, just due to the challenges of time, technology, changes in both social culture at large as well as the military subculture at the time - there will be folks who got away with a lot, and victims who won't get justice.  

But if someone files a complaint of sexual misconduct against a member 'now' - handle it promptly and decisively.  But then why not take a quick look at their file to see if there have been any previous complaints that weren't followed up on, or if they were, how they were handled. And go from there.  ??




**Just given the nature of writing things out on the computer, we don't get the benefit of hearing tones of voice, inflection, context, etc.  And we can't type out all of the little examples, or clarify things instantly, the way we could if we were all speaking verbally to each other.  I think we should all give each other the benefit of the doubt that even if something suggested 'sounds' overly ambitious or warped, the person posting is most likely intending that it be done reasonably.

**Also, and not to sound extreme in my thinking at all, but how many police investigations eventually uncovered serious crimes or patterns of behaviour because when they looked into an individual, they did some digging, and realized this small incident may be part of a bigger picture?  Plenty.


----------



## CBH99

Jarnhamar said:


> I suspect you're right. The former CDS allegedly said he owns the NIS, suggesting he was untouchable. I wonder how accurate that was. Doesn't exactly feel like there is a big drive to deal with Vance.
> 
> For clarity sake, I'm not promoting an actual witch hunt. Witch hunts were kangaroo courts with innocent people. We know sexual misconduct is a huge problem in the CAF.
> 
> I'm suggesting we investigate any and every allegation of misconduct. Get it out in the open. If it was someone just being an idiot 18-year old, 30 years ago and has been solid since then apply common sense. If an allegation leads to uncovering a career of harassment and victims then throw the book at them.
> 
> When a new CAF member displays this type of behavior punish them hard they remember it for the rest of their career.  Crushing this behavior as Ptes and OCdts will ideally change our culture in a generation or two.


Between TV shows, movies, and now with enough life experience to have personally witnessed it... I think it's fair to say that when someone in power is arrogant enough to make a statement such as "I own the NIS..."  or "I own the FBI..." - that person, will inevitably, regret that statement later on.  🤦‍♂️ 

(Did you remember to tell the NIS that you own them?  What was their response?)




I agree with everything you've written here Jarn.  

And I couldn't agree more with your final statement here, of punishing them hard if it is a new CAF member.  We try to instill a sense of 'get things done quickly and efficiently', we try to instill a mindset of 'push past what you think your limits are, and never give up.'  We should also instill a mindset which results in members growing into better people, which will obviously be unique to each new member.  And part of that is along the lines of 'Some of you may be disrespectful jerks on the outside, or think whistling at a girl when at a bar is acceptable, cat calling, etc.  You do that nonsense here and you'll have real consequences.  Conduct yourself honourably at all times, whether you are being watched or not.  If you think that is too challenging of a demand, feel free to release."

I think OP Honour was intended to instill that very mindset.  They wanted victims to feel safe coming forwards, knowing they didn't have to worry about reprisals, the matter would be handled swiftly and reasonably, and their matter be kept private and discreet.  And they wanted people engaging in that type of behaviour to know that if you are being a jerk or a creep, the organization will come down on you swiftly and harshly.

I don't have any experience with OP Honour issues myself, personally.  I was blessed to have a great little unit (and I do mean LITTLE) where the troops were all great folks, and we had a great CoC.  I don't know anybody who has witnessed any OP Honour incidents either.  So I really am speaking as someone with zero experience, just thoughts and opinions.  
Absolutely.  Crush this behaviour early on in a career.


----------



## TCM621

kev994 said:


> If someone was an idiot and broke the law 30 years ago but the victim was ignored back then you would have us look at later behaviour to decide whether it’s worth pursuing?
> Edit: this kinda sounds like the ‘good guy’ letter that we already know didn’t go over well.


I know people are hesitant to do it but this is why we need to separate crimes and bad behaviour. A crime is, by definition, bad behaviour but we treat it as a separate, more stringent, category. I think one of the reasons people are concerned with witch hunts is that every time someone offers up an example of someone who did something inappropriate the peanut gallery jumps right to sexual assault. Myself, Jarnhammer and a few others have repeatedly made the point we are talking about misconduct that isn't criminal like a supervisor entering into a consensual relationship with a subordinate. I even specifically stated sexual assault does not have a statute of limitations unlike most other crimes. I definitely think a 22 year old thinking with his little head instead of his big one and getting himself in trouble necessarily negates his ability to command 20 years later. Hell, I was literally still a kid when I joined. I couldn't even vote, but some people would have us believe that my behaviour then is an accurate reflection of who I am in my 40s. Sure it's a data point but the last quarter century of military service is a much stronger one. 

If someone raped someone twenty years ago, charge them and get rid of them if found guilty. If someone walked from his bunk to the bathroom drunk and naked in 1994 or if a couple members turned a bathroom into an Orgy in 2002, and it was never addressed then they got lucky and were able to self correct without intervention. Good for them, let's move on. We have plenty of problems in 2021, ones that actually affect out ability to meet our mandate today, that need addressing. No amount of historical righting of wrongs will have any where near the impact of people just doing the Fing jobs on a regular basis. That goes from writing PERs to running summary trials or conducting UDIs.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> But embed in every unit or command team an independent sexual harassment advisor observer.  At least for a time until this gets under control.



Yeah, that describes "commissar".  Great for morale.  Clear demonstration of trust - basically the highest levels saying, "we don't trust you", which inevitably leads to the lower levels saying, "so why should we?"


----------



## Remius

Do the lowest levels actually trust the higher levels right now?


----------



## MilEME09

Remius said:


> Do the lowest levels actually trust the higher levels right now?


Nope, luckily though the dealings of NDHQ don't effect us at all or we would be in trouble


----------



## ballz

Brad Sallows said:


> Yeah, that describes "commissar".  Great for morale.  Clear demonstration of trust - basically the highest levels saying, "we don't trust you", which inevitably leads to the lower levels saying, "so why should we?"



If the leadership of the CAF is feeling sorry for themselves right now because it isn't "trusted," they need to grow up and take some responsibility/ownership. Your take on it reminds me of the shitty subordinate who can't seem to tie their shoes correctly and complains that they are being micromanaged.

It's a trust competence loop. Higher owes subordinates trust, subordinates owe competence in return. The more you provide competence, the more trust you get in return. The more trust you get, the more competence is required to maintain that higher level of trust. From time to time, everybody gets a course correction. No big deal, you take the course correction, fix it, and move on. Trust is re-established. However, fail to course correct and suddenly you are trusted a little less..... continue failing, trust is degraded, and a more hands-on approach is taken.

The higher levels have broken their end of the bargain. They were entrusted, they failed to provide competence in return. They were course corrected, they failed to course correct accordingly, and are going to be entrusted a little less a result. At some point competence is required to break the cycle and regain trust. Perhaps Remius's idea should serve as a fair warning to those who do not wish to be micromanaged... course correct, or prepare to be micromanaged and the CAF leadership will have done it to itself.


----------



## OldSolduer

Remius said:


> Do the lowest levels actually trust the higher levels right now?


That depends-  to a recruit the higher levels are MWOs and Captains. To a WO it’s the CO and RSM. If you’re talking about NDHQ that’s a very different story


----------



## TCM621

ballz said:


> If the leadership of the CAF is feeling sorry for themselves right now because it isn't "trusted," they need to grow up and take some responsibility/ownership. Your take on it reminds me of the shitty subordinate who can't seem to tie their shoes correctly and complains that they are being micromanaged.
> 
> It's a trust competence loop. Higher owes subordinates trust, subordinates owe competence in return. The more you provide competence, the more trust you get in return. The more trust you get, the more competence is required to maintain that higher level of trust. From time to time, everybody gets a course correction. No big deal, you take the course correction, fix it, and move on. Trust is re-established. However, fail to course correct and suddenly you are trusted a little less..... continue failing, trust is degraded, and a more hands-on approach is taken.
> 
> The higher levels have broken their end of the bargain. They were entrusted, they failed to provide competence in return. They were course corrected, they failed to course correct accordingly, and are going to be entrusted a little less a result. At some point competence is required to break the cycle and regain trust. Perhaps Remius's idea should serve as a fair warning to those who do not wish to be micromanaged... course correct, or prepare to be micromanaged and the CAF leadership will have done it to itself.


I think you missed the point. Those "Commisors" as Brad called them (rightly both in fact and theory) wouldn't be there to protect us from the CoC. They would be there to protect the CAF (and by extension the government) from us.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> If the leadership of the CAF is feeling sorry for themselves right now because it isn't "trusted," they need to grow up and take some responsibility/ownership. Your take on it reminds me of the shitty subordinate who can't seem to tie their shoes correctly and complains that they are being micromanaged.



Maybe just stick to the point I made.  Nothing to do with how the leadership might be feeling (I'm not inside their heads).  What I wrote about was likely effects of dropping hall monitors into units, without first figuring out which ones can tie their shoes and which ones can't.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> Perhaps Remius's idea should serve as a fair warning to those who do not wish to be micromanaged... course correct, or prepare to be micromanaged and the CAF leadership will have done it to itself.



When someone micromanages without cause, it's a demonstration of lack of trust.  It invites subordinates to resign and move on.


----------



## ballz

TCM621 said:


> I think you missed the point. Those "Commisors" as Brad called them (rightly both in fact and theory) wouldn't be there to protect us from the CoC. They would be there to protect the CAF (and by extension the government) from us.



Is reducing sexual misconduct in the military a partisan issue? Is it a Liberal Party issue but not a Conservative Party issue? I'll admit I wasn't familiar with the term commissar, but after looking it up I fail to see how that is a good comparison unless you believe dealing with sexual misconduct is a partisan (Liberal Party) goal.



Brad Sallows said:


> When someone micromanages *without cause*, it's a demonstration of lack of trust.  It invites subordinates to resign and move on.



Really???


----------



## YZT580

ballz said:


> If the leadership of the CAF is feeling sorry for themselves right now because it isn't "trusted," they need to grow up and take some responsibility/ownership. Your take on it reminds me of the shitty subordinate who can't seem to tie their shoes correctly and complains that they are being micromanaged.
> 
> It's a trust competence loop. Higher owes subordinates trust, subordinates owe competence in return. The more you provide competence, the more trust you get in return. The more trust you get, the more competence is required to maintain that higher level of trust. From time to time, everybody gets a course correction. No big deal, you take the course correction, fix it, and move on. Trust is re-established. However, fail to course correct and suddenly you are trusted a little less..... continue failing, trust is degraded, and a more hands-on approach is taken.
> 
> The higher levels have broken their end of the bargain. They were entrusted, they failed to provide competence in return. They were course corrected, they failed to course correct accordingly, and are going to be entrusted a little less a result. At some point competence is required to break the cycle and regain trust. Perhaps Remius's idea should serve as a fair warning to those who do not wish to be micromanaged... course correct, or prepare to be micromanaged and the CAF leadership will have done it to itself.


But then the upper levels are simply following the example of their political masters so where do you start in saying that such and such an organisation needs to change.


----------



## Ostrozac

ballz said:


> Is reducing sexual misconduct in the military a partisan issue? Is it a Liberal Party issue but not a Conservative Party issue?


Objectively, it’s bipartisan. The Deschamps Report and the departmental response which led to Operation Honour were conducted under the Harper Conservatives, and continued under the Trudeau Liberals. So both parties have a stake in this, and neither party will be particularly interested in an expensive military that doesn’t fix its problems when told to do so and can’t seem to stop embarrassing the government of the day.


----------



## OldSolduer

FYI Commissars were employed in The Red Army to ensure the troops toed the party line. Also known as the Political Officer. It’s not a good idea.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Wow...

Civilian DND employee says she suffered retribution after reporting abuse​

Krystina MacLean, a civilian employee at the Department of National Defence, fought an internal battle a decade ago over allegations of racial discrimination and sexual harassment. (Mike McArthur/CBC)

As a woman and civilian working the naval docks along Canada's West Coast, Krystina MacLean has seen and endured a lot.

Of mixed South Asian descent, she was routinely referred to among colleagues as a "black bitch" by the captain of a Department of National Defence tugboat, who supervised her.

A workplace harassment investigation later acknowledged she was also called a "Paki" on the job, along with other racially and sexually-charged terms of abuse.

While sanding decks on her hands and knees, MacLean said, she was often asked by other male crew members to "service" them while she was down there.

"At the time I just felt ... I felt alone. I felt scared to work with these guys," MacLean told CBC News.

For years, the spotlight on sexual misconduct and racism in the Armed Forces has focused on the actions of military members — a belated social reckoning that has tended to eclipse well-documented instances of egregious abuse directed at civilian employees of the Department of National Defence (DND).

MacLean said she put up with the taunts for five years, from 2006 to 2011. Even as she tried to laugh off the abuse, she said, she felt guilty for not fighting back, for "letting my father and my mother down."

The tipping point came a decade ago when the captain of the tug she served on, Alex Marjanovich (also a civilian), dropped his drawers and exposed his backside to the crew of another tugboat in what was later described by an investigator, somewhat tamely, as a "mooning incident."



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/dnd-armed-forces-misconduct-sexual-harassment-esquimalt-1.6039437?ref=mobilerss&cmp=newsletter_CBC%20News%20Top%20Headlines%20%20%E2%80%93%20Evening_1617_270680


----------



## OldSolduer

OldSolduer said:


> FYI Commissars were employed in The Red Army to ensure the troops toed the party line. Also known as the Political Officer. It’s not a good idea.


Further - the Political Officer did not report to the CO - the Political Officer reported to their higher Political Officer. Political officers IIRC were to ensure that the officers toed the party line, that party dues were paid and that the men were properly politically indoctrinated. 
Further, the intelligence agencies would plant people among the ordinary soldiers to report on any deviation they observed.
I don't think it would ever come to this here. At least I would hope not.

Just to add, in the old days of the USSR neighbours were encouraged to rat each other out.


----------



## dimsum

daftandbarmy said:


> For years, the spotlight on sexual misconduct and racism in the Armed Forces has focused on the actions of military members — a belated social reckoning that has tended to eclipse well-documented instances of egregious abuse directed at civilian employees of the Department of National Defence (DND).


I'm surprised that anyone is surprised at this.


----------



## OldSolduer

OldSolduer said:


> Further - the Political Officer did not report to the CO - the Political Officer reported to their higher Political Officer. Political officers IIRC were to ensure that the officers toed the party line, that party dues were paid and that the men were properly politically indoctrinated.
> Further, the intelligence agencies would plant people among the ordinary soldiers to report on any deviation they observed.
> I don't think it would ever come to this here. At least I would hope not.
> 
> Just to add, in the old days of the USSR neighbours were encouraged to rat each other out.


To further add to my mini history lesson WRT to the Red Army and Commissars the Political Officer was a known entity while the moles in the ranks were not known, even to the Political Officer. The powers that be wanted to ensure no one became too popular and they toed the party line. This is the paranoia and mistrust that was - is - a characteristic of the USSR. I would say it still exists in the new Russia but by a different name.
Anyways if you want a Commissar in every rifle company, or ship, or RCAF squadron I think its a real bad idea.


----------



## dimsum

OldSolduer said:


> I would say it still exists in the new Russia but by a different name


It's called "suicide by defenestration".


----------



## OldSolduer

dimsum said:


> It's called "suicide by defenestration".


OK I'm infantry so small words and short sentences please?? LOL
Explain please!!


----------



## dimsum

OldSolduer said:


> OK I'm infantry so small words and short sentences please?? LOL
> Explain please!!


----------



## daftandbarmy

dimsum said:


>



So, Friday night in the shacks after a long FTX then?


----------



## OldSolduer

daftandbarmy said:


> So, Friday night in the shacks after a long FTX then?


They were places where many feared to tread because you could have an orders parades every day for two weeks after. 

I think we've gone off topic....my apologies.


----------



## mariomike

dimsum said:


> It's called "suicide by defenestration".


Technically a toss. Not suicide. Although it may be made to appear as such.


----------



## CBH99

daftandbarmy said:


> Wow...
> 
> Civilian DND employee says she suffered retribution after reporting abuse​
> 
> Krystina MacLean, a civilian employee at the Department of National Defence, fought an internal battle a decade ago over allegations of racial discrimination and sexual harassment. (Mike McArthur/CBC)
> 
> As a woman and civilian working the naval docks along Canada's West Coast, Krystina MacLean has seen and endured a lot.
> 
> Of mixed South Asian descent, she was routinely referred to among colleagues as a "black bitch" by the captain of a Department of National Defence tugboat, who supervised her.
> 
> A workplace harassment investigation later acknowledged she was also called a "Paki" on the job, along with other racially and sexually-charged terms of abuse.
> 
> While sanding decks on her hands and knees, MacLean said, she was often asked by other male crew members to "service" them while she was down there.
> 
> "At the time I just felt ... I felt alone. I felt scared to work with these guys," MacLean told CBC News.
> 
> For years, the spotlight on sexual misconduct and racism in the Armed Forces has focused on the actions of military members — a belated social reckoning that has tended to eclipse well-documented instances of egregious abuse directed at civilian employees of the Department of National Defence (DND).
> 
> MacLean said she put up with the taunts for five years, from 2006 to 2011. Even as she tried to laugh off the abuse, she said, she felt guilty for not fighting back, for "letting my father and my mother down."
> 
> The tipping point came a decade ago when the captain of the tug she served on, Alex Marjanovich (also a civilian), dropped his drawers and exposed his backside to the crew of another tugboat in what was later described by an investigator, somewhat tamely, as a "mooning incident."
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/dnd-armed-forces-misconduct-sexual-harassment-esquimalt-1.6039437?ref=mobilerss&cmp=newsletter_CBC%20News%20Top%20Headlines%20%20%E2%80%93%20Evening_1617_270680


I actually remember reading an article about this very issue years ago, oddly enough.  The internal battle may have been a decade ago, but I'm pretty sure the article I read was a lot more recent than that.

Regardless...

Yes.  OP Honour did focus on the actions of military members, streamlining and adding safety measures when someone made a complaint, and demanding action be taken by the CoC.  It primarily focused on the actions of military members, because...it's the military.  😐

I'm 99% sure civilian employees were well aware of Op Honour, and were encouraged to report sexual misconduct also (I have no idea about specific briefings given to civilian employees when they were hired, so perhaps I am wrong about this.)


And the captain sounds like a dirtbag.  His behaviour isn't just racist or sexist, it's just crude & unprofessional nonsense.  Making any sort of racist or sexist comments get my blood boiling, but his behaviour went even further than that...mooning the other tugs?  Really man?  Really?  Sounds like an absolute dirtbag, who should have been fired regardless of the military police investigation.  (Just because you weren't charged with a criminal offence, doesn't mean your behaviour is up to standards.  I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know the NDA specifics or any other applicable legislation...but mooning the other ships alone should have been enough to give him a warning, and boot him out if the continued.  Plenty of people looking for that work in Esquimalt who aren't unprofessional & immature.)


BBUUUTTTTT....   <Puts my flame resistant suit back on>    

*Choosing not to come forwards, and allowing the behaviour to continue for 5 years?  The CoC, military police, and other interested parties can't do anything if you don't make the complaint! * Saying "I put up with this for 5 years and eventually left, and am just coming forwards now" doesn't do us any good.  

I realize that in some cases, people may feel frightened to come forwards, and those fears may be justified.  In some cases, someone doesn't come forwards because they don't want to be seen as rocking the boat, causing a scene, fear the military may ignore them and not take action, fear of reprisals from the accused party, etc.  Fear certainly can lead us to suspect outcomes which feel very realistic, but may not be.  I am speaking from experience when I say a real, primal, deep fear that exists for years absolutely can lead to someone making decisions which may seem silly to others.  I can truly empathize with this.  

But for guys like this to be dealt with accordingly if/when need be - people need to file a complaint.  It isn't the CAF's fault that this happened over the course of 5 years, if she didn't bother to make formal complaints about it.  

If she had filed complaints, or attempted to report this behaviour to her senior, and nothing happened?  THEN they can look to point the finger at the CAF.  But the CAF, military police, ombudsman, etc etc can't do anything if you don't tell anybody what is happening!

If this behaviour was as bad as she says it was (and I do believe her - it was probably worse, to be honest) - I'm sure they could have swapped her to a different boat, replaced the captain, etc.  




I am NOT defending his actions, clearly.  Nor am I trying to blame her for his awful conduct, or any part of the situation.  I am not trying to blindly defend Op Honour.  It had good intentions, and while the bad incidents make the news, I'm certain plenty of other incidents were handled quickly and properly.  *But not reporting anything for years on end certainly doesn't help get the problem fixed!

If Op Honour (aka, the CoC) has any chance of succeeding, people have to come forwards.  *I understand they may have reasons to feel like they can't, or shouldn't.  

*If they do bring the situation to the attention of the CoC, or a supervisor if they are a civilian - and nothing is done - absolutely.  They dropped the ball.  But a guaranteed way to make sure nothing is done is to not bother telling who needs to be told.  


(0.02)   <Closes my eyes and waits as I hear footsteps running to grab the flame-throwers...)


----------



## daftandbarmy

CBH99 said:


> I actually remember reading an article about this very issue years ago, oddly enough.  The internal battle may have been a decade ago, but I'm pretty sure the article I read was a lot more recent than that.
> 
> Regardless...
> 
> Yes.  OP Honour did focus on the actions of military members, streamlining and adding safety measures when someone made a complaint, and demanding action be taken by the CoC.  It primarily focused on the actions of military members, because...it's the military.  😐
> 
> I'm 99% sure civilian employees were well aware of Op Honour, and were encouraged to report sexual misconduct also (I have no idea about specific briefings given to civilian employees when they were hired, so perhaps I am wrong about this.)
> 
> 
> And the captain sounds like a dirtbag.  His behaviour isn't just racist or sexist, it's just crude & unprofessional nonsense.  Making any sort of racist or sexist comments get my blood boiling, but his behaviour went even further than that...mooning the other tugs?  Really man?  Really?  Sounds like an absolute dirtbag, who should have been fired regardless of the military police investigation.  (Just because you weren't charged with a criminal offence, doesn't mean your behaviour is up to standards.  I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know the NDA specifics or any other applicable legislation...but mooning the other ships alone should have been enough to give him a warning, and boot him out if the continued.  Plenty of people looking for that work in Esquimalt who aren't unprofessional & immature.)
> 
> 
> BBUUUTTTTT....   <Puts my flame resistant suit back on>
> 
> *Choosing not to come forwards, and allowing the behaviour to continue for 5 years?  The CoC, military police, and other interested parties can't do anything if you don't make the complaint! * Saying "I put up with this for 5 years and eventually left, and am just coming forwards now" doesn't do us any good.
> 
> I realize that in some cases, people may feel frightened to come forwards, and those fears may be justified.  In some cases, someone doesn't come forwards because they don't want to be seen as rocking the boat, causing a scene, fear the military may ignore them and not take action, fear of reprisals from the accused party, etc.  Fear certainly can lead us to suspect outcomes which feel very realistic, but may not be.  I am speaking from experience when I say a real, primal, deep fear that exists for years absolutely can lead to someone making decisions which may seem silly to others.  I can truly empathize with this.
> 
> But for guys like this to be dealt with accordingly if/when need be - people need to file a complaint.  It isn't the CAF's fault that this happened over the course of 5 years, if she didn't bother to make formal complaints about it.
> 
> If she had filed complaints, or attempted to report this behaviour to her senior, and nothing happened?  THEN they can look to point the finger at the CAF.  But the CAF, military police, ombudsman, etc etc can't do anything if you don't tell anybody what is happening!
> 
> If this behaviour was as bad as she says it was (and I do believe her - it was probably worse, to be honest) - I'm sure they could have swapped her to a different boat, replaced the captain, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am NOT defending his actions, clearly.  Nor am I trying to blame her for his awful conduct, or any part of the situation.  I am not trying to blindly defend Op Honour.  It had good intentions, and while the bad incidents make the news, I'm certain plenty of other incidents were handled quickly and properly.  *But not reporting anything for years on end certainly doesn't help get the problem fixed!
> 
> If Op Honour (aka, the CoC) has any chance of succeeding, people have to come forwards.  *I understand they may have reasons to feel like they can't, or shouldn't.
> 
> *If they do bring the situation to the attention of the CoC, or a supervisor if they are a civilian - and nothing is done - absolutely.  They dropped the ball.  But a guaranteed way to make sure nothing is done is to not bother telling who needs to be told.
> 
> 
> (0.02)   <Closes my eyes and waits as I hear footsteps running to grab the flame-throwers...)



I think I posted this somewhere else on here, but am sharing it FYI. It's a big issue in most organizations, not just the CAF:

*Organizational Silence: Why Employees Don’t Speak Up*

"Organizational silence is a phenomenon which occurs when employees possess useful or valuable information about their organization but purposefully remain silent. This information could be their opinions, observations, concerns, or other information which could be useful for others within the organization to be aware of, specifically higher-ups. Many motives have been explored considering the motives behind employee silence, including acquiescent silence, defensive silence, and pro-social silence, among others. Organizational silence can occur as a product of employee motivations, managerial beliefs, or a larger organizational culture issue. The effects of organizational silence can include negative repercussions on the health and well-being of the employees, as well as larger issues for the organization such as lack of morale, decreased production, lower communication efficiency, and decreased decision-making abilities. Organizational silence can be very harmful to organizations and their employees and therefore should be avoided and dismantled whenever possible."

Organizational Silence: Why Employees Don’t Speak Up


----------



## CBH99

daftandbarmy said:


> I think I posted this somewhere else on here, but am sharing it FYI. It's a big issue in most organizations, not just the CAF:
> 
> *Organizational Silence: Why Employees Don’t Speak Up*
> 
> "Organizational silence is a phenomenon which occurs when employees possess useful or valuable information about their organization but purposefully remain silent. This information could be their opinions, observations, concerns, or other information which could be useful for others within the organization to be aware of, specifically higher-ups. Many motives have been explored considering the motives behind employee silence, including acquiescent silence, defensive silence, and pro-social silence, among others. Organizational silence can occur as a product of employee motivations, managerial beliefs, or a larger organizational culture issue. The effects of organizational silence can include negative repercussions on the health and well-being of the employees, as well as larger issues for the organization such as lack of morale, decreased production, lower communication efficiency, and decreased decision-making abilities. Organizational silence can be very harmful to organizations and their employees and therefore should be avoided and dismantled whenever possible."
> 
> Organizational Silence: Why Employees Don’t Speak Up


Thanks for posting this.  100% will read.  🙏


----------



## lenaitch

Our daughter is a civilian base employee and I clearly recall her participating in OP Honour, or perhaps a civilian variant, briefings and seminars/webinars, etc.  Just observing and listening to her talk about day-to-day work, it strikes me that, even though many are unionized (she is not), the power imbalance both formal and informal, between military and civilian staff seems fairly significant.  It's seems like what the Ontario government is fond of calling 'matrix management; for some things they are under the direction of the base/wing commander and for others, their civilian managers.  Where the line is at the time strikes me as a matter of convenience.


----------



## mariomike

daftandbarmy said:


> This information could be their opinions, observations, concerns, or other information which could be useful for others within the organization to be aware of, specifically higher-ups.


Sounds a bit like marriage. "When I want your opinion I'll give it to you."


----------



## Brad Sallows

> Really???



Yes.  When someone tries to micromanage me and there is no objective reason, I assume my superior lacks trust in me and I move on.

The "commissar" idea is embedding someone who reports outside an organization to observe and report on the organization.  (Lest anyone mistake, it's not the same as one-time or even regularly repeated audits, SAVs, etc.)  I suppose it should be obvious why that would be corrosive to morale and command (demonstrated lack of trust).


----------



## CBH99

Brad Sallows said:


> Yes.  When someone tries to micromanage me and there is no objective reason, I assume my superior lacks trust in me and I move on.
> 
> The "commissar" idea is embedding someone who reports outside an organization to observe and report on the organization.  (Lest anyone mistake, it's not the same as one-time or even regularly repeated audits, SAVs, etc.)  I suppose it should be obvious why that would be corrosive to morale and command (demonstrated lack of trust).


Absolutely agreed.

If someone is micromanaging me, it tells me that they either don't have much confidence or trust in my ability to accomplish basic tasks - OR they don't understand how important empowerment is as a leadership quality.  When you give your troops/subordinates flexibility and responsibility for tasks, and show trust that they will accomplish it in a satisfactory way without constantly checking in or micromanaging - your troops give you much better results.

That is one reason why SOF are as effective as they are - besides the generous assets behind the scenes supporting them.  They each have something they need to be extremely competent at, and are trusted to perform.  They are also trusted to represent their organization well, and are punished more harshly if they don't.



But back on topic...

Commissar may be the wrong word, as it has some baggage.  Depending on whatever changes happen, perhaps just call them the  'Professional Standards' rep?  If someone files a complaint that a member did something that falls under 'misconduct' - they file a notice, and the PS Rep forwards it to the chain, or forwards it to an MP detachment or something?  The person who files a complaint gets a confirmation that it was sent higher, one way or another, to give them reassurance that it IS acknowledged and forwarded.  


^ Just spit-balling  🤷‍♂️


----------



## TCM621

ballz said:


> Is reducing sexual misconduct in the military a partisan issue? Is it a Liberal Party issue but not a Conservative Party issue? I'll admit I wasn't familiar with the term commissar, but after looking it up I fail to see how that is a good comparison unless you believe dealing with sexual misconduct is a partisan (Liberal Party) goal.
> 
> 
> 
> Really???


Is reducing sexual misconduct a partisan issue however the manner in which they want to do it is very much ideological. The people who would be hired for those jobs would be the most ideological types available. How do I know this? Because it has happened time and time again. It is happening in universities, corporations and government departments all over North American right now. 

 The CAF has all the tools to deal with this issue and the reason it isn't being dealt with effectively has little to do with the issue itself. The CAF currently has a doyourfuckingjob problem. We don't deal with sexual misconduct properly for the same reason people don't get PDRs, the same reason people find out about courses a week before they are supposed to be there (or after for that matter). Whether to incompetence, lack of staffing or apathy, we have a lot of people in key positions that don't seem to be able to do their job properly. I can think of a dozen issues I have seen in the last 6 months that could have been solved if someone did the minimum required of them.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

CBH99 said:


> Depending on whatever changes happen, perhaps just call them the  'Professional Standards' rep?  If someone files a complaint that a member did something that falls under 'misconduct' - they file a notice, and the PS Rep forwards it to the chain, or forwards it to an MP detachment or something?  The person who files a complaint gets a confirmation that it was sent higher, one way or another, to give them reassurance that it IS acknowledged and forwarded.
> 
> 
> ^ Just spit-balling  🤷‍♂️


Its almost like you're suggesting a more robust HR model with , god forbid, something akin to a professional association or union rep for CAF members to ensure policy isn't malleable based off of someone in the CoC's opinion. Something that works for many in the PS and corporate environments. Why stop there? How about we use these reps to ensure leave approvals are done IAW the CAF Leave Policy manual and not on the whim of your Tp WO? Next you're going to tell me these people can also ensure that CF-98s and DND 663s are completed in a timely fashion and haven't been sitting on some Capt's desk for 6 months....

That's sheer Bolshevism and will undermine a commander's ability to lead troops in combat. :


----------



## OldSolduer

rmc_wannabe said:


> That's sheer Bolshevism and will undermine a commander's ability to lead troops in combat. :


In essence the Commissar model didn't care about leave etc. They had one job: To ensure the troops followed the party line. I did read and learn that the old Soviet Red Army was heavily politicized and ruthlessly culled anyone who didn't follow the party line. The purges of the Red Army of the 30s crippled the Red Army for years afterward due to Stalin's paranoia.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

OldSolduer said:


> In essence the Commissar model didn't care about leave etc. They had one job: To ensure the troops followed the party line. I did read and learn that the old Soviet Red Army was heavily politicized and ruthlessly culled anyone who didn't follow the party line. The purges of the Red Army of the 30s crippled the Red Army for years afterward due to Stalin's paranoia.



You missed my sarcasm. My fault. 

Politicization of military forces = Bad
Professional Association/Unionization for HR matters = Good

After seeing how quickly the CoC will burn their troops to keep warm (or Sexually Assault them without a second thought..). I have lost faith that the CoC is looking out for my best interests administratively. Having a non-military third party to go to and not having to wait on a grievance to filter through would make life in uniform that much better for personnel.


----------



## QV

rmc_wannabe said:


> You missed my sarcasm. My fault.
> 
> Politicization of military forces = Bad
> Professional Association/Unionization for HR matters = Good
> 
> *After seeing how quickly the CoC will burn their troops to keep warm* (or Sexually Assault them without a second thought..). I have lost faith that the CoC is looking out for my best interests administratively. Having a non-military third party to go to and not having to wait on a grievance to filter through would make life in uniform that much better for personnel.


If they are going to add a serious HR component (or Commissar  the two are not too far apart) to grip this, they might consider a complete tear down and rebuild of the military police too.  Not sure how they can survive being "owned" by the former CDS along with other public statements of chronic interference.  This might be a good opportunity for a "leading change" nod on the ol PER, if done right.


----------



## ballz

Brad Sallows said:


> Yes.  When someone tries to micromanage me *and there is no objective reason*, I assume my superior lacks trust in me and I move on.



Uh huh, and when we're talking about situation where there is no cause or objective reason for higher level involvement, then that'll be a valid point.

However, since we're in a thread titled "Sexual Misconduct Allegations in The CAF," and we're currently talking about sexual misconduct in the CAF, and the CAF's failure to address it, I fail to see how your qualifying statements, as I've highlighted them, are in any way relevant to the discussion unless you are asserting that the topic which we are talking about meets the criteria of those qualifying statements. In other words, unless you're asserting that the sexual misconduct crisis in the CAF is not cause or an objective reason for some higher-level involvement, what exactly is your point?

SNCO: "Pte Doey didn't make it to work on time for the last 5 days. I've tried to talk to him and get him to fix his behavior on his own but it seems like it's not working. I think it's time we give him some remedial training on how to be on time?"

Brad Sallows: "Well ya know, if you give him remedial training without cause or an objective reason to do so, that's micromanagement and you'll make him feel like he isn't trusted."

Thanks for a philosophical point that is completely irrelevant to the problem we're discussing.



CBH99 said:


> Absolutely agreed.
> 
> If someone is micromanaging me, it tells me that they either don't have much confidence or trust in my ability to accomplish basic tasks - OR they don't understand how important empowerment is as a leadership quality.  When you give your troops/subordinates flexibility and responsibility for tasks, and show trust that they will accomplish it in a satisfactory way without constantly checking in or micromanaging - your troops give you much better results.
> 
> That is one reason why SOF are as effective as they are - besides the generous assets behind the scenes supporting them.  They each have something they need to be extremely competent at, and are trusted to perform.  They are also trusted to represent their organization well, and are punished more harshly if they don't.
> 
> 
> But back on topic...



Yes, back on topic, cause last I checked we weren't discussing an issue for which the CAF is doing just fine and has continued to provide the competence it owes in order to maintain the trust of the public (and therefore the politicians).



TCM621 said:


> Is reducing sexual misconduct a partisan issue however the manner in which they want to do it is very much ideological. The people who would be hired for those jobs would be the most ideological types available. How do I know this? Because it has happened time and time again. It is happening in universities, corporations and government departments all over North American right now.
> 
> The CAF has all the tools to deal with this issue and the reason it isn't being dealt with effectively has little to do with the issue itself. The CAF currently has a doyourfuckingjob problem. We don't deal with sexual misconduct properly for the same reason people don't get PDRs, the same reason people find out about courses a week before they are supposed to be there (or after for that matter). Whether to incompetence, lack of staffing or apathy, we have a lot of people in key positions that don't seem to be able to do their job properly. I can think of a dozen issues I have seen in the last 6 months that could have been solved if someone did the minimum required of them.



Exactly, which speaks to my point that Remius's idea should serve as a fair warning. If the CAF would like to avoid what you are talking about in para 1, they should dotheirfuckingjobs and fix it themselves, or else the politicians will do it for them.... and arguing it will be "without cause" will be rightfully ignored just like the guy who can't tie his boots gets ignored when he whines about being micromanaged.


----------



## daftandbarmy

QV said:


> If they are going to add a serious HR component (or Commissar  the two are not too far apart) to grip this, they might consider a complete tear down and rebuild of the military police too. Not sure how they can survive being "owned" by the former CDS along with other public statements of chronic interference. *This might be a good opportunity for a "leading change" nod on the ol PER, if done right.*



You mean the deeply flawed PER system that is apparently the single greatest cause of grievances in the CAF? 

Maybe if it was re-tooled to manage behaviour in a way that meaningfully aligned with meeting the intent of the CAF re: treating people with respect, it might be one of the first steps to reducing the sexual (and other) harassment levels:



PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS: ARE THEY A USEFUL TOOL IN THE CANADIAN ARMED FORCES

INTRODUCTION

Every year, tens of thousands of person-hours are spent producing Performance Evaluation Reports (PERs) in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF).

In addition, untold hours are spent processing, tracking, and applying the grievance process annually. Given the amount of time and effort expended on the Canadian Forces Personnel Assessment System (CFPAS), the value it represents to the CAF must be substantial. But is it?

The aim is to develop CF personnel through constructive feedback and to accurately assess the level of demonstrated performance and potential for career administration purpose.

In Canadian Forces General Message (CANFORGEN) 127/08, it was stated that “personnel evaluation report (PER) grievances account for the largest proportion of grievances in the CF”.

It must be surmised that the current system is flawed, as evidenced in the number of grievances submitted annually by members related to their PERs. If the system were providing the outcomes outlined in the policy, then would there be so many individuals who believed they are being wronged by the system.

There is an acknowledgement that the current CFPAS system is not meeting the intent.



			https://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/259/290/308/305/ronalds.pdf


----------



## Brad Sallows

> Uh huh, and when we're talking about situation where there is no cause or objective reason for higher level involvement, then that'll be a valid point.



The idea floated was to have someone embedded with command teams.  If I am to be monitored, I expect it to be for something I have done, not something someone else has done.



> the sexual misconduct crisis in the CAF



What crisis?  To me, "crisis" would be if the institution couldn't function.  In fact, it functions, but not ideally; and, the magnitude of the problem is hard to measure due to the attention given the high-profile cases.  It's far from clear to me that the problem necessitates embedding permanent auditors on the speculation that the problem is widespread enough to warrant it.  There's an easily crossed line that separates going after malfeasance from insulting the majority of reasonable people who exhibit good conduct.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> Thanks for a philosophical point that is completely irrelevant to the problem we're discussing.



Your inability to see the point I was responding to and the response I was making is your fault, not mine.


----------



## Weinie

ballz said:


> If the leadership of the CAF is feeling sorry for themselves right now because it isn't "trusted," they need to grow up and take some responsibility/ownership. Your take on it reminds me of the shitty subordinate who can't seem to tie their shoes correctly and complains that they are being micromanaged.
> 
> It's a trust competence loop. Higher owes subordinates trust, subordinates owe competence in return. The more you provide competence, the more trust you get in return. The more trust you get, the more competence is required to maintain that higher level of trust. From time to time, everybody gets a course correction. No big deal, you take the course correction, fix it, and move on. Trust is re-established. However, fail to course correct and suddenly you are trusted a little less..... continue failing, trust is degraded, and a more hands-on approach is taken.
> 
> The higher levels have broken their end of the bargain. They were entrusted, they failed to provide competence in return. They were course corrected, they failed to course correct accordingly, and are going to be entrusted a little less a result. At some point competence is required to break the cycle and regain trust. Perhaps Remius's idea should serve as a fair warning to those who do not wish to be micromanaged... course correct, or prepare to be micromanaged and the CAF leadership will have done it to itself.


It is truly disheartening to me to see your thoughts on this. I am not a GO/FO, but I am a senior officer.

I would posit (and you can dispute this) that the vast majority of folks in my position truly have the welfare of their folks as foremost in mind. I am in a purple trade, so can not comment about the mafias across the CAF that seem to be complicit in closing ranks when confronted. What I can comment on is that I would never, and never have, condoned any activities within superior/peer/subordinate groups that harassed/disadvantaged people I work with. The very idea is anathema to me. And it wasn't a result of SHARP training or anything similar: I am not religious but try to abide by friendship, loyalty, common sense and the golden rule.

I do "own" my responsibilities and privilege. I do understand that faith has been shaken. I do support the initiatives underway to re-institute confidence at the lower ranks in their leaders, and I recognize it will take time. If I could, I would ask that you grant us that time to fix things.

I will tell you, frankly, that having had discussions with people at my own and above rank level, whom I know and trust, they are every bit as shaken by what has transpired. I joined a long time ago, and having seen multiple scandals, this is truly jarring.

edited to remove a word


----------



## Remius

Brad Sallows said:


> The idea floated was to have someone embedded with command teams.  If I am to be monitored, I expect it to be for something I have done, not something someone else has done.
> 
> 
> 
> What crisis?  To me, "crisis" would be if the institution couldn't function.  In fact, it functions, but not ideally; and, the magnitude of the problem is hard to measure due to the attention given the high-profile cases.  It's far from clear to me that the problem necessitates embedding permanent auditors on the speculation that the problem is widespread enough to warrant it.  There's an easily crossed line that separates going after malfeasance from insulting the majority of reasonable people who exhibit good conduct.



So what would be your solution?  How do we fix this?  More lectures?  More DLN?  More “the RSM and CO will handles it”?  Trust the system?   Seems we’ve been doing this for ever and it isn’t working.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Remius said:


> So what would be your solution?  How do we fix this?  More lectures?  More DLN?  More “the RSM and CO will handles it”?  Trust the system?   Seems we’ve been doing this for ever and it isn’t working.


I think the problem is that the CAF, like most militaries hate 2 things: Change and the way things are.

The second you offer a new way of doing things that goes against the grain of what we always have done, you're dismissed out of hand for breaking "tradition" or "time tested solutions" that are no longer relevant or the best tool for the new problem.

This is unfortunately why I hold the belief that !so long as we have our fingers in the pot, we're going to fuck up the soup and get burned in the process.

Give us direction. Give us orders. Implement a solution and make it the new normal. If you have the military leading change on this you're going to have a bad time.


----------



## TCM621

Remius said:


> So what would be your solution?  How do we fix this?  More lectures?  More DLN?  More “the RSM and CO will handles it”?  Trust the system?   Seems we’ve been doing this for ever and it isn’t working.


The answer is simple. Hold people accountable for their actions. We don't need lectures, we don't need DLN courses, nothing Op Honour came up with was new. The problem with ageneral Vance wasn't with his actions, per se, it was the lack of anyone stopping his career progression because he couldn't follow the rules. Having a consensual affair with a subordinate is a fairly minor transgression in the grand scheme of things. The problem was he did it over and over again without consequenceand was made CDS and the gave of OP honour while being the exact person OP honour was supposed to be about. Maybe if Capt or Major Vance had missed out on a promotion he would have stopped thinking he can sleep with his staff with impunity. 

Meanwhile you have Cpls, MCpls, Sgts and Capt being told they are only satisfactory in ethics because they were only a member of one club on base and didn't volunteer at the foodbank or where ever. When you hold one standard up for the majority of the people and some people don't seem to be  held to any sort of standard all, you have issues. 

Without giving too much away, I knew one individual who never met a woman he wouldn't sleep with and where they sat in the chain of command was pretty much irrelevant. The CoC knew but they had already decided a long time ago he was going places and it seemed like nothing he did could dissuade them from promoting him.  It was treated like something completely separate from his job. However, I see these same leaders lose their minds over an off colour joke or give lecture after lecture about how we need to use non gendered language. 

The problem is that we have been doing isn't working its that we haven't been doing anything. We simply need to address issues as they come up and address them properly. We need to hold people accountable for their actions and we need to hold people who abdicate their responsibility accountable too.


----------



## dimsum

TCM621 said:


> Meanwhile you have Cpls, MCpls, Sgts and Capt being told they are only satisfactory in ethics because they were only a member of one club on base and didn't volunteer at the foodbank or where ever. When you hold one standard up for the majority of the people and some people don't seem to be held to any sort of standard all, you have issues.


I may be misremembering things, but isn't ethics (Conduct On/Off Duty) a "yes/no" bubble, instead of the 5-step bubbles?


----------



## Remius

No offense TCM, But what you said is exactly or very close to what we were told in the 90s.  And the 2000s.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Remius said:


> So what would be your solution?  How do we fix this?  More lectures?  More DLN?  More “the RSM and CO will handles it”?  Trust the system?   Seems we’ve been doing this for ever and it isn’t working.



One of my SNCOs was on an exchange with the 82nd AB Div, in the USA, for awhile.

He described a usual day of training with the division where everyone was on muster parade at 5AM where they counted heads, then went on a divisional 'run', more like a slow trot, for about 30 minutes with their pennants out front of the columns and all the hoo hah sing songs etc.

Then there was a series of 'meetings' where the OCs slammed their tabs in to the COs and accounted for all their men and then, like an upwards flowing waterfall, COs reported to Bde Comds, Bde Comds to Div Comd and Div Comd to whatever XXX formation Comd sat in that chair.

All before breakfast. Every day.

When he first got there he thought he'd landed on some kind of movie set about an army that had gone off the deep end, and was pretty critical about the whole 'treating grown paratroopers like they were kids' thing etc.

But he had it explained to him that this was the only way they were able to convert their culture from a steep post-Vietnam area decline featuring alot of drugs, AWOL, negligence and violence etc. They started by weeding out anyone who couldn't make it on parade at 5am every day (alkies and druggies can't do this very well) and do a cheesy 3 mile jog with his colleagues. It also sorted out the chain of command who were reminded of their most basic leadership tasks: know where all your troops are, and be seen to be out front by them on a run, every day. They weeded out the bad leaders too. It worked like crazy, apparently. 

After that realization, he regarded it as pure genius of course.

I don't know what the equivalent remedy in this case might be, but whatever it is it will take strong and consistent leadership from above.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

dimsum said:


> I may be misremembering things, but isn't ethics (Conduct On/Off Duty) a "yes/no" bubble, instead of the 5-step bubbles?


Ethics is a 5 Step Bubble.

Conduct on/off duty is acceptable/not acceptable.

Typing out those 2 statements made me feel dirty because I know for certain both those AFs are not at all as black and white as CFPAS would have you think...


----------



## Brad Sallows

> So what would be your solution?  How do we fix this?  More lectures?   More DLN?  More “the RSM and CO will handles it”?  Trust the system?   Seems we’ve been doing this for ever and it isn’t working.



1. Know the standard.
2. Follow the standard.
3. Teach the standard.
4. Enforce the standard.

The problem is failure at points (2) and (4), not that new standards (lectures/demos/powerpoints/rules/processes/overseers) are needed.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Remius said:


> *So what would be your solution?  How do we fix this?*  More lectures?  More DLN?  More “the RSM and CO will handles it”?  Trust the system?   Seems we’ve been doing this for ever and it isn’t working.



For starters

Investigate Jon Vance. 
Investigate Admiral MacDonald.
Investigate Vice-Admiral Edmundson.
Investigate the Major RTD'd from Kuwait.
Investigate Lt.-Col. Raphaël Guay. 
Investigate Lt.-Col. David Buchanan. 
Investigate the other *25 to 30* senior officers/COs (or so I've heard) who have been relieved for their behavior in the last few years.

If we find wrongdoing then actually do something about it and not sweep it under the rub or shuffle them to an HQ position.

Once the CAF proves it actually has a backbone to deal with this behavior at the senior level then come up with fancy pants slogans and some truth-to-power buzzphrases that are all the rage in the business sector.


----------



## dapaterson

If the CAF issues a press release announcing "LCol Bloggins has been named as commanding officer of the 17th Battalion, Canadian Mukluk Repair Corps", then the CAF should also issue a press release announcing "LCol Bloggins has been relieved as commanding officer of the 17th Battalion, Canadian Mukluk Repair Corps".  Even that minor bit of transparency would be welcome.


----------



## OldSolduer

Jarnhamar said:


> For starters
> 
> Investigate Jon Vance.
> Investigate Admiral MacDonald.
> Investigate Vice-Admiral Edmundson.
> Investigate the Major RTD'd from Kuwait.
> Investigate Lt.-Col. Raphaël Guay.
> Investigate Lt.-Col. David Buchanan.
> Investigate the other *25 to 30* senior officers/COs (or so I've heard) who have been relieved for their behavior in the last few years.
> 
> If we find wrongdoing then actually do something about it and not sweep it under the rub or shuffle them to an HQ position.
> 
> Once the CAF proves it actually has a backbone to deal with this behavior at the senior level then come up with fancy pants slogans and some truth-to-power buzzphrases that are all the rage in the business sector.


I agree with this. It’s targeted on those who supposedly stepped over the line. As long as there is probable cause to investigate that’s fine. When it’s based on rumour…..


----------



## ballz

Yes, a non-compromising adherence accountability works well, now if you'll all come back to the CAF... we compromised on accountability a long time ago and now it doesn't exist for anybody above the rank of MCpl. How do you re-create a culture of accountability out of one where there is none? That's not so simple. At a small level (small teams) it's a lot easier, switch out a few personalities and empower those people. Hard to argue our leadership is not already "empowered" when it comes to remedial measures and a disciplinary system, the systems exist to fix it but there is a refusal to use them.

I circle back to my example of when I was Lt and was hung out to dry by my OC and then the CO/RSM. How many times do you need to touch a hot stove before you realize it's hot? I faced more consequences for trying than the guy who couldn't be trusted to bring his snowshoes on a winter ex. We lost two good Sgts to medical releases, and I've got one foot out the door, all because the leaders we selected don't share your same enthusiasm for accountability.... I'm sure they talk a big game about it, when faced with having to execute it though, most seem to falter.



Brad Sallows said:


> The idea floated was to have someone embedded with command teams.  If I am to be monitored, I expect it to be for something I have done, not something someone else has done.



You were responding to my post in which I stated that if someone gets course corrected and fails to correct course, a more hands-on approach is inevitable. That the person who is failing to show competence is going to lose the trust of their higher.

You responded to that talking about how if it's done without cause..... I reject that the premise you're trying to lay your argument on is valid. Your suggestion that more micromanagement would be "without cause" is ridiculous.



Brad Sallows said:


> Your inability to see the point I was responding to and the response I was making is your fault, not mine.



Ironic given that we're talking about accountability.... I've always considered the onus to be on me, as the communicator, to ensure my message was clear for the audience. In any case, on your point we're in violent agreement, that's the not the problem. The premise upon which it is based I find ridiculous.

If you think this isn't a crisis, you're wrong. The CAF is very similar to a self-regulated profession, the profession of arms. Much like doctors, lawyers, accountants, the public has put some legislation in place to allow us to govern ourselves. Losing the confidence of the public is a crisis, and leads to losing that autonomy that you clearly value. The writing is on the wall, if we won't fix it we shouldn't be bitching and moaning about it when someone swoops in and decides to fix it for us on their terms.


----------



## OldSolduer

“Seek and accept responsibility “ is one of the Principles of Leadership. It means that you accept responsibility when you eff up too, not just when good things happen. And you seek greater responsibility- like commanding an infantry section. 
Few realize this.


----------



## OldSolduer

Trudeau Foundation tried to silence sexual harassment allegation, woman claims in $1.25M lawsuit
		


Just found this - no wonder JT has nothing to say


----------



## Brad Sallows

> You were responding to my post in which I stated that if someone gets course corrected and fails to correct course, a more hands-on approach is inevitable.



The original suggestion (not yours) was "But embed in every unit or command team an independent sexual harassment advisor observer."  Note the "every".  Note the "independent".  Note the single focus of responsibility.  Not exactly presumed guilt and collective punishment (it's not punishment), but the same flavour.

My objection was "Yeah, that describes "commissar".  Great for morale.  Clear demonstration of trust - basically the highest levels saying, "we don't trust you", which inevitably leads to the lower levels saying, "so why should we?"

You chimed in with "...Your take on it reminds me of the shitty subordinate who can't seem to tie their shoes correctly and complains that they are being micromanaged...".

My "take" isn't a defence of shitty subordinates.  My "take" is about the ill effects on the institution of demonstrating lack of trust in those who haven't demonstrated untrustworthiness (everybody?  truly?).  You're the one who wants to make it about shitty subordinates rather than those who haven't done anything requiring close supervision.


----------



## TCM621

Remius said:


> No offense TCM, But what you said is exactly or very close to what we were told in the 90s.  And the 2000s.


Just because they didn't listen doesn't make the solution any less correct. If I told you the way to way to deal with infection is with antibiotics but you decided to use crystals and prayer, is the problem with the antibiotics or the people who don't use them?

Absolutely our commanders failed us. Maybe they can be forgiven a little bit because they were focused on fighting a war but that is being very generous. It starts at the very top. The government didn't address the CDS problem, the CDS didn't deal with the problem among his (near) peers who didn't deal with their direct subordinates. 

Like I said if the CO of the Dragoons way back when had (figuratively) smacked Capt Vance's peepee maybe he doesn't becime the serial offender he became and maybe the entire Army doesn't dismiss everything he says because they wouldn't see him as a giant hypocrite. Yes it should have been done 20 years ago and it has to a pretty great extent. I rarely see any of the things they taught us on SHARP anymore and they are quickly dealt with under normal circumstances. We just need to go after the superstars as well as the person no one likes or is no longer seen as upwardly mobile. I have never seen a career corporal get away with stuff Cols and Generals get away with on the daily.


----------



## Halifax Tar

daftandbarmy said:


> One of my SNCOs was on an exchange with the 82nd AB Div, in the USA, for awhile.
> 
> He described a usual day of training with the division where everyone was on muster parade at 5AM where they counted heads, then went on a divisional 'run', more like a slow trot, for about 30 minutes with their pennants out front of the columns and all the hoo hah sing songs etc.
> 
> Then there was a series of 'meetings' where the OCs slammed their tabs in to the COs and accounted for all their men and then, like an upwards flowing waterfall, COs reported to Bde Comds, Bde Comds to Div Comd and Div Comd to whatever XXX formation Comd sat in that chair.
> 
> All before breakfast. Every day.
> 
> When he first got there he thought he'd landed on some kind of movie set about an army that had gone off the deep end, and was pretty critical about the whole 'treating grown paratroopers like they were kids' thing etc.
> 
> But he had it explained to him that this was the only way they were able to convert their culture from a steep post-Vietnam area decline featuring alot of drugs, AWOL, negligence and violence etc. They started by weeding out anyone who couldn't make it on parade at 5am every day (alkies and druggies can't do this very well) and do a cheesy 3 mile jog with his colleagues. It also sorted out the chain of command who were reminded of their most basic leadership tasks: know where all your troops are, and be seen to be out front by them on a run, every day. They weeded out the bad leaders too. It worked like crazy, apparently.
> 
> After that realization, he regarded it as pure genius of course.
> 
> I don't know what the equivalent remedy in this case might be, but whatever it is it will take strong and consistent leadership from above.


Sounds like discipline and using the tools (Rules and Regs) at hand. 

We need the Officers to point the ship in the right direction and then we need the Snr NCMs to make it move in that direction.


----------



## OldSolduer

OldSolduer said:


> Trudeau Foundation tried to silence sexual harassment allegation, woman claims in $1.25M lawsuit
> 
> 
> 
> Just found this - no wonder JT has nothing to say


I want to add that JT is not named in this lawsuit.


----------



## dapaterson

Questions of the institution holding its members to account are not new.

Twenty-five years ago today the Court Martial Appeal Court (CMAC) tossed the sentence of Maj Anthony Seward, Officer Commanding 2 Commando of the Canadian Airborne Regiment in Somalia. A court martial of his peers had sentenced him to a severe reprimand after convicting him under section 124 of the National Defence Act for negligently performing a military duty imposed on him. The CMAC decision noted "I think it is fair to assume that in any well-run civilian organisation an order given by a mid-level executive, leading to such disastrous consequences for his subordinates and the organisation, would rate more than a negative comment in his personnel file, the equivalent of a "severe reprimand"." A new sentence, of three months imprisonment and dismissal from Her Majesty's Service, was substituted instead. R. v. Seward - Court Martial Appeal Court


----------



## ModlrMike

dapaterson said:


> If the CAF issues a press release announcing "LCol Bloggins has been named as commanding officer of the 17th Battalion, Canadian Mukluk Repair Corps", then the CAF should also issue a press release announcing "LCol Bloggins has been relieved as commanding officer of the 17th Battalion, Canadian Mukluk Repair Corps".  Even that minor bit of transparency would be welcome.


To ask the next logical question... What happens when LCol Bloggins has been exonerated? Do they get their command and reputation back?


----------



## dapaterson

A follow on announcement that they have been restored to their position.

But you can't have it both ways.


----------



## quadrapiper

Would binning Regimental community (various species of Colonels, Senate/Association/Guard, etc.) input in career management and related evolutions help or hurt on a structural level?


----------



## Jarnhamar

ModlrMike said:


> To ask the next logical question... What happens when LCol Bloggins has been exonerated? Do they get their command and reputation back?


If they lawyer up more likely an undisclosed payout and signed NDA.


----------



## YZT580

dapaterson said:


> A follow on announcement that they have been restored to their position.
> 
> But you can't have it both ways.


Just like Norman was given his posting back?


----------



## dapaterson

To my understanding, Norman was offered his position back but declined.


----------



## Good2Golf

dapaterson said:


> To my understanding, Norman was offered his position back to return to work for the guy that threw him under the bus while he himself had a closet bulging with skeletons, but declined.


TFTFY...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Lots of reading in this thread...a few points, basic ones, but I think important to keep on the tac plot:

1.  not every GOFO, Snr Officer should be painted with the same brush because of the actions of mbr's from their peer rank groups.

2.  everyone is, or should be, treated as innocent until proven guilty.  If you are one of the people who are forgetting that, IMO you need to sort yourself out.

3. not every GOFO, Snr Officer should be painted with the same brush because of the actions of mbr's from their peer rank groups.  It's the same as Pt 1 because it's important to remind ourselves/yourself of.  There is too much "generalized" commenting, for me at least, that makes it sounds like "all of them are like the ones in the spotlight now".  That is just horseshit, of course.

Tks for reading.


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:


> There is too much "generalized" commenting


Pun intended?


----------



## hattrick72

Eye In The Sky said:


> Lots of reading in this thread...a few points, basic ones, but I think important to keep on the tac plot:
> 
> 1.  not every GOFO, Snr Officer should be painted with the same brush because of the actions of mbr's from their peer rank groups.
> 
> 2.  everyone is, or should be, treated as innocent until proven guilty.  If you are one of the people who are forgetting that, IMO you need to sort yourself out.
> 
> 3. not every GOFO, Snr Officer should be painted with the same brush because of the actions of mbr's from their peer rank groups.  It's the same as Pt 1 because it's important to remind ourselves/yourself of.  There is too much "generalized" commenting, for me at least, that makes it sounds like "all of them are like the ones in the spotlight now".  That is just horseshit, of course.
> 
> Tks for reading.


For your first point, the GOFO group is the most exclusive and peers would be more similar in every way when compared to any other group in the military. At what point in your career do you have to be marked to make it to that rank or group? So if any group could be mostly painted with the same brush it would be them.

2. I fully agree with, unfortunately society has its own ideals on what happens to innocent parties after they go through such complaints. I don't agree with it, but is a reality we live in now!!

3. See point 1. The exclusive selection of these officers and our inability to correct our shooting stars, because it could affect their career trajectory, is why we are where we are.

I will always give an officer the same respect that was expected 15 years ago, but it is time to wake up and start kicking the flat tires that have surrounded you your whole career, regardless of the career consequences.

Edited for phone autocorrect mistakes


----------



## daftandbarmy

This seems like a relevant and interesting film:

_The Invisible War_​
_*The Invisible War*_ is a 2012 American documentary film written and directed by Kirby Dick and produced by Amy Ziering and Tanner King Barklow about sexual assault in the United States military. It premiered at the 2012 Sundance Film Festival, where it received the U.S. Documentary Audience Award.[2] The film has been lauded by advocates, lawmakers, and journalists for its influence on government policies to reduce the prevalence of rape in the armed forces.[3]

_The Invisible War_ is the recipient of a Peabody Award and Emmy Awards for Best Documentary Feature and Outstanding Investigative Journalism.[4][5] It was nominated for Best Documentary Feature at the 85th Academy Awards.[6]

In 2010, 108,121 veterans screened positive for military sexual trauma, and 68,379 had at least one Veterans Health Administration outpatient visit for related conditions. Also in 2010, The Department of Defense processed reports of 3,198 new assaults but estimated the actual number of assaults to be closer to 19,000. However, these reports resulted in convictions against only 244 perpetrators.[7]

_*The Invisible War*_* features interviews with veterans from multiple branches of the United States Armed Forces who recount the events surrounding their assaults. Their stories show many common themes, such as the lack of recourse to an impartial justice system, reprisals against survivors instead of against perpetrators, the absence of adequate emotional and physical care for survivors, the unhindered advancement of perpetrators' careers, and the forced expulsion of survivors from service.*

Following its release, _The Invisible War_ was heralded for exposing a culture of widespread sexual harassment and sexual assault at Marine Barracks Washington.[8][9][10] In March 2012, eight women, including two who appeared in the film, filed suit against military leaders for maintaining an environment that tolerates rapists while silencing survivors.[11]

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta viewed the film on April 14, 2012.[12][13] On April 16, 2012, Secretary Panetta issued a directive ordering all sexual assault cases to be handled by senior officers at the rank of colonel or higher, which effectively ended the practice of commanders adjudicating these cases from within their own units.[14] In his 2014 memoir _Worthy Fights_, Panetta states that watching _The Invisible War_ was one of the main factors that influenced him to take action on the issue of sexual assault in the military.[15]

On June 25, 2012, the Marine Corps unveiled a new plan to combat sexual assault. Marine Corps Commandant General James F. Amos met with all non-deployed Marine generals to review the new procedures, which seek to discourage unsafe environments while increasing reporting.[16][17] In November 2012 Air Force Chief of Staff General Mark Welsh met with all active wing commanders to screen the film and discuss the problem of rape in the military.[18] The film's distributor estimates that 235,000 service members viewed _The Invisible War_ in 2012.[18]

On January 4, 2013, President Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013. This law included many improvements to the military's handling of sexual assault cases, such as barring individuals with felony sex abuse convictions from receiving enlistment waivers, forming special victims units to investigate and prosecute sexual assault cases, and installing new policies to prevent professional retaliation against assault survivors.[19][20]

According to _The New York Times_, the film "has been credited with both persuading more women to come forward to report abuse and with forcing the military to deal more openly with the problem."[21] The _Times_ also notes that the film helped spur the House Armed Services Committee to hold a January 23, 2013, hearing on sexual assault in the military.[22] During the hearing, Rep. Mike Turner acknowledged the film for illustrating the hostility faced by many survivors who speak up or seek help.[23] _The Invisible War_ was again discussed during a Senate subcommittee hearing on March 13, 2013, in which lawmakers and military officials described the film's impact on military training programs dealing with sexual assault.[24]

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand credits _The Invisible War_ with inspiring her to create legislation to reduce sexual assault in the military. In her 2014 memoir _Off the Sidelines_, Gillibrand writes, "Nothing in my life...prepared me for what I saw in that film.... Whatever it took, I had to help bring justice to these survivors, and I needed to work to prevent future crimes."[25] In November 2013, Gillibrand introduced the Military Justice Improvement Act, which would require military sexual assault cases to be handled by an independent judiciary body.[26] In March 2014 the bill failed to secure enough votes to break a filibuster.[27]










						The Invisible War - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## rmc_wannabe

daftandbarmy said:


> This seems like a relevant and interesting film



Our Formation watched this film during the first Operation HONOUR brief presented. Very good film. does a good job conveying the situation as systemic and not the "well there are a couple bad apples..." argument from the ostriches with their head in the sand.


----------



## Haggis

Jarnhamar said:


> If they lawyer up more likely an undisclosed payout and signed NDA.





ModlrMike said:


> To ask the next logical question... What happens when LCol Bloggins has been exonerated? Do they get their command and reputation back?


If the example of the wrongly accused CWO from 17 Wing is any example, the CAF will not admit it screwed up.  In his case, the only statement from the CAF was that he was "no longer a person of interest" with no admission of fault from the CFNIS. He is suing and I hope he wins big.


----------



## CBH99

I watched the first 20 minutes of this documentary on Youtube and had to stop it on the grounds of being deeply angry and sad.  Maybe I just don't have enough coffee in me yet, but it genuinely pissed me off in a very primal way.  Lots to get done today anyway, best get started.

I will make a point of watching it tonight or tomorrow, when I'm in the right mindset.  Seems well worth watching.  Just not in the right mindset for it.


----------



## NavyShooter

I too watched it during OPERATION HONOUR - we went to the CFMWC theater and the whole staff at CFNES watched it together.

What I took away from it was that there are a lot of highly placed people, who protect(ed) other highly placed people as serial abusers.  

The terrible things described were hidden by Command Master Chiefs, Commanding Officers, and more.  The 'rank and file' were abused - but did not seem to be the main group of perpetrators.  (That could have been the focus of the movie - but it was the perception that I left with.)

So.  

My take-away was that in a room of 300 people, there were probably 15-20 that had been assaulted/abused by 3-4 who were in a position of power that enabled that abuse.  The real target audience of that movie was not the sailors in the room.  It was the Command Team.  

Along the way to becoming a Command Team member, a serial abuser 'gets away' with a few 'minor' transgressions, but once they are in that position of almost absolute power, the proverbial consequence occurs, and the corruption that has been fostered or enabled as that person climbed in rank is now 'free' to be abused.  

Taking away beer at sea because another ship's Command Team did 'things' that got their ship recalled from a major exercise in the Pacific is a slap in the face for those who did nothing wrong.  

Making the troops do another DLN course because a General/Admiral/Colonel/Cox'n got caught doing something wrong is the wrong solution, in fact, it makes it worse.  

1. Identify the problem.
2. Investigate the accusations
3. Put it to trial
4. Punish the guilty
5. Re-instate the innocent
6. Punish fake accusers
7. Establish an effective reporting mechanism outside of the CofC to reduce future occurrences (use the Padre chain?)

It's not a simple problem.  It's not a simple solution.  There's going to be long term emotional scars on individuals, and scars on the institution as well.

NS


----------



## Remius

All good in theory.  And I note you included “fake accusers”.  And we should absolutely hold false accusations to task.

But do we really have a systemic false accusation issue or a systemic sexual harassment and assault issue.

I’m not saying you did this but whenever cases of sexual assault come up people who take issue with the assertion we have a problem bring up the issue of false accusers as if it is an equally prevalent problem.


----------



## TCM621

Remius said:


> All good in theory.  And I note you included “fake accusers”.  And we should absolutely hold false accusations to task.
> 
> But do we really have a systemic false accusation issue or a systemic sexual harassment and assault issue.
> 
> I’m not saying you did this but whenever cases of sexual assault come up people who take issue with the assertion we have a problem bring up the issue of false accusers as if it is an equally prevalent problem.


We don't have either a systematic fake accuser problem nor a systematic sexual harassment and/or assault problem. We has sexual assault rate that is on par with the general public and some very high profile cases of sexual misconduct. You could argue we have more people doing things within a framework of sexual conduct than other large organizations. I would argue that a lot of what is lumped in as sexual isn't real sexual at all (is mooning really sexual in nature?) and that a lot of the culture stems from a combination of a closeness with co-workers you will never replicate at a bank, a population that skews young and sense of  humour common among people who work in high stress jobs. That isn't to say that much of the behaviour isn't still inappropriate just that it has little to do with sex or sexual activities and even less to do with sexual assault.


----------



## Remius

you are correct.  I shouldn’t just limit it to sexual assault,  do we have a systemic problem with sexually inappropriate behaviour then.   I suggest that we do.


----------



## NavyShooter

Reimus,

Looking at a couple of studies and doing a bit of google-fu, the rate of false accusations is low - one study says between 2-10%, another based on FBI stats says around 5%...but there are some false accusations, and should be dealt with as well - note, I listed that after the need to punish the guilty, and re-instate the innocent in order before this.

The point of my post was less about the false accusations, and far more about the serious problem at higher levels.  

That's also not saying that there are not problems at lower levels, (Cpl vs Cpl in the mess, MCpl vs Pte in the field, etc) but the high profile and abject failure in leadership that those in Command are exhibiting through their actions is the key problem facing us today.  

NS


----------



## YZT580

And there are accusations that may be true or false but cannot be verified for any number of reasons, the most common being "she said he did, he said he didn't" but no one was there to verify.  NS, you gave figures that provide a 5% assault rate.  That is certainly 5% more than it should be but it is pretty close to the national average for all groups and much lower than some.  As an outsider looking at the issue I would say that you do not have a system problem but you definitely have a leadership problem and the only solution to that is to clean house.


----------



## OldSolduer

You don’t wake up one morning and decide to become a sexual deviant or whatever you want to call them.
There’s a pattern of behaviour that goes back to their late teens I bet.


----------



## TCM621

Remius said:


> you are correct.  I shouldn’t just limit it to sexual assault,  do we have a systemic problem with sexually inappropriate behaviour then.   I suggest that we do.


Define the systems that contribute to this systematic behaviour. What system of the military leads to it having this problem? What system should be changed and how would that change make the situation better?


----------



## hattrick72

TCM621 said:


> Define the systems that contribute to this systematic behaviour. What system of the military leads to it having this problem? What system should be changed and how would that change make the situation better?


Read the Deschamps report. It tells you it is the acceptance of crude or otherwise sexualised jokes. Letting that go unchecked creates an environment and atmosphere that allows problems to percolate.

For example a CWO in my unit felt it was appropriate to post - I think that Hillary just "Monica'ed" Donald's Johnson!! On a female Sgt timeline after the first debate. She didn't complain, it was a male MCpl. This was a week after the CWO demanded everyone in the unit read the report and send an email to him stating it was read by a specific date.

Some people just don't get it or feel certain things are just silly and shouldn't be included in the Nexus.


----------



## daftandbarmy

hattrick72 said:


> Read the Deschamps report. It tells you it is the acceptance of crude or otherwise sexualised jokes. Letting that go unchecked creates an environment and atmosphere that allows problems to percolate.
> 
> For example a CWO in my unit felt it was appropriate to post - I think that Hillary just "Monica'ed" Donald's Johnson!! On a female Sgt timeline after the first debate. She didn't complain, it was a male MCpl. This was a week after the CWO demanded everyone in the unit read the report and send an email to him stating it was read by a specific date.
> 
> Some people just don't get it or feel certain things are just silly and shouldn't be included in the Nexus.



It's known as the 'Broken Window Theory' or, in RCR paralnce, 'Never Pass a Fault':

*Broken windows theory*, academic theory proposed by James Q. Wilson and George Kelling in 1982 that used broken windows as a metaphor for disorder within neighbourhoods. Their theory links disorder and incivility within a community to subsequent occurrences of serious crime.

Broken windows theory had an enormous impact on police policy throughout the 1990s and remained influential into the 21st century. Perhaps the most notable application of the theory was in New York City under the direction of Police Commissioner William Bratton. He and others were convinced that the aggressive order-maintenance practices of the New York City Police Department were responsible for the dramatic decrease in crime rates within the city during the 1990s. Bratton began translating the theory into practice as the chief of New York City’s transit police from 1990 to 1992. Squads of plainclothes officers were assigned to catch turnstile jumpers, and, as arrests for misdemeanours increased, subway crimes of all kinds decreased dramatically. In 1994, when he became New York City police commissioner, Bratton introduced his broken windows-based “quality of life initiative.” This initiative cracked down on panhandling, disorderly behaviour, public drinking, street prostitution, and unsolicited windshield washing or other such attempts to obtain cash from drivers stopped in traffic. When Bratton resigned in 1996, felonies were down almost 40 percent in New York, and the homicide rate had been halved.

Prior to the development and implementation of various incivility theories such as broken windows, law enforcement scholars and police tended to focus on serious crime; that is, the major concern was with crimes that were perceived to be the most serious and consequential for the victim, such as rape, robbery, and murder. Wilson and Kelling took a different view. They saw serious crime as the final result of a lengthier chain of events, theorizing that crime emanated from disorder and that if disorder were eliminated, then serious crimes would not occur.









						Broken windows theory | Description & Results
					

broken windows theory,  academic theory proposed by James Q. Wilson and George Kelling in 1982 that used broken windows as a metaphor for disorder within neighbourhoods. Their theory links disorder and incivility within a community to subsequent occurrences of serious crime. Broken windows...



					www.britannica.com


----------



## dapaterson

Global News is reporting that the former Director, Cadets at RMC was ordered not to put things in writing, lest there be an ATIP request, and not to take action.



> I was told on multiple occasions by Gen. Friday: don’t write things down, don’t email me things, don’t make reports, because there might be an access to information request and we might have questions about military justice. Don’t put things in writing.











						2 Royal Military College bosses downplayed need to combat sexual misconduct: ex-training head - National | Globalnews.ca
					

The Canadian military is in the midst of a reckoning over allegations of high-level sexual misconduct, and the culture at the military's training institution is under scrutiny.




					globalnews.ca


----------



## hattrick72

daftandbarmy said:


> It's known as the 'Broken Window Theory' or, in RCR paralnce, 'Never Pass a Fault':
> 
> *Broken windows theory*, academic theory proposed by James Q. Wilson and George Kelling in 1982 that used broken windows as a metaphor for disorder within neighbourhoods. Their theory links disorder and incivility within a community to subsequent occurrences of serious crime.
> 
> Broken windows theory had an enormous impact on police policy throughout the 1990s and remained influential into the 21st century. Perhaps the most notable application of the theory was in New York City under the direction of Police Commissioner William Bratton. He and others were convinced that the aggressive order-maintenance practices of the New York City Police Department were responsible for the dramatic decrease in crime rates within the city during the 1990s. Bratton began translating the theory into practice as the chief of New York City’s transit police from 1990 to 1992. Squads of plainclothes officers were assigned to catch turnstile jumpers, and, as arrests for misdemeanours increased, subway crimes of all kinds decreased dramatically. In 1994, when he became New York City police commissioner, Bratton introduced his broken windows-based “quality of life initiative.” This initiative cracked down on panhandling, disorderly behaviour, public drinking, street prostitution, and unsolicited windshield washing or other such attempts to obtain cash from drivers stopped in traffic. When Bratton resigned in 1996, felonies were down almost 40 percent in New York, and the homicide rate had been halved.
> 
> Prior to the development and implementation of various incivility theories such as broken windows, law enforcement scholars and police tended to focus on serious crime; that is, the major concern was with crimes that were perceived to be the most serious and consequential for the victim, such as rape, robbery, and murder. Wilson and Kelling took a different view. They saw serious crime as the final result of a lengthier chain of events, theorizing that crime emanated from disorder and that if disorder were eliminated, then serious crimes would not occur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Broken windows theory | Description & Results
> 
> 
> broken windows theory,  academic theory proposed by James Q. Wilson and George Kelling in 1982 that used broken windows as a metaphor for disorder within neighbourhoods. Their theory links disorder and incivility within a community to subsequent occurrences of serious crime. Broken windows...
> 
> 
> 
> www.britannica.com


I agree with this approach. In our context you don't need to hammer someone for the small things, but they shouldn't get away Scott free either. The higher the rank, or more time in the less lenient. If you take care of the small stuff, the majority of the big stuff will disappear. 

My opinion/feeling as I said pages ago is we have a history of letting our shooting stars/chosen ones get away with things by virtue of who they were or the potential they offered. 

For my example the A/CWO (I realise this was autocorrected in my original post) was promoted to CWO and nominated for and given the OMM after the complaint went in, so it seemed like nothing was done in their case. Admin Measures are confidential so not anyone's business if that was the road taken.

One thing that has changed since the 1990s with broken window theory is it would be seen as targeting marginalised members of our community. I don't see how that can translate to the military culture or our discipline system though


----------



## mariomike

daftandbarmy said:


> *Broken windows theory*, academic theory proposed by James Q. Wilson and George Kelling in 1982 that used broken windows as a metaphor for disorder within neighbourhoods. Their theory links disorder and incivility within a community to subsequent occurrences of serious crime.


My uncle was a Metro police officer. He didn't mention "Broken Window Theory", but said something like if you reported a missing cat, for example, they would assign a squad to the case.

He was exaggerating of course. But, I think the point he was trying to make to me was that when a taxpayer calls for help, the situation - to them, at least - is serious. Therefore it is taken seriously by those the call is assigned to.

At least it should be. In theory, at least.

I guess the same theory in emergency services might also be applied to the military, to a certain extent.


----------



## Haggis

I worked with then-Maj Sean Friday in ADM (HR-Mil) about 20 years ago and thought of him as a really smart and stand-up guy. This is disappointing.


----------



## Jarnhamar

> Popov said in 2015, a *male officer cadet stole underwear from a female officer* cadet’s room. That individual, Popov said, was arrested by military police but was *allowed to remain in the officer cadet program,* while he says [BGen] Friday *suggested the female cadet use a different stairwell* to avoid running into the male officer cadet.





> Popov described another incident that occurred in July 2015, when RMC was hosting a group of female sea cadets, *youth between the ages of 12 and 18.*
> Popov says *male officer cadets yelled sexually violent obscenities at several female sea cadets.* He said Friday punished him for trying to reprimand officer cadets in the barracks where the incident occurred, and telling them there would be an investigation.





> “*I said basically that, if you stand by and let this happen you are as guilty as the perpetrators* … sometime after that, Gen. Friday heard that I did that and viewed that as improper, improper conduct.* I was admonished and some career administration was taken against me*, which effectively *ended my career.”*





> Global News obtained a copy of the reprimand issued to Popov after the incident, and signed by Friday.
> 
> In it, *Popov is described as having been “unable to adapt his leadership style to the needs of the Royal Military College* of Canada and has not followed through on adhering to direction regarding culture/climate and interpersonal conflict.”




Maybe RMC needs to adapt* their* leadership to the needs of modern society. Or maybe it just needs to close its doors.


----------



## CBH99

Jarnhamar said:


> Maybe RMC needs to adapt* their* leadership to the needs of modern society. Or maybe it just needs to close its doors.


When all of this first came out, I naively just thought that the CDS got caught having a relationship at work behind his wife’s back. (I still have serious questions & doubts about the complainant, but that isn’t the point.)

Then they came out with the news the Admiral was also being investigated, so he was out before he was even in.

I honestly thought that was it.  Boom. Done.  CDS had an affair, and the Admiral had a complaint.  I didn’t assume either was anything particularly bad, as my ‘assumption’ was that GOFO’s were extremely professional and LED BY EXAMPLE.  Basic leadership 101.  


But now?  Reading the article above, and with EVERYTHING else that’s come out.  I don’t even know what to say 😔🤷🏼‍♂️

Not harassing your colleagues of the opposite gender isn’t hard.  Not sexually assaulting people should be an unspoken given.  If someone does something unprofessional and crude of a sexual nature, they should be held accountable accordingly.   None of the things released over the last month or two should be happening anywhere... it’s literally ‘don’t be a dirt bag’ common.  

Just don’t even know what to say other than read and shake my head at this point...


----------



## MilEME09

Given the precieved culture of ignoring or sweeping this under the rug at RMC. I am curious how many of our current senior leadership under investigation went to RMC?


----------



## daftandbarmy

MilEME09 said:


> Given the precieved culture of ignoring or sweeping this under the rug at RMC. I am curious how many of our current senior leadership under investigation went to RMC?



Although it's easy to pick on RMC (and fun too!  ) I'd say that we need to look at the wider organization as just narrowing it down to RMC won't get at the size, depth or complexity of the issues at play in terms of a whole culture.

As Jarnhamar notes, there are some good ones out there. Let's figure out how to make/select/promote more of them like that.


----------



## Takeniteasy

Haggis said:


> I worked with then-Maj Sean Friday in ADM (HR-Mil) about 20 years ago and thought of him as a really smart and stand-up guy. This is disappointing.


He was my SC and I thought the same until he remarked after an officer was found not guilty for misconduct. He went on to say that his faith in the court martial system was back! He was referring to another officer being found guilty of sexual assault, there were a few jumping to this officers defense in the sqn but that statement gives light to the challenges in power structures and wanting to come forward.

And for context, the member called me regarding the assault and I went straight to their Chief to report it and indicated that I was ready to drive the member to the RCMP station if things did not happen (Sgt at the time). I believe and support the LCol on his words.


----------



## CBH99

dapaterson said:


> Global News is reporting that the former Director, Cadets at RMC was ordered not to put things in writing, lest there be an ATIP request, and not to take action.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2 Royal Military College bosses downplayed need to combat sexual misconduct: ex-training head - National | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> The Canadian military is in the midst of a reckoning over allegations of high-level sexual misconduct, and the culture at the military's training institution is under scrutiny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> globalnews.ca


_*I was told on multiple occasions by Gen. Friday: don’t write things down, don’t email me things, don’t make reports, because there might be an access to information request and we might have questions about military justice. Don’t put things in writing.*_

As someone who has been appointed Director, Cadets at RMC - I would assume they have enough experience, knowledge, and time in the military to know when an order makes sense, and when it doesn't.  In this case, it clearly didn't make sense at all.

Follow the order?  You are knee deep in a ton of potential legal issues - negligence, possibly an obstruction charge depending on circumstances, charges under the NDA, etc.

Don't follow the order and do things properly?  Get the wrath of your senior for not obeying his orders.


Genuine question for those who are more knowledgably than I.... if someone is reprimanded for something that they have a strong moral argument that they are in the right (both morally and professionally), can that reprimand not be appealed?  And wouldn't someone take notice of the petty, unprofessional nature of the reprimand & have it disappear?  (Take this case for example)



EDIT:  The more I think about this, the more I feel like I'm missing something here...

-  Ordering someone not to write things down, document anything, e-mail them, do reports, or essentially do 'anything' about an incident -- you are effectively ordering that person to turn a blind eye, be negligent in their duties both morally and administratively, and not perform their duties.  You are ordering someone to conduct themselves in a manner contrary to the NDA, common sense, in some cases the CC, etc etc.  

Not only is that piss poor leadership (ordering someone to lower their morals, knowing that if they obey your orders they may be subject to legal/discipline issues as a result) - *but wouldn't that be a clear example of an illegal order?*

If reprimanded as a result of not following these directions/orders, would it not be pretty easy to go elsewhere with it & have it taken care of immediately?  And wouldn't the person who wrote the reprimand now have some questions to answer?

Reprimanded because you chose to document, report, and e-mail instances of sexual misconduct even though ordered not to?  Even though as the Director, Cadets - the safety and well being of the cadets is your # 1 priority?  With OP HONOUR in affect, wouldn't there by a solid expectation that any instances WOULD be documented & reported?  



Maybe I'm missing something?  Maybe I'm not?  I feel like there's something in the middle there that I MUST be missing...


----------



## CBH99

MilEME09 said:


> Given the precieved culture of ignoring or sweeping this under the rug at RMC. I am curious how many of our current senior leadership under investigation went to RMC?


The sad thing is, this isn't just an RMC issue.  

People who have some power or authority choose to use that power to sweep things under the rug when it's their friends or colleagues behave in a way that most of us would find inexcusable, or they don't want to deal with it.  It sucks, but I've seen it in emergency services, crown prosecutors offices, etc etc.


----------



## Good2Golf

CBH99 said:


> Genuine question for those who are more knowledgably than I.... if someone is reprimanded for something that they have a strong moral argument that they are in the right (both morally and professionally), can that reprimand not be appealed?  And wouldn't someone take notice of the petty, unprofessional nature of the reprimand & have it disappear?  (Take this case for example)


 
Yes, a redress of grievance can be pursued by CAF members.  The ultimate authority for redresses is the CDS.  I don’t know if LCol(Ret) Popov redressed any direct action by (then) BGen Friday, but it seems that the two officers did not agree on the severity of the event(s), or how to address the issue appropriately.  My own gut feel on this one is that Popov addressing the issue immediately through the MPs was appropriate.  It seems things devolved from there. 

Regards
G2G


----------



## Brad Sallows

As soon as someone says he doesn't want to know, or that there should be no record, he's wrong.


----------



## Good2Golf

Brad Sallows said:


> As soon as someone says he doesn't want to know, or that there should be no record, he's wrong.


Like when ‘The Architect’ pushed the piece of paper back at the CAF Ombudsman, saying no?


----------



## Ostrozac

Brad Sallows said:


> As soon as someone says he doesn't want to know, or that there should be no record, he's wrong.


This. This times a thousand. I’m proud of what I’ve done, and I want there to be a paper trail. For lessons learned, and eventually for the historians. If what I am doing on a specific day is particularly sensitive, then that paper trail should be properly classified, but there still needs to be a paper trail.

l‘m a professional soldier, not some kind of gangster or outlaw biker.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Brad Sallows said:


> As soon as someone says he doesn't want to know, or that there should be no record, he's wrong.



I hate false analogies, especially where Nazi Germany is involved, but when I read about this the Wansee Conference came to mind. There continues to be those who deny that the holocaust was ordered at the highest levels mainly because the Nazis involved were careful to cleanse the records of this meeting:


"Near the end of the discussion, the Wannsee Protocol refers to "different types of possible solutions" (_verschiedene Arten der Lösungsmöglichkeiten_) for the “Jewish Question.” Apparently, Heydrich instructed Eichmann that no specifics of the methods of killing be given. To anyone with eyes to see, though, it was obvious what was meant. The transition from mass shooting to gassing was already underway."









						Coordinating the Destruction of an Entire People: The Wannsee Conference | The National WWII Museum | New Orleans
					

On January 20, 1942, a group of Nazi leaders met to coordinate a continent-wide genocide.




					www.nationalww2museum.org


----------



## TCM621

Brad Sallows said:


> As soon as someone says he doesn't want to know, or that there should be no record, he's wrong.



Whenever someone wants me to do something we both know is wrong, always reply, "Sure thing, just send me an email and I will get right on it." 9 times out of 10 they back off immediately.


----------



## Halifax Tar

If I can see the fault in being ordered to use a DND Acquisition Card in illegally and say not to a LT(N).  Why didn't the LCol see the fault in being ordered not leave a paper trail to something he also new was wrong ?  Why didn't he go to NIS, the MPs, the RCMP or even the press ?  

I appreciate Popov for coming forward but he holds some responsibility in this as well and he should be held accountable for not having the moral courage to stand up and do something.  If a LCol, or any rank for that matter, doesnt have the courage to put their career on the line, can they be trusted to put their life on the line ?

This quote speaks volumes to me:

_*“I regret having gone there because it was the end of my career.*_ And I feel shame because a lot of things happened there that demonstrate the failures of leadership right now that are endemic in the Canadian Forces,”

We have to get over our careers and trying to reach the stars and instead get back to having the fortitude to do the right thing.


----------



## hattrick72

Halifax Tar said:


> If I can see the fault in being ordered to use a DND Acquisition Card in illegally and say not to a LT(N).  Why didn't the LCol see the fault in being ordered not leave a paper trail to something he also new was wrong ?  Why didn't he go to NIS, the MPs, the RCMP or even the press ?
> 
> I appreciate Popov for coming forward but he holds some responsibility in this as well and he should be held accountable for not having the moral courage to stand up and do something.  If a LCol, or any rank for that matter, doesnt have the courage to put their career on the line, can they be trusted to put their life on the line ?
> 
> This quote speaks volumes to me:
> 
> _*“I regret having gone there because it was the end of my career.*_ And I feel shame because a lot of things happened there that demonstrate the failures of leadership right now that are endemic in the Canadian Forces,”
> 
> We have to get over our careers and trying to reach the stars and instead get back to having the fortitude to do the right thing.


Why was a LCdr in the Navy threatened to lose their career for filling a report? 

When the top of the unit food chain is afraid to do the right thing, I think it is time to question why and root out the cause.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Halifax Tar said:


> If I can see the fault in being ordered to use a DND Acquisition Card in illegally and say not to a LT(N).  Why didn't the LCol see the fault in being ordered not leave a paper trail to something he also new was wrong ?  Why didn't he go to NIS, the MPs, the RCMP or even the press ?
> 
> I appreciate Popov for coming forward but he holds some responsibility in this as well and he should be held accountable for not having the moral courage to stand up and do something.  If a LCol, or any rank for that matter, doesnt have the courage to put their career on the line, can they be trusted to put their life on the line ?
> 
> This quote speaks volumes to me:
> 
> _*“I regret having gone there because it was the end of my career.*_ And I feel shame because a lot of things happened there that demonstrate the failures of leadership right now that are endemic in the Canadian Forces,”
> 
> We have to get over our careers and trying to reach the stars and instead get back to having the fortitude to do the right thing.


Sounds like he tried to change the culture a little and got hung out to dry for it........what more would you like, kill his boss maybe??

And if you seriously think reporting something to the authorities makes bad behavior stop, go back and reread this thread.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Sounds like he tried to change the culture a little and got hung out to dry for it........what more would you like, kill his boss maybe??
> 
> And if you seriously think reporting something to the authorities makes bad behavior stop, go back and reread this thread.



To a Sickly season and a bloody war ?  

I'm not looking for instant gratification, I'm looking for leadership to do the right thing.


----------



## Halifax Tar

hattrick72 said:


> Why was a LCdr in the Navy threatened to lose their career for filling a report?
> 
> When the top of the unit food chain is afraid to do the right thing, I think it is time to question why and root out the cause.


I hear you.  We're singing the same tune.


----------



## Underway

Halifax Tar said:


> And I feel shame because a lot of things happened there that demonstrate the failures of leadership right now that are endemic in the Canadian Forces,”


As do I.  Including my own failures to act on things or mistakes I've made.  We all wear it at some point where we could have said something or done something but didn't because of all the reasons people don't speak up.  Well, that time is long past for me.  I've been in this organization for 20 years now and I'm way past most of those barriers.

So in that vein, there is one area that seems to be getting a pass so far in this discussion and I think we need to pull that bandaid off. 

Almost all of the current scandal is focused on the senior officership of the CAF.  Which makes sense given that policy and privilege go together with that position, where you can hide stuff and get away with it.  It's also where the institution can administratively hide things.  However, officers are not the only ones lording their power over subordinates.  It's at all levels.  There are other senior leaders that are not devoid of examination and they are the ones day-to-day on the ground that can take corrective action immediately. 

WO, CPO are the true holders of the CAF culture and ethos.  They generally are the ones who transfer it to both Jr NCM's and Jr Officers. If this is going to change those folks are going to have to get on board and push.* No one stands in the way of change better than the WO/CPO and Sgt/PO's mess.  Conversely, if those folks are on board then change happens fast, is effective, and transmitted to the next-gen.

Culture eats strategy for breakfast.  There is no strategy that can fix this, there needs to be a top to bottom cultural change.  And the middle is where the transmission and sustainment of that culture happens.  It doesn't matter what the policy is if the culture is rotten.  And conversely, if the culture is good, policy cant keep it contained.

*this is not to distract from terrible actions of officers, rotten policy and chain of command problems, nor to start an inter-mess conflict.  If we are to fix this it's going to be a full team effort


----------



## captloadie

I believe the real problem with all of this is that we have ingrained into all our training systems and our performance evaluation systems that making mistakes is bad, no matter what. That having a setback in one's career means that progression is over. So the end result is good people fear making mistakes and then make poor decisions to protect themselves. Once this becomes the norm at the the lowest level, it becomes a habit hard to break as one gets closer and closer to achieving that next carrot.

Wrt the RMC situation, the leadership at the school was at fault, but has anyone looked at what else was going on at that time. Who was the Comd of CDA, who was the Comd CMP? What messaging were they sending down to the Comdts at RMC? If I remember correctly, the school was going through a number of issues at the time. Not only inappropriate sexual behaviour issues, but also suicides, a reversion to a more military bearing than recent years, and being hammered in the news constantly. If you are a 1 star being groomed for higher, and being told by 2 and 3 stars to the make the problems go away, so they don't look bad, that is a lot of pressure. Maybe enough to cause very good individuals to make poor choices at the time to get out of a bad situation.

This isn't making excuses for any of the individuals involved. The organization needs to change, and it is more than just "don't pass a fault", which is all about hammering guys for making mistakes. How about start an organizational culture that accepts that there will be faults, find the reasons they occur, and try to keep individuals from repeating them.


----------



## CBH99

Halifax Tar said:


> We have to get over our careers and trying to reach the stars and instead get back to having the fortitude to do the right thing.


I think for a lot of us on the outside of these situations, looking in - it seems to be a matter of short term ‘convenience’ of some kind vs the long term gain of leadership conducting themselves with the integrity and as expected.  

Ordering someone not to leave a paper trail for any sexual misconduct matters?  Seems to be the easy road... nothing to release if there is an ATIP request, less headaches,, etc etc.

Short term convenience so he wouldn’t have to deal with certain issues while he was at that post.  

Yet if he had been a good leader and empowered those on his team to also be good leaders - and do their jobs as expected - he would be held in high regard and the institution would be better off for it.


I think the obvious lesson consistently being shown among all of these issues is that leading by example, not tolerating or ignoring sexually inappropriate behaviour (or inappropriate of any kind) - may be a headache at the time.  

But having an organization members feel safe working for, leadership is trusted, and that kind of behaviour is squashed immediately if it arises - are all well worth it.  


(Personally, I wouldn’t consider it a headache at all. Someone comes to me while I am in a position of authority, and informs me that Person X just did something crude / sexually inappropriate?  That isn’t a headache.   That’s an opportunity to help someone who trusted us enough to come to us, it’s an opportunity to demonstrate that leaders can be trusted, and an opportunity to fix a problem on the spot.  Or find a problem person before the behaviour escalates.


----------



## CBH99

captloadie said:


> I believe the real problem with all of this is that we have ingrained into all our training systems and our performance evaluation systems that making mistakes is bad, no matter what. That having a setback in one's career means that progression is over. So the end result is good people fear making mistakes and then make poor decisions to protect themselves. Once this becomes the norm at the the lowest level, it becomes a habit hard to break as one gets closer and closer to achieving that next carrot.
> 
> Wrt the RMC situation, the leadership at the school was at fault, but has anyone looked at what else was going on at that time. Who was the Comd of CDA, who was the Comd CMP? What messaging were they sending down to the Comdts at RMC? If I remember correctly, the school was going through a number of issues at the time. Not only inappropriate sexual behaviour issues, but also suicides, a reversion to a more military bearing than recent years, and being hammered in the news constantly. If you are a 1 star being groomed for higher, and being told by 2 and 3 stars to the make the problems go away, so they don't look bad, that is a lot of pressure. Maybe enough to cause very good individuals to make poor choices at the time to get out of a bad situation.
> 
> This isn't making excuses for any of the individuals involved. The organization needs to change, and it is more than just "don't pass a fault", which is all about hammering guys for making mistakes. How about start an organizational culture that accepts that there will be faults, find the reasons they occur, and try to keep individuals from repeating them.


I wish I head read yours before posting mine.  Well said.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Underway said:


> As do I.  Including my own failures to act on things or mistakes I've made.  We all wear it at some point where we could have said something or done something but didn't because of all the reasons people don't speak up.  Well, that time is long past for me.  I've been in this organization for 20 years now and I'm way past most of those barriers.
> 
> So in that vein, there is one area that seems to be getting a pass so far in this discussion and I think we need to pull that bandaid off.
> 
> Almost all of the current scandal is focused on the senior officership of the CAF.  Which makes sense given that policy and privilege go together with that position, where you can hide stuff and get away with it.  It's also where the institution can administratively hide things.  However, officers are not the only ones lording their power over subordinates.  It's at all levels.  There are other senior leaders that are not devoid of examination and they are the ones day-to-day on the ground that can take corrective action immediately.
> 
> WO, CPO are the true holders of the CAF culture and ethos.  They generally are the ones who transfer it to both Jr NCM's and Jr Officers. If this is going to change those folks are going to have to get on board and push.* No one stands in the way of change better than the WO/CPO and Sgt/PO's mess.  Conversely, if those folks are on board then change happens fast, is effective, and transmitted to the next-gen.
> 
> Culture eats strategy for breakfast.  There is no strategy that can fix this, there needs to be a top to bottom cultural change.  And the middle is where the transmission and sustainment of that culture happens.  It doesn't matter what the policy is if the culture is rotten.  And conversely, if the culture is good, policy cant keep it contained.
> 
> *this is not to distract from terrible actions of officers, rotten policy and chain of command problems, nor to start an inter-mess conflict.  If we are to fix this it's going to be a full team effort


I love your post.  The C&POs (and I will use only C&POs because were both RCN  ) are exactly what you say.  We are the key to getting over this and we are a stumbling block at the same time.

If I may offer 1 solution/COA for the RMC part and then 2 for PAN CAF.

*RMC:*
Empower the Sqn C&POs.  When I left Kingston 5(ish) years ago the Sqn C&POs were really just babysitters and the Cadet Sqn Leadership ran the show. This may have changed but there was a commandant at RMC who didn't think C&POs had a role in Officer training and I think this hurt us.  Maybe all Cadet Sqn leadership should come from the NCM corps with Cadets appointed as double banks or 2 I/Cs ?

*PAN CAF: *
Listen too us.  We know how to do everything you need to get done, and chances are we have done it many times before.  Give us the task, let us ask questions and clarifications and even push back.  Then, get out of our way.  Don't be afraid to also tell us "Chief, I know this sucks but..." You'd be surprised how well we can respond to that.  That tells me you recognize the "suck" and you empathize with the JRs who will carry out your task, and you've made the call.  I can get behind that.

Disband the CPO1/CWO Corps/MOC or what ever that beast is, and relocate them back to their trade.  This is killing our PO1/WO ranks and up. We are turning into a check in the box promotion and advancement group and we are losing the long term day in day out leadership and experience we bring to the table.  As well removing the CPO1/CWOs from their trades now takes that powerful rank and experience away from that trade and its ability to guide and counsel senior Officers.

I admit were (C&POs) not all good.  But I believe most of are, and you can point out a crappy Snr C&PO faster than you can pick out a crappy JR or Jnr Officer.  We need to be able to address the elephants in the room that are the crappy C&POs, and we need to be able adjust their rank negatively quickly.


----------



## captloadie

captloadie said:


> I believe the real problem with all of this is that we have ingrained into all our training systems and our performance evaluation systems that making mistakes is bad, no matter what. That having a setback in one's career means that progression is over. So the end result is good people fear making mistakes and then make poor decisions to protect themselves. Once this becomes the norm at the the lowest level, it becomes a habit hard to break as one gets closer and closer to achieving that next carrot.
> 
> Wrt the RMC situation, the leadership at the school was at fault, but has anyone looked at what else was going on at that time. Who was the Comd of CDA, who was the Comd CMP? What messaging were they sending down to the Comdts at RMC? If I remember correctly, the school was going through a number of issues at the time. Not only inappropriate sexual behaviour issues, but also suicides, a reversion to a more military bearing than recent years, and being hammered in the news constantly. If you are a 1 star being groomed for higher, and being told by 2 and 3 stars to the make the problems go away, so they don't look bad, that is a lot of pressure. Maybe enough to cause very good individuals to make poor choices at the time to get out of a bad situation.
> 
> This isn't making excuses for any of the individuals involved. The organization needs to change, and it is more than just "don't pass a fault", which is all about hammering guys for making mistakes. How about start an organizational culture that accepts that there will be faults, find the reasons they occur, and try to keep individuals from repeating them.


I will add that I am looking at this with a biased lens. This is what I have seen from officer training and progression. I am also an RMC grad, and when I look at my experiences from 20+ years ago, and apply today's expectations to that time, I know some things were better then, and some things were much worse. It is unfortunate, but there are currently what I would consider some very competent senior officers that may choose to leave the CAF rather than face the embarrassment of having prior mistakes (many of which they were punished for) made public.


----------



## Underway

Halifax Tar said:


> I love your post.  The C&POs (and I will use only C&POs because were both RCN  ) are exactly what you say.  We are the key to getting over this and we are the stumbling block at the moment.


I'm very glad to hear that.  It's not easy throwing out what I said there, expecting some vociferous blowback.  And I'm not even a victim.  I'm an "anonymous" poster on the internet.

I'm also glad to see that you see the same thing I do.  I've had the "opportunity" to restart my career in a different trade after 13 years in one. Going through the schools again gave me a unique perspective on how new impressionable sailors react to the crusty Chief, and how they begin to reflect their instructor's behaviour on what is acceptable and what is not.

I'm not sure how we do it though.  It's hard enough getting CAF members to acknowledge they need a COVID shot using science.  It's almost impossible to dispel the "witch hunt" concerns.

A witch hunt infers that you are looking for something that doesn't exist and punishing people for imaginary crimes.  Guess what, unlike witchcraft, this isn't imaginary.  This problem exists.  These abuses are real.  The people who are being outed did this stuff.


----------



## dimsum

Underway said:


> A witch hunt infers that you are looking for something that doesn't exist and punishing people for imaginary crimes. Guess what, unlike witchcraft, this isn't imaginary. This problem exists. These abuses are real. The people who are being outed did this stuff.


Agreed, but unfortunately part of the "witch hunt" label is because thanks to media, social or otherwise, these allegations (which they still are unless I've missed the trial) are already causing implications.  There better be a public apology if someone gets wrongfully charged.

That's the thing - nail them to the wall, _if they are proven guilty in a court of law_.  Right now they're already guilty by the "court of social media" before the trial.


----------



## Underway

dimsum said:


> Agreed, but unfortunately part of the "witch hunt" label is because thanks to media, social or otherwise, these allegations (which they still are unless I've missed the trial) are already causing implications.  There better be a public apology if someone gets wrongfully charged.
> 
> That's the thing - nail them to the wall, _if they are proven guilty in a court of law_.  Right now they're already guilty by the "court of social media" before the trial.


How do you prove systemic ignorance of a problem and consistent work against bringing that problem to light in a court?  It's not chargeable.  It's an administrative function.  That's a cultural issue and is the key to long term success.


----------



## PuckChaser

Ref the culture piece, I think we're at a crossroads. A lot of the Senior Officers and MWO/CWOs that are resistant to change are the 30+ year service folks who joined in the 1980s. The acceptable conduct for the workplace was incredibly different back then, and there was much more laissez-faire on harassment (it was even encouraged to solve discipline issues). When you spend 30 years in an institution thinking one way, and are expected to change overnight we're setting folks up for failure. These same folks are in charge of our training institutions, which is the cornerstone of creating a positive and healthy culture for the CAF. Toxic people running initial training = toxic culture for the CAF. We also have promoted a lot of weak leaders into positions of power, by enabling those who will say yes to everything despite the morale and welfare of their troops to succeed. This pushes some excellent leaders out of the CAF, as they're tired of fighting against the rock-wall of weak leaders resisting change.

We'll only see real change with a lot of house cleaning, and not just on the sexual misconduct front. Weak leadership who would condone/support sexual misconduct is just a symptom of poor promotion and culture, not the disease itself.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

I have mentioned this before elsewhere, but I find a lot of what we face now is a byproduct of the careerist culture that has developed in the CAF: we place more value and importance on individual achievements and development than we do on the collective bettering of our organization. I have seen too many of my peers and superiors looking to SCRITs and PER scores when looking to advance the next rank than what the actual job of leading troops in the field (or in the air, or on the seas respectively). And its done so frequently that "doing what's best for the institution" is an afterthought to "this is going to hit me in this specific metric, so I need to be sure to limit the impact of this....."

If the CAF were a house, we could easily say that we no longer have pride of ownership. I cannot count the amount of times I have seen people fuck something off because it is of little to no importance to their advancement, or conversely, it will hinder their advancement; so its left to die on the Conference Room floor. 

We need to shift the narrative from that of personal achievements being the mark of a good leader, and looking at the effects of said leader on the organizations they lead. Its great that Capt Bloggins has a master's Degree, can speak French, did well on AOC, and has a tour in rank. Good for them. But lets see here.... 4 Voluntary Releases (all stating it was due to workplace stress..), 3 pers on remedial measures, budgetary anomalies, and 
it looks like his Tp WO has been asking for a posting now for 2 years..... Hmmmm that's suspicious.

Change the way the game is scored, and you will see a change in the way its played. 

Just my $0.02


----------



## hattrick72

What if we started interviewing to fill positions for Specific MWO positions, all CWO positions and every position after Maj?

Interview conducted by a panel of your future peers from other bases, focused on current events, current challenges and how to deal with specific challenges. References chosen at random from posting history of all ranks to screen for "issues"

This could be scored appropriately and in conjunction with PER system.

May be able to squeeze out undesirables, not all, any completely false accusations could be handled as well.


----------



## Halifax Tar

hattrick72 said:


> What if we started interviewing to fill positions for Specific MWO positions, all CWO positions and every position after Maj?
> 
> Interview conducted by a panel of your future peers from other bases, focused on current events, current challenges and how to deal with specific challenges. References chosen at random from posting history of all ranks to screen for "issues"
> 
> This could be scored appropriately and in conjunction with PER system.
> 
> May be able to squeeze out undesirables, not all, any completely false accusations could be handled as well.


I do like the idea of a PER only getting you to a board and then your combined success at the board and PER equaling a promotion or not.  

My one caveat would be that it needs to be a diverse board and not just made up of the same branch or trade.  Or maybe done only by PSOs or TDOs or something.


----------



## captloadie

Maybe the annual CANFORGENs should finish with a line like: "Any member or former member who believes there is a valid reason any of the above individuals should not be granted their promotion/Comd has 30 days from release of this message to contact the OPI below to set up an interview to have their objections heard".

This is how the PS deals with appointments to positions, and it might provide an outlet for individuals to take rather than going to the media first.


----------



## daftandbarmy

hattrick72 said:


> What if we started interviewing to fill positions for Specific MWO positions, all CWO positions and every position after Maj?
> 
> Interview conducted by a panel of your future peers from other bases, focused on current events, current challenges and how to deal with specific challenges. References chosen at random from posting history of all ranks to screen for "issues"
> 
> This could be scored appropriately and in conjunction with PER system.
> 
> *May be able to squeeze out undesirables, not all, any completely false accusations could be handled as well.*



If we did, for one thing, we would be following best practises as conducted on 99% of other big organizations, mainly to ensure a high quality experience for everyone.

On the downside it might spell the end of 'favour doing', and other kinds of nepotism, as we have come to know it in the CAF


----------



## CBH99

Underway said:


> I'm also glad to see that you see the same thing I do.  I've had the "opportunity" to restart my career in a different trade after 13 years in one. Going through the schools again gave me a unique perspective on how new impressionable sailors react to the crusty Chief, and how they begin to reflect their instructor's behaviour on what is acceptable and what is not.


I joined the Army Reserve shortly after my 16th birthday, and my QL2 course staff HATED me!  I was an awkward kid, showed up with an earring, and somehow was getting called out of class every 2 seconds to be admonished yet again for something I had done wrong.  It was clear they wanted me out, and the focus was very much on me.  I stuck with it, and when I did think about quitting because "clearly I'm not military material" - that same staff took me aside, and talked me into staying.

Looking back on it after a few years in, and the amount of valuable life lessons learned for a young man trying to figure things out was invaluable.  A lot of what I use today in my values, outlook on leadership and responsibility, general mindset, etc - I absorbed via my QL2 all those years ago.  (That was BMQ for you youngsters...)

Things such as 'troops eat first', aka lower ranks eat before the higher ranks.  Same applies for minor medical (all things being equal).  Speak politely, yet succinctly.  Stay in shape.  A lot can get done in a single day if you wake up early, stay focused, and just get it done.  But the most important lesson that was 'military-ish' that I learned - lead by example, be the person that others can come to in a time of need, and take care of your troops before you take care of yoruself.

One person who I'll always remember (for better or for worse, we're friendly acquaintences now) was a Sgt on my QL2.  Circa 1998-ish, Calgary Highlanders.  If you know, you know, I don't want to drop his name here.

But the night before our graduation, and before the pizza had arrived, he addressed the class in the classroom.  I don't think he intended it to be a motivational speech, but I absorbed every word, and I think everybody else in the course did also.  The 3 main points he made were:


-  Be the person who stops and helps a senior cross the street.  Be the person who stops and helps someone if they are having a challenge or an emergency of any kind.  Hold doors, take jackets, always exercise good manners, represent yourself well, etc.  Two things from that night that stood out was "Always do the right thing, regardless of any internal politics.  Don't go along with something that is wrong, just because others are.  Worry about the shitstorm later, and if you really are being ethical, you probably won't end up in a shitstorm.  

-  Stand out as someone that people can come to for help.  Be kind where needed, empathetic, STFU and learn how to listen, and don't be afraid to put your game face on & walk into a fight if need be.  (Metaphorically, thinking of the topic of this thread.)

-  Being good and being nice aren't always the same thing.  Be a good person.


As a teenager still very much finding my path, I've always remembered those nuggets of life lessons.  



Years later, I found myself as staff on BMQ.  I remembered over the years the various staff I had on different courses, who stood out for good reasons, and who stood out negatively in my mind.  I applied what I observed and admired in some staff, and now had the experience to know how 'not' to talk to troops, etc.  

*You are totally right Underway.*  Young people who have an abundance of faith in the institution they were just sworn into, and are excited to start their careers, absolutely absorb the 'mood and culture' of the staff, and the conduct of the staff very much carries with them when they graduate and move on.  

Regardless of anyone's beliefs when they first join the CAF, within the first few days of BMQ, there should be absolutely zero doubt in their mind that sexual misconduct/harassment is a mortal sin, and will be dealt with as such.  


My 2 cents anyway (sorry for the rant)


----------



## Brad Sallows

While attempting to change the internal culture, bear in mind the external culture.  Most of what I hear and read indicates that young people are more highly sexualized and exposed to commercial expressions of sexuality than prior generations.  We are way past Playboy centrefolds.


----------



## T700

Halifax Tar said:


> I do like the idea of a PER only getting you to a board and then your combined success at the board and PER equaling a promotion or not.
> 
> My one caveat would be that it needs to be a diverse board and not just made up of the same branch or trade.  Or maybe done only by PSOs or TDOs or something.


Something similar to how the US has tests, such as trade knowledge, Harassment policy, Codes of Conduct, professionalism, aptitude, ethics, skill, PT, military threshold knowledge, principles of leadership etc prior to advancement. Say a promotion review board. No more checks in the box. No more Acting Lacking. Proper mentoring. Minimal standards are not acceptable. Not everyone is promotion material. Master tradesmen, specialist. Not exactly leadership material. You can make a mistake but you best learn from it. the Americans often remove Leaders from positions due to various infractions they also post that info in their News Feeds.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

I think a good old soviet style purge is in order. 😉😁


----------



## Halifax Tar

T700 said:


> Something similar to how the US has tests, such as trade knowledge, Harassment policy, Codes of Conduct, professionalism, aptitude, ethics, skill, PT, military threshold knowledge, principles of leadership etc prior to advancement. Say a promotion review board. No more checks in the box. No more Acting Lacking. Proper mentoring. Minimal standards are not acceptable. Not everyone is promotion material. Master tradesmen, specialist. Not exactly leadership material. You can make a mistake but you best learn from it. the Americans often remove Leaders from positions due to various infractions they also post that info in their News Feeds.


Yup.  I have always liked the US system.  But I prefer boards over written exams.  Exams show academic aptitude, of the ability to memorize information; but that does not in its self equal leadership potential.  IMHO you get a better feeling for someone with them sitting in front of you and answering challenging questions on various topics.  

Also lets get rid of PLQ once and for all.


----------



## CBH99

Fishbone Jones said:


> I think a good old soviet style purge is in order. 😉😁


Ya know what?  With all this bad press coming out, maybe you're onto something?   🤔


----------



## dimsum

T700 said:


> You can make a mistake but you best learn from it. the Americans often remove Leaders from positions due to various infractions they also post that info in their News Feeds.


I'm not sure if you're suggesting that the Americans allow mistakes, but from talking to various US exchange folks it's definitely the opposite.

Anything that isn't an "immediate PER" is awful because you only have three chances to get promoted, or else you're kicked out.  If you leave as less than a Major (not sure about the NCM side) then you don't have a pension.  

So, the US system is tailor-made for careerists, not specialist "Cpl/Capt for Life" who has the long-term knowledge.


----------



## T700

Halifax Tar said:


> Yup.  I have always liked the US system.  But I prefer boards over written exams.  Exams show academic aptitude, of the ability to memorize information; but that does not in its self equal leadership potential.  IMHO you get a better feeling for someone with them sitting in front of you and answering challenging questions on various topics.
> 
> Also lets get rid of PLQ once and for all.


I think both have a place, there is info as a junior Leader you should know beyond your immediate task, corporate knowledge, networking. The days of people only have completed grade 8 and being accepted are long gone. PLQ should not have a 100% success rate or considered an easy go check in the box. It has to be a challenge. Leadership is not a popularity contest. We are failing our people buy doing so. Same for Officers equivalent. Just because you passed doesn’t mean immediate promotion.


----------



## T700

dimsum said:


> I'm not sure if you're suggesting that the Americans allow mistakes, but from talking to various US exchange folks it's definitely the opposite.
> 
> Anything that isn't an "immediate PER" is awful because you only have three chances to get promoted, or else you're kicked out.  If you leave as less than a Major (not sure about the NCM side) then you don't have a pension.
> 
> So, the US system is tailor-made for careerists, not specialist "Cpl/Capt for Life" who has the long-term knowledge.


I’m saying they deal with infractions and it’s made public. Not saying we have to completely adopt their system but to take from it parts that work better than ours. Actually look at other Allied nations and how they deal with things as well.


----------



## MilEME09

Opinion: The young men entering the military must change its sexualized culture
					

It will be these men’s acts of ethical leadership that will begin to overcome sexism, not the top-down, bureaucratic programs, like the failed Operation Honour




					www.theglobeandmail.com


----------



## CBH99

While I can't access the article, as I don't have an account (I'll maybe create one later since it's free) - I will cautiously criticize/oppose the author's perspective, based sheerly on the 2 lines I can view in the link above.

As stated above, the change needs to come from all levels.  Top down, and bottom up - the big mushy part in the middle (a good chunk of us) all have a part to play.  But, I do agree that as these members age & progress their way up the ranks, it will be up to them to really solidify the changes needed in the long run.


The 'top-down' part is very much needed as members need to feel safe to come forwards if something happens.  The leadership need to be seen presenting the image of professional, moral, capable leadership that - in this case - can and will handle these situations swiftly when they do arise.  

The senior leadership need to lead by example, enforce the policies in place, and ask themselves "If this was my daughter, and this happened to her, and her boss handled it the way I handled this...would I be happy?"  and if the answer is no, fix it.  Simple.

Course and unit staff need to lead by example as well, and make it very clear that sexual misconduct isn't tolerated.  Period.  Doesn't matter who is buddies with who, or whether or not you feel like doing a bloody report - policies get followed.  Period.


I'd also suggest that OP HONOUR wasn't a failure.

OP HONOUR introduced a very strong, consistent message throughout the ranks that sexual nonsense of any kind isn't tolerated.  If it happens, report it to your senior, and it will be handled swiftly.  The message was strong and consistent, and I can think of a small handful of examples where someone filed a complaint & it was dealt with immediately.  Over the years, whether the example was set by members themselves, or they had it drilled into them via endless powerpoints - OP HONOUR did introduce a cultural shift in the military, for the better.  The intent was noble, but the execution was inconsistent, and sometimes non-existent.  

Was it perfect?  Clearly not.  In some cases it left a lot to be desired.  But that isn't the fault of OP HONOUR, that is the fault of the individuals who were approached with a complaint, and did nothing to correct the situation.  Leaders need to lead, and a huge part of that is making sure your members are safe from that kind of nonsense.  

Someone higher threatens to reprimand you for following procedure?  Screw em'.  They just set themselves up for a lot more hurt than the junior who is following policy.  



I would suggest that a lot more people came forwards than otherwise would have, and _'for the most part' _those situations were handled.  We have to remember - the media isn't reporting on the incidents where things were handled properly, they are reporting the ones that weren't.


----------



## daftandbarmy

CBH99 said:


> I would suggest that a lot more people came forwards than otherwise would have, and _'for the most part' _those situations were handled.  We have to remember - the media isn't reporting on the incidents where things were handled properly, they are reporting the ones that weren't.



Too bad about that 'fear of reporting bad news' thing, which is omnipresent and institutionalized:

_“Fear invites wrong figures. Bearers of bad news fare badly. To keep his job, anyone may present to his boss only good news.”

 W. Edwards Deming_


----------



## MilEME09

daftandbarmy said:


> Too bad about that 'fear of reporting bad news' thing, which is omnipresent and institutionalized:
> 
> _“Fear invites wrong figures. Bearers of bad news fare badly. To keep his job, anyone may present to his boss only good news.”_
> 
> _W. Edwards Deming_


Don't report anything that might make the institution look bad, which leads to the institution looking bad for not reporting the problems.

Gotta love the logic


----------



## CBH99

MilEME09 said:


> Don't report anything that might make the institution look bad, which leads to the institution looking bad for not reporting the problems.
> 
> Gotta love the logic


My mind has been swirling around that very issue, but I couldn't think of a way to articulate it as succinctly as that.  Bingo.

If logic was part of this process, however, I think they'd have thought about this the same way we all seem to...


----------



## TCM621

MilEME09 said:


> Don't report anything that might make the institution look bad, which leads to the institution looking bad for not reporting the problems.
> 
> Gotta love the logic


This isn't limited to sexual misconduct either. Remember during the Adm Norman situation a person was told not to address him as anything that might be searchable. That person did the right thing and spoke up.


----------



## trigger324

CBH99 said:


> I'd also suggest that OP HONOUR wasn't a failure.


Agreed. Our CO came to my section to speak to us the day after the Vance bombshell. They were disgusted in him for his hypocrisy but told us not to forget the message despite the messenger(Vance himself). The message is as noble as they come, but these guys were incapable in delivering it.


----------



## MilEME09

Sexual misconduct in Canada’s military remains as ‘rampant’ in 2021 as in 2015: report - National | Globalnews.ca
					

A Global News investigation found less than one-quarter of military police investigators on sexual misconduct cases are female — far less than in three other major police forces.




					globalnews.ca
				




Didn't take another report to tell me this


----------



## QV

Brad Sallows said:


> While attempting to change the internal culture, bear in mind the external culture.  Most of what I hear and read indicates that young people are more highly sexualized and exposed to commercial expressions of sexuality than prior generations.  We are way past Playboy centrefolds.


This is the elephant in the room.  How does the CAF, which is trying to tamp down sexual misconduct, react to a society that has become more highly sexualized?  Today, sex is more freely given and received outside of formal relationships than probably ever before.  Will this lead to far more instances of “inappropriate relationships”? How can it not?


----------



## Remius

QV said:


> This is the elephant in the room.  How does the CAF, which is trying to tamp down sexual misconduct, react to a society that has become more highly sexualized?  Today, sex is more freely given and received outside of formal relationships than probably ever before.  Will this lead to far more instances of “inappropriate relationships”? How can it not?


None of which explains then why this issue seems to be pervasive with people from a previous generations as well.  The current crop of offenders aren’t exactly millennials.


----------



## QV

Remius said:


> None of which explains then why this issue seems to be pervasive with people from a previous generations as well.  The current crop of offenders aren’t exactly millennials.


The *society *has become more sexualized, not just a handful of the demographic. I think you’re partially correct in that some of the older generation, but not all, are more resistant to this change.  However, its more about what is acceptable today as far as sexual relations go.


----------



## Remius

QV said:


> The *society *has become more sexualized, not just a handful of the demographic. I think you’re partially correct in that some of the older generation, but not all, are more resistant to this change.  However, its more about what is acceptable today as far as sexual relations go.


Right but a lot of incidents happened decades ago as well.  We do live in a hyper sexualised society and yes, navigating that isn’t easy.  And while society has gotten more sexualized I believe it is getting more intolerant of the inappropriate conduct that comes with it,  which is why people are speaking out.   This is a good thing.  

And yet, other sectors of the work force have been able to put into place policies and practices that have greatly reduced those types of inappropriate behaviours despite a society that is getting more sexualized.


----------



## QV

Remius said:


> Right but a lot of incidents happened decades ago as well.  We do live in a hyper sexualised society and yes, navigating that isn’t easy.  And while society has gotten more sexualized I believe it is getting more intolerant of the inappropriate conduct that comes with it,  which is why people are speaking out.   This is a good thing.
> 
> And yet, other sectors of the work force have been able to put into place policies and practices that have greatly reduced those types of inappropriate behaviours despite a society that is getting more sexualized.


And back to my question, how does the CAF handle this today and forward with the changed perceptions and acceptance of sexual behaviour outside of formal relationships?  I think our society’s move in this direction _could_ result in more instances of “inappropriate relationships” occurring within the CAF, not less.


----------



## Remius

I would argue that society does not accept the current situation the CAF finds itself in.  The current inappropriate relationships and conduct are a result of a leadership deficit and predatory style power dynamic that is supported by our system (I don’t mean actively supported per se, but the way our CoC and culture exists).  It isn’t about sexual relationships, it is about inappropriate ones and inappropriate ones.  So casual sex let’s say between two consenting  adults should not be an issue but the boss and the employee is not nor has it ever been acceptable.  Just because society tolerates some sexualisation, I don’t think it tolerate sexualisation when it involves a power dynamic.


----------



## Brad Sallows

"Society" doesn't like seeing powerful men who have done these things.  Very few allegations are coming forward in any occupation about what some guy with no public profile did 30 years ago.  Among today's young adults are tomorrow's powerful adults, but they are not yet powerful.  What present conduct will surface in 10, 20, 30 years because it passes contemporary standards, whatever those may be?  Abuse of authority is not the only root cause of today's problems.


----------



## Remius

Brad Sallows said:


> "Society" doesn't like seeing powerful men who have done these things.  Very few allegations are coming forward in any occupation about what some guy with no public profile did 30 years ago.  Among today's young adults are tomorrow's powerful adults, but they are not yet powerful.  What present conduct will surface in 10, 20, 30 years because it passes contemporary standards, whatever those may be?  Abuse of authority is not the only root cause of today's problems.


Except that a lot of those things were not acceptable and did not pass contemporary standards of the day either.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Whatever people are tolerating passes standard.  A standard that is not enforced is no standard at all.


----------



## Remius

None of what is happening then or now was the standard.  The fact that people use toleration as a standard is why we are in the situation we are today.


----------



## Underway

Sexualized culture is a BS sidetrack that has little to nothing to do with what is really going on here.  Ignorance of consent and abuse of power is the problem.  Institutional coverups and ignorance is the problem.  That's the cultural issue here. Getting on a high horse about the sexual morals of those darn "young kids today" is ridiculous.


----------



## Remius

Underway said:


> Sexualized culture is a BS sidetrack that has little to nothing to do with what is really going on here.  Ignorance of consent and abuse of power is the problem.  Institutional coverups and ignorance is the problem.  That's the cultural issue here. Getting on a high horse about the sexual morals of those darn "young kids today" is ridiculous.


Very similar to the “boys wouldn’t be assaulting girls if they didn’t dress provocatively” argument used in other time.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Remius said:


> Very similar to the “boys wouldn’t be assaulting girls if they didn’t dress provocatively” argument used in other time.


S_he should use a different stairwell._


----------



## Loachman

CBH99 said:


> _*I was told on multiple occasions by Gen. Friday: don’t write things down, don’t email me things, don’t make reports, because there might be an access to information request and we might have questions about military justice. Don’t put things in writing.*_



That command should be interpreted to mean "*document absolutely everything as a self-protective measure*".

I have been given unethical orders a couple of times (not too bad in forty-three years). In both cases, I stated and explained applicable regulations and directives and outlined the potential consequences. In both cases, that advice was ignored. I documented everything and was prepared to go higher if necessary. Fortunately, both situations resolve themselves. One of my roles as a Staff Officer was to "keep my Commander out of gaol", and I would not let somebody between him and me to do anything that would put him - or me - in jeopardy.


----------



## Remius

I’ve only witnessed 3 unethical ones in my 25 years.  One was resolved after some push back.  Another one was grieved by a Junior officer at the time and that I have nothing but respect for to this day (who went on to have a very good career in the CAF) and one that was referred to the MPs.  

and yes.  Document everything lol.


----------



## QV

Underway said:


> Sexualized culture is a BS sidetrack that has little to nothing to do with what is really going on here.  Ignorance of consent and abuse of power is the problem.  Institutional coverups and ignorance is the problem.  That's the cultural issue here. Getting on a high horse about the sexual morals of those darn "young kids today" is ridiculous.


Yep those are problems.  But to ignore societal changes is like ignoring the weather, it’s a factor and you shouldn’t.    

And I don’t see anyone criticizing sexual morals, how do you come by that assumption?


----------



## Loachman

Underway said:


> WO, CPO are the true holders of the CAF culture and ethos.  They generally are the ones who transfer it to both Jr NCM's and Jr Officers. If this is going to change those folks are going to have to get on board and push.* No one stands in the way of change better than the WO/CPO and Sgt/PO's mess.  Conversely, if those folks are on board then change happens fast, is effective, and transmitted to the next-gen.


I do not disagree, but beware of over-generalization.

They, too, are human, with all of the same flaws as well as strengths. They, too, are subject to the same temptations.


----------



## Remius

Loachman said:


> I do not disagree, but beware of over-generalization.
> 
> They, too, are human, with all of the same flaws as well as strengths. They, too, are subject to the same temptations.


The worst example of a leader I have ever seen was a WO. And he poisoned every one that he could bring Into his inner circle.  He bullied his platoon commanders and had all support he needed from his CSM and OC to keep doing what he wanted to.  Until he ran into the one guy that didn’t put up with it and did something about it.  He eventually became a cop and just transferred that shyte to there.  Luckily they are now in the process of getting rid of him.  It eventually caught up to him but it’s taken decades and the right people in right jobs to make it happen.

i think that the point is that guys like him with that much charisma and in that particular position was able to influence otherwise good junior NCMs to do the kinds of things they would not otherwise have done.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> Ignorance of consent and abuse of power is the problem.  Institutional coverups and ignorance is the problem.



Yes, ignorance is a problem.  "Those darn kids" are operating within a much wider set of boundaries (even as in other respects they are operating in much narrower ones).  So ignore the ignorance; I'm sure it will sort itself out down the road.


----------



## Loachman

captloadie said:


> "don't pass a fault", which is all about hammering guys for making mistakes. How about start an organizational culture that accepts that there will be faults, find the reasons they occur, and try to keep individuals from repeating them.



"Never pass a fault", an RCR motto, does not require "hammering" anybody. Correction of faults can be quite gentle, in fact. Simply pointing errors out to people - who may not even be aware that they have made a mistake - can often suffice. Correction just has to be done, and done immediately, and done according to the nature of the fault and in an appropriate manner.

Our Flight Safety programme operates in much the same way. "E-Category" incidents, the lowest level, are generally minor mistakes or oversights or conditions encountered that could have had catastrophic potential. They are reported, and serve to educate everybody involved in flying operations. The vast number of them are self-reported, and that can be done anonymously, and I don't recall ever seeing anybody disciplined for opening up and discussing what they did, forgot to do, could have done better, or unexpectedly encountered.

The more E-Category incidents that are reported, the fewer A-Category accidents (loss of life or destruction of aircraft) tend to occur. This is perhaps the most successful programme in the whole CF.

During every mission, any crew member may, and is expected to, speak up if anything unsafe occurs or is observed.

After every mission, a full crew debrief is conducted, and everybody has the opportunity to say his or her piece - what was done/went right, and what could have been done differently and/or better. Usually, each person is well aware of what he/she did right and could have done better, and is the first one to point out his or her actions that could have been better.

That is how "Never pass a fault" should happen - including every single person recognizing and correcting their own faults.

And people should be recognized and appreciated for their candour and resulting self-improvement rather than having minor mistakes follow them for the rest of their careers.

The benefit is tremendous, for everybody.

But it takes time and guidance to reach that point.


----------



## Loachman

PuckChaser said:


> When you spend 30 years in an institution thinking one way, and are expected to change overnight we're setting folks up for failure. These same folks are in charge of our training institutions, which is the cornerstone of creating a positive and healthy culture for the CAF. Toxic people running initial training = toxic culture for the CAF.



Change (which should *always* be *positive* change, but also may not be) should seldom have to be made "overnight", and change - in societies, institutions, and individuals - is one of the few things that never changes.

I have been less than happy about many changes that I saw imposed over a forty-three-year Res/Reg/Res/Reg career, but, in the vast majority of cases, have come to recognize their benefit, or their minimal rather than expected negative effects, and adapted.

I miss the Good Old Days, but some of them may not have been quite so good for everybody as they seemed. Things have improved in many ways, even if there is still a long way to go before attaining perfection.



PuckChaser said:


> Weak leadership who would condone/support sexual misconduct is just a symptom of poor promotion and culture, not the disease itself.



And nobody has yet been able to come close to solving that problem, unfortunately.

"Being human" is not an excuse for shortcomings, but it remains a fact that we all must recognize.

Better mousetrap, better mouse.

Better promotion and culture, more devious person. Every system can and will be gamed.


----------



## Loachman

hattrick72 said:


> What if we started interviewing to fill positions for Specific MWO positions, all CWO positions and every position after Maj?
> 
> Interview conducted by a panel of your future peers from other bases, focused on current events, current challenges and how to deal with specific challenges. References chosen at random from posting history of all ranks to screen for "issues"
> 
> This could be scored appropriately and in conjunction with PER system.
> 
> May be able to squeeze out undesirables, not all, any completely false accusations could be handled as well.



People will rapidly learn the "correct" answers to the interview questions and how to modify their outward behaviour to match selection criteria.

We had a psychopath who successfully hid his dark side for decades until he became the Base Commander in Trenton and began sexually assaulting and murdering local women, including one of his subordinates.


----------



## Loachman

captloadie said:


> Maybe the annual CANFORGENs should finish with a line like: "Any member or former member who believes there is a valid reason any of the above individuals should not be granted their promotion/Comd has 30 days from release of this message to contact the OPI below to set up an interview to have their objections heard".



Why do I envision a wedding ceremony when I read that?


----------



## Loachman

QV said:


> Today, sex is more freely given and received outside of formal relationships than probably ever before.


 
As one who was around "before", I can definitely say that it is not.


----------



## Loachman

Remius said:


> And yet, other sectors of the work force have been able to put into place policies and practices that have greatly reduced those types of inappropriate behaviours despite a society that is getting more sexualized.



I think that there may be  little green-grass syndrome there.

I came across something a couple of days ago (but cannot remember where as I tend to skim a lot in order to see as much as possible) regarding how many teachers in the US are caught having inappropriate relationships with students - and it's often female teachers and underage boys - and how this has been largely curtailed by the current school closures.

Apparently, many of these teachers failed to realize how boys like to brag to their buddies, including sharing text messages.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Civilian system should investigate military misconduct claims for now, ex-judge says​​Morris Fish says military justice system must embrace victims' rights before taking on sexual misconduct cases​https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/morris-fish-military-justice-sexual-misconduct-1.6047898

Interesting. Not sure how that works for crimes committed overseas, but makes sense for in country items. Assuming that means there would be no legal support for the defendant from JAG though, and if it happens on a tasking outside normal work area the defendent is also going to be foxed for all the travel back and forth.

They really need to stop using 'sexual misconduct' as a catch all though; big difference between rape, sexual assault and telling an off-colour joke that crosses the line.


----------



## OldSolduer

Remius said:


> Very similar to the “boys wouldn’t be assaulting girls if they didn’t dress provocatively” argument used in other time.


Don't get me started - Winnipeg school districts were on this kick. Girls in high school were dressing "too provocatively " and one of our local radio stations had a call in session about it.
Many of you are aware that Winnipeg has a pretty strong "Bible Belt" kind of population in and around it so a lot of calls were calling for dress codes for girls in HS. 
Of course I had the right to remain silent but not the ability. I called in and told the lot of them that the Taliban and them had a lot in common, including restricting how women can dress. So if there is a dress code for girls how about a code of behavior for HS boys?
The hypocrisy stuns me at times.


----------



## OldSolduer

Navy_Pete said:


> They really need to stop using 'sexual misconduct' as a catch all though; big difference between rape, sexual assault and telling an off-colour joke that crosses the line.


Rape is not misconduct. You are correct about that. Its a crime of violence and sex is just the means to dominate. That needs to be reiterated and the sentencing should reflect that.


----------



## YZT580

OldSolduer said:


> Don't get me started - Winnipeg school districts were on this kick. Girls in high school were dressing "too provocatively " and one of our local radio stations had a call in session about it.
> Many of you are aware that Winnipeg has a pretty strong "Bible Belt" kind of population in and around it so a lot of calls were calling for dress codes for girls in HS.
> Of course I had the right to remain silent but not the ability. I called in and told the lot of them that the Taliban and them had a lot in common, including restricting how women can dress. So if there is a dress code for girls how about a code of behavior for HS boys?
> The hypocrisy stuns me at times.


Why not a code of behaviour for HS boys indeed.  Great idea 'cause both boys and girls need to know that there is a standard of behaviour and that crossing the line has repercussions.  After all, we are on page 106 talking about just that: a standard and the repercussions and unless we are willing to set a national standard and stick by it it is all futile.


----------



## mariomike

OldSolduer said:


> Many of you are aware that Winnipeg has a pretty strong "Bible Belt" kind of population in and around it so a lot of calls were calling for dress codes for girls in HS.


I didn't grow up in the Bible Belt. But, that's the way it was when I went to school.

I remember someone telling me about a young woman who worked in one of our offices. Her male supervisor politely suggested she wear something "more appropriate".

She then announced to one and all, "He wants me to wear a Burka!" To which he apparently replied, "No. But, maybe something in between. "


----------



## MilEME09

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/veterans-peer-support-sexual-assault-1.6050300?__vfz=medium%3Dsharebar
		


Can we go a week without a negative story? That's all I ask, one week


----------



## dimsum

MilEME09 said:


> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/veterans-peer-support-sexual-assault-1.6050300?__vfz=medium%3Dsharebar
> 
> 
> 
> Can we go a week without a negative story? That's all I ask, one week


I'm at the point where I'm thinking "at least it's VAC, and not directly CAF, this time".


----------



## lenaitch

Navy_Pete said:


> Civilian system should investigate military misconduct claims for now, ex-judge says​​Morris Fish says military justice system must embrace victims' rights before taking on sexual misconduct cases​https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/morris-fish-military-justice-sexual-misconduct-1.6047898
> 
> Interesting. Not sure how that works for crimes committed overseas, but makes sense for in country items. Assuming that means there would be no legal support for the defendant from JAG though, and if it happens on a tasking outside normal work area the defendent is also going to be foxed for all the travel back and forth.
> 
> They really need to stop using 'sexual misconduct' as a catch all though; big difference between rape, sexual assault and telling an off-colour joke that crosses the line.


I'm not sure I'm clear on what he is recommending (recognizing it is a media item, not the report).   In terms of criminal allegations, at the 'input', first response end, is he recommending yet another parallel 'military-but-not military national investigative service mandated for a narrow group of offences, or is he envisioning the local police service of jurisdiction?  That will put pressure on local police services, victim services, court services etc. that will require funding.

And yes, crimes committed outside of Canada would seem to pose a problem.


----------



## Kilted

OldSolduer said:


> Don't get me started - Winnipeg school districts were on this kick. Girls in high school were dressing "too provocatively " and one of our local radio stations had a call in session about it.
> Many of you are aware that Winnipeg has a pretty strong "Bible Belt" kind of population in and around it so a lot of calls were calling for dress codes for girls in HS.
> Of course I had the right to remain silent but not the ability. I called in and told the lot of them that the Taliban and them had a lot in common, including restricting how women can dress. So if there is a dress code for girls how about a code of behavior for HS boys?
> The hypocrisy stuns me at times.


If the Public schools starting wearing unifroms they wouldn't have that problem.  Plus it would get rid of a bunch of other issues.


----------



## YZT580

Kilted said:


> If the Public schools starting wearing unifroms they wouldn't have that problem.  Plus it would get rid of a bunch of other issues.


but the military wear uniforms and it doesn't seem to have helped it much re: harassment.


----------



## Blackadder1916

lenaitch said:


> I'm not sure I'm clear on what he is recommending (recognizing it is a media item, not the report) . . .



I haven't had time to get through much of Justice Fish's report, but here it is.

Report of the Third Independent Review Authority to the Minister of National Defence
https://s3.amazonaws.com/tld-docume...nister of national defence (pdf, english).pdf 

I've extracted the following from the Summary of Findings and Recommendations.  The subject is discussed in greater detail in the body of the report.


> SEXUAL MISCONDUCT*
> 
> Sexual misconduct in the CAF remains persistent, preoccupying and widespread – despite the CAF’s repeated attempts to address the problem.
> 
> As mentioned above, the government has taken notice. Days before the deadline for delivery of my Report, the government announced in its Budget a major initiative to combat sexual misconduct in the CAF. It promised greater independence to the processes of reporting and adjudicating incidents of sexual misconduct within the military and enhanced support services to victims, including access to free, independent legal advice.
> 
> My recommendations were prepared before the Budget was released. Yet they speak largely to the same objectives: to make the military justice system more responsive to the welfare, security and health of CAF members; more protective of the autonomy of victims; and better equipped to monitor both individual accountability and organizational compliance with the CAF’s governing rules and stated objective.
> 
> *In enacting Bill C-77 and its Declaration of Victims Rights, Parliament decided to afford victims involved in the military justice system the rights they would enjoy in civilian proceedings under the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. 820 The relevant provisions of Bill C-77 should be brought into force as soon as possible. Until this is done, the military justice system should not investigate and prosecute alleged sexual assaults. The NDA should also be amended to incorporate, in substance, the various rights and protections afforded by the Criminal Code to victims and to persons accused of sexual offences.*
> 
> CAF members have a duty to report all service offences to their chain of command. The duty to report is meant to allow the leadership of the CAF to take steps to eradicate or at least reduce the occurrence of sexual misconduct within its ranks. But it has unintended effects and causes undesirable results for victims. It impacts on their autonomy and, I have been told, risks their exposure to reprisals, ostracization and pressures to withdraw their complaint. The duty to report should be removed for victims of sexual misconduct, their confidants and the health and support professionals consulted by them. A working group should also consider the removal of the duty to report of witnesses of sexual misconduct.
> 
> Victims of sexual misconduct who nonetheless wish to report must be provided the support they need to do so – without fear of harm to their well-being, careers or personal lives.
> 
> Strengthening the independence of the Sexual Misconduct Response Centre (“SMRC”) would help attenuate these concerns. Providing free, independent legal advice to victims would encourage more frequent engagement with the legal process, thereby protecting their own safety and that of other CAF members.
> 
> Restorative justice approaches have been part of the civilian criminal justice system for decades. They promote a sense of responsibility for the offenders, who acknowledge the harm caused to their victims. They also provide the opportunity for the victims and perpetrators to work in tandem toward accountability and restitution. This would, according to the SMRC, foster justice outcomes that better meet the needs of victims, offenders, and the CAF. I strongly support the introduction of restorative justice in the military justice context.


----------



## Kilted

YZT580 said:


> but the military wear uniforms and it doesn't seem to have helped it much re: harassment.


Those aren't the issues I was referring to.


----------



## TCM621

mariomike said:


> I didn't grow up in the Bible Belt. But, that's the way it was when I went to school.
> 
> I remember someone telling me about a young woman who worked in one of our offices. Her male supervisor politely suggested she wear something "more appropriate".
> 
> She then announced to one and all, "He wants me to wear a Burka!" To which he apparently replied, "No. But, maybe something in between. "


What is work appropriate behaviour is a totally separate issue from sexual misconduct. Having your tits falling out of your shirt is as unprofessional as coming to work in tighty whiteys. 

We also have to address the fact that a lot of women's fashion is designed to draw attention to women in a sexual appealing way. This will necessarily lead to more male attention which may be more than is appropriate. Luckily, in the CAF we don't have that because almost everyone's ass looks the same in a set of combats.


----------



## mariomike

TCM621 said:


> Luckily, in the CAF we don't have that because almost everyone's ass looks the same in a set of combats.


Where's that pic of Clint Eastwood cringing  when I need it?!


----------



## FJAG

mariomike said:


> Where's that pic of Clint Eastwood cringing  when I need it?!


This one?







🍻


----------



## YZT580

Kilted said:


> Those aren't the issues I was referring to.


I know


----------



## Navy_Pete

Kilted said:


> If the Public schools starting wearing unifroms they wouldn't have that problem.  Plus it would get rid of a bunch of other issues.


As someone who attended a public school with uniforms I'm laughing pretty hard at this assumption. Also ref: weird sailor moon/school girl fetishes are based on actual school uniforms.

Thought it was pretty great though, made school less of a fashion show competing for cool labels and made getting dressed in the am really easy, but sure it made no actual difference otherwise.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Navy_Pete said:


> As someone who attended a public school with uniforms I'm laughing pretty hard at this assumption. Also ref: weird sailor moon/school girl fetishes are based on actual school uniforms.
> 
> Thought it was pretty great though, made school less of a fashion show competing for cool labels and made getting dressed in the am really easy, but sure it made no actual difference otherwise.



Oh, so you've been to 'School Dinners' in London then?

I've never been.... that much 

By the way, this dessert is listed on the menu as the 'Knee Trembler' as I recall:

Sonia Moore Waitress At Restaurant School Dinners Dressed As Schoolgirl And Sitting In Lap Of Unnamed Male Customer. She Served Prince Andrew When A Party Of Naval Officers Visited The Club 1984.









						Sonia Moore Waitress Restaurant School Dinners Editorial Stock Photo - Stock Image | Shutterstock
					

Find the editorial stock photo of Sonia Moore Waitress Restaurant School Dinners, and more photos in the Shutterstock collection of editorial photography. 1000s of new photos added daily.




					www.shutterstock.com


----------



## CBH99

Navy_Pete said:


> As someone who attended a public school with uniforms I'm laughing pretty hard at this assumption. Also ref: weird sailor moon/school girl fetishes are based on actual school uniforms.
> 
> Thought it was pretty great though, made school less of a fashion show competing for cool labels and made getting dressed in the am really easy, but sure it made no actual difference otherwise.


I can second this.

As someone who went to a private school from Grade 8 to Grade 12, with uniforms... everything you said above is bang on.  (We were a pretty tiny school though, about 100 kids from Kindergarden all the way up to Grade 12.  Our entire high school was I think 14 kids at it's peak.)

Sexual misconduct wasn't really an issue ever.  

However, did the uniforms discourage young teenagers from thinking the way young teenagers do?  Nope!  Schoolgirl skirts & blouses, as 'pleasant as they looked' to the public, were also pleasant in the eyes of us male students also.  (We were all also obsessed with Warcraft 2 at the time, and would constantly play each other on the LAN network without our teachers figuring it out) 

Getting ready in the mornings was easy.  "Do I want to look like a Christmas Elf, in September...or...bah, I guess Christmas elf it is."


(Our uniforms, for the guys, were GREEN khaki pants & a burgendy collared T-shirt made out of the most uncomfortable fabric they could find.)  🎄


----------



## Maxman1

Nicole Bogart
Published Friday, June 4, 2021 3:18PM





Brig.-Gen. Simon Bernard is seen in this undated image.

EDMONTON -- A second senior member of the Canadian Armed Forces was quietly removed from his role in Canada’s vaccine rollout campaign in May after a complaint was made regarding language he allegedly used.

The Canadian Armed Forces confirmed Brig.-Gen. Simon Bernard’s departure in a statement issued to CTV News Friday, but did not provide additional details about the allegations.

“Subsequent to a complaint made regarding language allegedly used by BGen Bernard, the CAF is working towards determining facts and next steps,” read the statement.

“In order to preserve the integrity of the effort and to ensure due process is afforded to all affected parties, we will not be disclosing the nature of the grievance.”

News of the departure comes just weeks after Maj.-Gen. Dany Fortin left his role as the military general in charge of the logistics of Canada’s COVID-19 vaccine rollout over an allegation of sexual misconduct. Fortin, through his lawyer, has said he “completely denies” any wrongdoing.

Bernard was Fortin's second-in-command in vaccine and logistics planning, a post he was appointed to in November 2020.

According to the CAF, he has since been on annual leave since his departure and will later be assigned to a position “which remains to be determined.”

Brig.-Gen. Krista Brodie, who was named as Fortin's successor on May 17, declined to comment on Bernard’s departure during a press conference Friday, noting she could not speak to the allegations.

“What I can indicate is that we are very focused on the team here at the Public Health Agency to ensure that we distribute vaccines as quickly as safely as efficiently as we can in a manner that's fair and equitable to all,” Brodie said.









						Second senior military member removed from Canada's vaccine rollout campaign
					

A second senior member of the Canadian Armed Forces was quietly removed from his role in Canada’s vaccine rollout campaign in May after a complaint was made regarding language he allegedly used.




					www.ctvnews.ca


----------



## MilEME09

Well atleast it was hateful conduct this time instead of sexual misconduct.....


----------



## Maxman1

This is slowly turning into this:


----------



## OldSolduer

MilEME09 said:


> Well atleast it was hateful conduct this time instead of sexual misconduct.....


It’s actually just as bad.


----------



## brihard

MilEME09 said:


> Well atleast it was hateful conduct this time instead of sexual misconduct.....


Leading change


----------



## Jarnhamar

_Lt-Cols love this one trick_


----------



## CBH99

I understand that they don’t want to release details of the incident until formal charges are laid.  And this is important to protect the integrity of the investigation, and the reputations of all involved.  

However, with so many senior staff being removed due to investigations, and no details forthcoming on any of them — at this point, I feel like it’s doing us more harm than good.  

_I am NOT suggesting we change policy on this.  Investigations must be conducted properly and thoroughly, and details of which released when appropriate_

it’s just frustrating that without the details, none of these incidents can be put in context.  

Was something blatantly racist and hurtful said recently, to a fellow member?  Or was it a joke in poor taste said over a year ago?

I know time will reveal the context of these incidents.  Just frustrating as it is now.  

0.02


----------



## FSTO

Three of the guys I work with here in Bahrain are blown away by this. They have all worked with and for General Bernard and they cannot imagine him doing anything inappropriate at all.


----------



## brihard

CBH99 said:


> I understand that they don’t want to release details of the incident until formal charges are laid.  And this is important to protect the integrity of the investigation, and the reputations of all involved.
> 
> However, with so many senior staff being removed due to investigations, and no details forthcoming on any of them — at this point, I feel like it’s doing us more harm than good.
> 
> _I am NOT suggesting we change policy on this.  Investigations must be conducted properly and thoroughly, and details of which released when appropriate_
> 
> it’s just frustrating that without the details, none of these incidents can be put in context.
> 
> Was something blatantly racist and hurtful said recently, to a fellow member?  Or was it a joke in poor taste said over a year ago?
> 
> I know time will reveal the context of these incidents.  Just frustrating as it is now.
> 
> 0.02


He has a right to privacy. Internal performance/disciplinary matters are personal info and protected from disclosure in most circumstances.


----------



## CBH99

Oh absolutely.  And I completely support that.

I should clarify - I wasn't suggesting a change in how information is released at all.  I'd much rather someone's privacy be respected, the integrity of any investigations be unchallenged, and information only released at the appropriate time.


I guess I was just venting that without any specific information about any of the allegations (minus _some_ information about the Vance situation, due to the accuser speaking to the media) we don't really know how serious the accusations are, or what the context behind them is. The organization's reputation is taking a pretty hefty pounding lately, and as someone who has quite fond memories of my time in the CAF, I just wish I had some background context is all.


I should have napped before posting - was more just thinking out loud with my fingers...


----------



## ballz

I can't think of any good reason a limited amount of a senior officer's conduct sheet, such as whether they've been put on remedial measures and to what level, shouldn't be publicly available information.


----------



## ModlrMike

I can. Remedial measures don't go on the conduct sheet, and the information is Protected B, so covered by Security Orders, and privacy legislation. Further, the information would reside on the member's pers file, so would likely require their agreement to be release.


----------



## brihard

CBH99 said:


> I should have napped before posting - was more just thinking out loud with my fingers...



I think that’s what got us all into this mess, no?


----------



## OldSolduer

brihard said:


> I think that’s what got us all into this mess, no?


Maybe - I will add we are all human and prone to fuck up every now and then. 

People with great responsibilities fuck ups are generally greater than that of the average person.


----------



## Jarnhamar

There doesn't seem to be very much information about what's going on with these members continuously being removed from duty.

Yes investigations take time and there's a privacy factor because they're not guilty at this time.

We have a history of not taking these accusations seriously, slapping people on the wrist or jut shuffling them by way of "punishment".  Are all these guys going to drift away into obscurity? 

There's some articles about a handful of commanding officers removed from their positions a couple years ago. No follow up, you can't even find most of their names.


----------



## CBH99

brihard said:


> I think that’s what got us all into this mess, no?


Typing thoughts of “I wish we had some context behind this situation, so we would know just how serious the alleged misconduct is.  Not knowing the context is weighing on me!”

I’m not too sure THAT is what got us into this mess 😉   Unless I’m totally interpreting your post the wrong way?


----------



## brihard

CBH99 said:


> Typing thoughts of “I wish we had some context behind this situation, so we would know just how serious the alleged misconduct is.  Not knowing the context is weighing on me!”
> 
> I’m not too sure THAT is what got us into this mess 😉   Unless I’m totally interpreting your post the wrong way?


Nah, I was being crass- members “thinking out loud with their fingers”. Sorry for not clarifying that it was smartassery.


----------



## CBH99

brihard said:


> Nah, I was being crass- members “thinking out loud with their fingers”. Sorry for not clarifying that it was smartassery.


Oh I knew it was.  And I thought that’s what you meant 😅

Was just checkin’


----------



## ballz

ModlrMike said:


> I can. Remedial measures don't go on the conduct sheet, and the information is Protected B, so covered by Security Orders, and privacy legislation. Further, the information would reside on the member's pers file, so would likely require their agreement to be release.



I'm aware that the information is protected / covered by privacy legislation. You seem to have missed the point. I'm questioning the _premise_ behind that policy / legislation. The premise is that those things should be protected.

Please provide me with a good reason or two as to why it should be that way when we're talking about senior officers? Why should a senior officer in the military not be at least as accountable to the public as an accountant?

(I might actually go as far as MCpls and up, excluding Officer-Cadets, but setting the bar at senior officer hardly seems extreme)


----------



## Weinie

ballz said:


> I'm aware that the information is protected / covered by privacy legislation. You seem to have missed the point. I'm questioning the _premise_ behind that policy / legislation. The premise is that those things should be protected.
> 
> Please provide me with a good reason or two as to why it should be that way when we're talking about senior officers? Why should a senior officer in the military not be at least as accountable to the public as an accountant?
> 
> *(I might actually go as far as MCpls and up, excluding Officer-Cadets, but setting the bar at senior officer hardly seems extreme)*


Slippery slope here. If it is a go for senior Officers, then it is go for all ranks. The NDA applies across the board. Not arguing with your proposition, I would say that anything enforced must be a common standard.


----------



## Blackadder1916

ballz said:


> Please provide me with a good reason or two as to why it should be that way when we're talking about senior officers? Why should a senior officer in the military not be at least* as accountable to the public as an accountant*?



Correct me if I've mistaken but, for the GOFO in question, he has so far only been 'accused' of inappropriate language and in the interim has left the PHAC and is on leave until such time as an investigation has been completed and some decision is taken as to remedial (or other) measures.  So, to compare to the accountant . . .



			https://www.cpaalberta.ca/-/media/Files/Protecting-the-Public/Conduct-and-Discipline/CPA_ComplaintsReviewProcess.pdf?la=en&hash=73280FD6747214F14C930DC5A921B852FD0099E2
		




If one wants public details of the allegations made against your hypothetical accountant, then one would have to wait until a decision is made to hold a hearing or a sanctions agreement is made.  That's well down the chart.


----------



## ballz

Blackadder1916 said:


> Correct me if I've mistaken but, for the GOFO in question, he has so far only been 'accused' of inappropriate language and in the interim has left the PHAC and is on leave until such time as an investigation has been completed and some decision is taken as to remedial (or other) measures.  So, to compare to the accountant . . .
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cpaalberta.ca/-/media/Files/Protecting-the-Public/Conduct-and-Discipline/CPA_ComplaintsReviewProcess.pdf?la=en&hash=73280FD6747214F14C930DC5A921B852FD0099E2
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 65383
> 
> If one wants public details of the allegations made against your hypothetical accountant, then one would have to wait until a decision is made to hold a hearing or a sanctions agreement is made.  That's well down the chart.



So I'm not talking in specifics about any particular GOFO, I brought this up earlier in the thread to support a culture of accountability and transparency. I'm not entirely sure at which point it becomes publicly available, and might vary a bit province-to-province since CPA Canada has a provincial CPA organization that governs CPAs in that province and ensures they meet the requirements of that provinces legislation (in Alberta it's the CPA Act).

However, under our current system we don't even know when "until a decision is made" actually occurs, if ever. If they are done investigating either an NDA offence or administratively (for remedial measures), we won't know, because they keep deflecting any questions with "the matter is under investigation and we cannot comment on investigations because of x/y/z privacy law."

At least in the CPA Alberta scenario, if you conclude an investigation and decide to dismiss it, CPA Alberta notifies the complainant of that decision and tells them *why* it's being dismissed, and the complainant has the ability to appeal as well.

"If the CIC Chair directs that no further action be taken, the CIC Chair must notify the Complainant and the Respondent of the decision and provide a written explanation for the decision, including reasons for the decision. The CIC Chair may also make recommendations or provide guidance in respect of the future conduct or practice of the Respondent.

The Complainant has the right to appeal the decision to dismiss the complaint. For more information on the process to appeal the dismissal of a complaint, please refer to “Information about appealing dismissals of complaints”, available on our website at www.cpaalberta.ca."

We don't even have this much in place....... we keep it all under a shroud of secrecy. We can't even tell a sexual assault complainant if we've put a General on initial counselling or decided to do nothing. This is ridiculous.

That chart is just about the complaints process, it show anything about what's public or not, or how  it's disclosed to the public.There's a bunch of considerations but in general, the hearings are made in public, at the very least the complainant has a right to witness the proceedings, etc. And it's my understanding there's a way to request a CPA's record from the CPA provincial authority (or at least that's what I was taught during the program), same goes for lawyers and doctors as far as I know. That's my understanding anyway, and I'd have to dig to find it (I'll give it a go).

After all, why shouldn't a member of the public who is relying on these professions to regulate themselves be able to ensure the surgeon they are looking at to operate on their heart hasn't been sanctioned 18 times throughout their career for professional negligence? If the surgeon doesn't like being accountable to the public for their actions and decisions, they should find a new career.

I would say, given the importance of the military and it's role, senior officers in the CAF owe at least that much to the public as well. The public is entrusting them with a hell of a lot, they sure like to brag about their level of responsibility



Weinie said:


> Slippery slope here. If it is a go for senior Officers, then it is go for all ranks. The NDA applies across the board. Not arguing with your proposition, I would say that anything enforced must be a common standard.



They can write legislation however they need to so that it only applies to certain ranks (unless someone is going to argue that's unconstitutional). Plus I'm pretty sure when it comes to remedial measures it isn't the NDA, it's the Privacy Act which stipulates what's private vs public info, how things need to be disclosed, etc. They can amend the Privacy Act to read "Remedial measures for CAF members of "x" rank are subject to public disclosure" or whatever legalize needs to be written.


----------



## ballz

Here ya go...



			Verify Member
		




			Reportable Outcomes under CPA Act
		


Important that this doesn't get confused with NDA offences... in the accounting world, that would be criminal court (or some other court I guess, depending on what you did).

They use the word "discipline" differently than we do as these are disciplinary hearings for what are essentially poor professional performance, ethics, conduct, etc., comparable to our administrative measures system.


----------



## Jarnhamar

What's Lt Col David Buchanan been up to these days?


----------



## Infanteer

ballz said:


> After all, why shouldn't a member of the public who is relying on these professions to regulate themselves be able to ensure the surgeon they are looking at to operate on their heart hasn't been sanctioned 18 times throughout their career for professional negligence? If the surgeon doesn't like being accountable to the public for their actions and decisions, they should find a new career.
> 
> I would say, given the importance of the military and it's role, senior officers in the CAF owe at least that much to the public as well. The public is entrusting them with a hell of a lot, they sure like to brag about their level of responsibility


This is a very good point.  A profession is, by definition, a special body of knowledge used for the benefit of the greater population, and is self-regulating.

If we're going to self-regulate, it needs to be transparent to the public body which it serves.  This should be no different for other professions such as doctors, engineers, etc, etc.  The price for burying poor performance or conduct is too high.


----------



## OldSolduer

Jarnhamar said:


> What's Lt Col David Buchanan been up to these days?


Who is that or did I miss something?


----------



## mariomike

Jarnhamar said:


> What's Lt Col David Buchanan been up to these days?





OldSolduer said:


> Who is that or did I miss something?


He was mentioned here with others.








						Sexual Misconduct Allegations in The CAF
					

No offense TCM, But what you said is exactly or very close to what we were told in the 90s.  And the 2000s.




					army.ca


----------



## Blackadder1916

Infanteer said:


> This is a very good point.  A profession is, by definition, a special body of knowledge used for the benefit of the greater population, *and is self-regulating*.
> 
> If we're going to self-regulate, it needs to be transparent to the public body which it serves.  This should be no different for other professions such as doctors, engineers, etc, etc.  The price for burying poor performance or conduct is too high.



Is the military a "self-regulating" profession or does it simply administer the rules dictated by the Crown?  Those professions that call themselves self-regulating are regulated by colleges or associations established by law.  While there is oversight by government (to varying degrees), standards of practice, licensing criteria and conduct are generally established by the members themselves.  To follow the example previously used of accountants, in the Alberta CHARTERED PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTANTS ACT the following so notes that the board may make regulations, by-laws and rules of professional conduct but such must be ratified by the membership as a whole (that's what *self*-regulation means).



> (2) A regulation *must be approved in principle by a majority of the members *of the CPAA present and voting  (_it's "approved in principle" because it is then submitted to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council for approval and published as a Provincial Regulation_)
> 
> (5) A bylaw *must be ratified by a majority of the members of the CPAA* present and voting
> 6) If a bylaw is not ratified pursuant to subsection (5), the bylaw ceases to have any effect.
> 
> (5) A rule of professional conduct *must be ratified by a majority of the members of the CPAA* present and voting



The legislation concerning other self-regulating professions likewise have similar sections that grant them similar authority.  I've yet to find any legislation anywhere that so permits members of any military to combine together and make their own rules.  In fact, combining together may lead to charges of making a mutiny.


----------



## Jarnhamar

OldSolduer said:


> Who is that or did I miss something?


I can't post the article here. One of a series of unit COs who seems to have been quietly relieved of command.  The context I posted is that these guys are getting caught doing stuff they shouldn't be doing and are quietly shuffled away.


----------



## ballz

Blackadder1916 said:


> Is the military a "self-regulating" profession or does it simply administer the rules dictated by the Crown?  Those professions that call themselves self-regulating are regulated by colleges or associations established by law.  While there is oversight by government (to varying degrees), standards of practice, licensing criteria and conduct are generally established by the members themselves.



Does that not sound exactly like the CAF? Just like CPAs in Alberta fall under CPA Alberta, and CPA Alberta has to ensure they fall in line with the CPA Act, CAF members fall under "the CAF" and have to fall in line with the National Defence Act. But in general, or at least ideally, the military was always supposed to have a lot of autonomy in doing that because of the unique needs/aspects of the profession of arms.

We are also responsible for establishing standards of practice, "licensing" criteria (who's actually allowed to be a member of the profession of arms and execute lethal force?), conduct, sanctioning their members as we see fit, etc. Christ we've got our own judicial system, if that's not autonomy I don't know what is.



Blackadder1916 said:


> To follow the example previously used of accountants, in the Alberta CHARTERED PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTANTS ACT the following so notes that the board may make regulations, by-laws and rules of professional conduct but such must be ratified by the membership as a whole (that's what *self*-regulation means).
> 
> The legislation concerning other self-regulating professions likewise have similar sections that grant them similar authority.  I've yet to find any legislation anywhere that so permits members of any military to combine together and make their own rules.  In fact, combining together may lead to charges of making a mutiny.



That's one mechanism of self-regulation, it's not the only one. The Alberta government could 100% just install a dictator and call him/her the "Chief of Accounting Staff" and make them responsible for the accounting profession as a whole. As long as the Alberta government remains at arms length and allows the Chief of Accounting Staff / CPA Alberta to operate with relative autonomy (i.e. sanctioning their members as they see fit, establishing the standards for membership, establishing the standards for training/licensing/etc..... all stuff the CAF does) then it would still be viewed as self-regulating through the lens of the autonomy granted.

But, in either model, when the profession starts to fail to regulate itself, it will start to lose that autonomy because it's lost the trust of the public. Sound familiar? _cough_ the CAF _cough_.

Most importantly though, nowhere did I advocate that the CAF set itself up the same way as CPA Alberta, such as having bylaws ratified by membership, etc. This seems to be cherry-picking an irrelevant factor to what the argument was, given this style of system is not in anyway a precursor to making remedial measures public. What I argued was that transparency around remedial measures would go a long way, and used self-regulating professions as an example since they have proven to be effective. We don't need to copy & paste the CPA Alberta org chart, but if the CAF could ever put it's ego aside it might benefit from looking at the best practices of other organizations, and I would argue for self-regulating professions this is one of them and has proven pretty damn effective at not letting the accountability bar slip.

I have yet to hear any good reasons why remedial measures for senior officers shouldn't be publicly available info.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

MilEME09 said:


> Well atleast it was hateful conduct this time instead of sexual misconduct.....



Where did  you see the part about hateful conduct?


----------



## MilEME09

Eye In The Sky said:


> Where did  you see the part about hateful conduct?


Originally the article had stated the allegation was over the use of a racial slur of some type. The article has since been amended to say it was language.


----------



## stoker dave

I work for a large engineering and construction company.   In some ways, it is like a third-world narco-state where about every six months a vice-president is loaded into a helicopter, flown out over the sea, and pushed out of the helicopter.   Well, it appears that way.  Vice-presidents just disappear with no indication of why they are suddenly gone (we would know if they quit, retired, etc.).  They were fired.  

There is no indication of why they were fired.  They must have been doing something (or not doing something) for this to happen but the truth is unlikely to be revealed.   It is chilling for all the employees because it makes management appear arbitrary and employment tenuous.  

So what you guys are seeing is common in industry - it's not just DND.


----------



## mariomike

stoker dave said:


> I work for a large engineering and construction company.   In some ways, it is like a third-world narco-state where about every six months a vice-president is loaded into a helicopter, flown out over the sea, and pushed out of the helicopter.   Well, it appears that way.  Vice-presidents just disappear with no indication of why they are suddenly gone (we would know if they quit, retired, etc.).  They were fired.
> 
> They must have been doing something (or not doing something) for this to happen but the truth is unlikely to be revealed.   It is chilling for all the employees because it makes management appear arbitrary and employment tenuous.
> 
> So what you guys are seeing is common in industry - it's not just DND.


We never had a layoff of operational union members where I used to work. Even if they did, it would be by seniority, and they would be called back in order of seniority. But, it never happened.

But, non-union? ( management ) They let them go. Permanently gone. Not laid off. Not called back.



> There is no indication of why they were fired.



It wasn't personal. Most were well liked. Just business. Saving $$$$ to hire more Operational members to meet increased Call Volumes without raising taxes.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

MilEME09 said:


> Originally the article had stated the allegation was over the use of a racial slur of some type. The article has since been amended to say it was language.



Copy, tks.  Did it say it this was allegedly "back in yesteryear" or recent?


----------



## MilEME09

Eye In The Sky said:


> Copy, tks.  Did it say it this was allegedly "back in yesteryear" or recent?


Recent



			https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6053246


----------



## Jarnhamar

Seen a white dude reminiscent of the _pretty fly for a white guy, guy _singing hard-core gangster rap, dropping N bombs like Dr Dre.
3 or 4 black US soldiers were in the same room (buddy had headphones on) and the US soldiers were laughing their ass off at him.

Maybe the general was just singing and didn't notice? Seems it can creep up in the most innocuous songs.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

MilEME09 said:


> Recent
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6053246


----------



## Infanteer

Blackadder1916 said:


> Is the military a "self-regulating" profession or does it simply administer the rules dictated by the Crown?



The former.  The profession of arms decides who an expert is, how that person becomes and expert, and what requirements exist for that person to assume greater positions of authority within the profession.  The profession of arms also sets the bar for how it sanctions its own for unprofessional conduct or performance.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Infanteer said:


> The former.  The profession of arms decides who an expert is, how that person becomes and expert, and what requirements exist for that person to assume greater positions of authority within the profession.  The profession of arms also sets the bar for how it sanctions its own for unprofessional conduct or performance.


We also self regulate for safety, engineering and all sorts of other areas as no one else has actual jurisdiction over us. From the navy side, basically all the IMO treaties specifically do not apply to military vessels, so we voluntarily regulate ourselves to meet the same performance goals (usually with the same solution, sometimes with something that actually works on a warship to get to the same goal).


----------



## mariomike

> Why should a senior officer in the military not be at least as accountable to the public as an accountant?


Not to suggest it is, or is not, a great idea for senior officers in the military. Except to wonder how they might feel about it?



> This should be no different for other professions such as doctors, engineers, etc, etc.


Can't imagine chiefs ( or rank and file members, for that matter - Yes, it's been tried.     ) in the emergency services being enthusiastic about the idea.


----------



## kev994

Scandal of the week is out. Navy disciplining ex-head of training school over claims of inappropriate, sexual comments: sources


----------



## Halifax Tar

kev994 said:


> Scandal of the week is out. Navy disciplining ex-head of training school over claims of inappropriate, sexual comments: sources


Never met the man or know anything about this incident(s) but my social media feeds are full of people who do, to sum up they aren't surprised or saddened to this one go.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

kev994 said:


> Scandal of the week is out. Navy disciplining ex-head of training school over claims of inappropriate, sexual comments: sources




I'd reset the counter back to 0, but it appears we've burnt out the motor.....


----------



## SupersonicMax

Well, second scandal this week....



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/senior-military-leaders-golf-former-top-soldier-under-investigation-1.6064060


----------



## Kilted

Why does all of this always come out late at night?


----------



## Pelorus

First, to caveat: I only skimmed the CBC article. I first heard about this story via The Globe and Mail article I read in depth earlier this evening. Any pertinent details that were in the CBC article which I missed by only reading the G&M article in detail is my own fault.

Second caveat: In my very limited personal experience with both LGen Rouleau and VAdm Baines, I thought that both were exceptional, reasonable, and down to earth officers, and the type of leaders we needed to lead the CAF out of the multitude of issues that the CAF is currently facing.

-------

Assuming that the allegations described in the media are accurate_ (which always warrants scrutiny_) this seems to be a major lack of judgement by both currently serving officers. As this seems to be a simple who/what/when/where/why problem, the balance of probabilities seems to lean towards the allegations being mostly true.

One could argue that Gen. Vance has not been convicted of anything yet. While this is certainly true, given the preponderance of evidence provided by Maj Kellie Brennan and others to date, certainly the VCDS and CRCN would have been aware of the reports made against him. I would guess that all three men have almost certainly convicted subordinates in Summary Trials of offences during their careers with less compelling evidence.

More importantly, I think that this calls into question the judgement of the VCDS and the CRCN. I suppose that I assume that there are multiple possible reasons for this:

Both leaders assumed that meeting in public with Gen Vance was fine and would not draw ethical scrutiny. Again, I would refer to the previous paragraph about the balance of probabilities, and argue that this displays bad judgement in light of the current situation.
Neither LGen Rouleau or VAdm Baines thought that this would be notable enough to make the press. Given the high profile nature of the sexual misconduct cases in the CAF, the fact that Gen Vance was the tipping point of all of this, and seeing as a source for the G&M indicated that the course was cleared of all other personnel to let the trio golf alone so that Vance wouldn't be recognized, I find this hard to believe.
All three personnel involved expected that by virtue of their institutional power that they would be able to make their exclusive golf day happen without any leaks to the press. I feel like this scenario speaks to an arrogance given by their position in the organization, and again displays a poor understanding of the situation.
As a distant fourth, that even if they were caught/exposed by the press, that the MND office would protect them. Surely this was a throwaway COA given the self-preservation instincts shown by the MND and his staff to date.
In any case, I feel like this shows a real lack of judgement displayed by our senior leadership given the current issues we're all facing. I hope that I'm wrong.


----------



## CBH99

Friends who work together go golfing.  One of them happens to be under investigation for sexual misconduct, but hasn't been charged.

I guess it's a matter of interpretation...


-  On the one hand - it's just that.  Friends going golfing together, who have all served together for quite some time and are senior members of an organization that is hitting some rough waters.  Probably a good place to chat and hash out possible solutions, improvements, etc - less formal setting.  One of them is under investigation sexual misconduct.  Not sexual assault, sexual misconduct.  He hasn't been charged with any crimes yet.  (Personally, I find her story FULL of holes & stuff that doesn't make sense.)

-  On the other hand, the optics can appear bad depending if someone views it as "Other senior brass should be avoiding Vance until he has been cleared.  Socializing with him in the meantime just showcases the toxic culture..."


Is everybody supposed to avoid Vance until he has been formally cleared?  Isn't that a double standard, since he hasn't been formally charged yet?  How do the senior heads of the military avoid talking to each other, and expect the organization to run as smoothly as possible during these rocky times?  (Busy organization.)

Sometimes a day out playing golf & chatting, is just that.  🤷‍♂️ 


(Just my initial reaction.)


----------



## Pelorus

CBH99 said:


> Friends who work together go golfing.  One of them happens to be under investigation for sexual misconduct, but hasn't been charged.
> 
> I guess it's a matter of interpretation...
> 
> -  On the one hand - it's just that.  Friends going golfing together, who have all served together for quite some time and are senior members of an organization that is hitting some rough waters.  Probably a good place to chat and hash out possible solutions, improvements, etc - less formal setting.  One of them is under investigation sexual misconduct.  Not sexual assault, sexual misconduct.  He hasn't been charged with any crimes yet.  (Personally, I find her story FULL of holes & stuff that doesn't make sense.)



I would potentially buy this argument if you, I, and Joe Blow McTouchy (of which all three of us were nobodies in the grand scheme of things) decided to go golfing at some random municipal course in bumfuck nowhere after one of us ran into legal trouble.

But a CAF-exclusive golf course in the National Capital Region in which we cleared out everyone else to have a private afternoon so as to not draw scrutiny?

The day that I (let's not kid ourselves that this will ever happen) am put in charge of thousands of people, millions of dollars of taxpayer budget, by all rights a critical component of the defence of the sovereignty of Canada, and perhaps more importantly in this context regularly have to give media interviews to the point where I am a (semi?)-public figure? I sure as shit am going to scrutinize who I am seen rubbing elbows in public with.

If this isn't enough, I would draw your attention to "The Globe and Mail Test", which is probably known to most Officers/Snr NCOs in the CAF. Some examples:

A ship might make sense, one official wrote, "but we need to survive the Globe and Mail test."

Military leadership sometimes speaks about the concept of “the Globe and Mail Test” referring to how particular military decisions or actions will be written about in the press thus informing the opinions of everyday Canadians.

I've been a captain for a long time, which is not a bad thing, because I've spent a lot of time working with and for very capable senior NCOs and officers who have been trying to do the right thing, and they can't any more. They can't do the things we used to do to take care of the family, they can't do the things they used to do to take care of the soldiers, because everyone's concerned that doing the right thing is actually going to get them into some sort of trouble. Is it going to cost us too much? Is it going to pass the Globe and Mail test?

In most cases (the most optimistic reading), this can be described as "how can an otherwise lawful and ethical decision be poorly interpreted by the media to make us (i.e., the CAF) look bad?" In other less frequent cases, it can be understood to mean "how bad will this look on me (or the unit, the formation, the element, the CAF, etc.) if this is leaked to and picked up by the press?"



> Is everybody supposed to avoid Vance until he has been formally cleared?  Isn't that a double standard, since he hasn't been formally charged yet?  How do the senior heads of the military avoid talking to each other, and expect the organization to run as smoothly as possible during these rocky times?  (Busy organization.)
> 
> Sometimes a day out playing golf & chatting, is just that.  🤷‍♂️



Again, considering that we are consistently trying to prove to the Canadian public that we are a lawful, ethical organization (the pursuit of which is completely appropriate I would argue, in line with any other taxpayer-funded organizations in Canada, and especially among those which exert violence on behalf of the Crown), we should hold ourselves and our leadership to higher standards of ethical conduct.

Has Gen. Vance been formally convicted of anything? No, but even the most myopic person in our organization can see that his "brand"/association is completely radioactive given the claims leveled against a) him personally, and b) the organization writ large.

Again, I would refer back to the original four points in my last post. If these three individuals, who might be old friends, wanted to shoot the shit and get drunk reminiscing about the good old days, they could have all convened via Uber/Taxi at one of their respective houses in which nobody would have been the wiser.

To kick everyone else out of the golf course to hold a boys day on the links --like you used to be able to in the "good old days"-- in my mind speaks to ignorance or arrogance, neither of which we want from our senior decision makers.


----------



## hattrick72

CBH99 said:


> Friends who work together go golfing.  One of them happens to be under investigation for sexual misconduct, but hasn't been charged.
> 
> I guess it's a matter of interpretation...
> 
> 
> -  On the one hand - it's just that.  Friends going golfing together, who have all served together for quite some time and are senior members of an organization that is hitting some rough waters.  Probably a good place to chat and hash out possible solutions, improvements, etc - less formal setting.  One of them is under investigation sexual misconduct.  Not sexual assault, sexual misconduct.  He hasn't been charged with any crimes yet.  (Personally, I find her story FULL of holes & stuff that doesn't make sense.)
> 
> -  On the other hand, the optics can appear bad depending if someone views it as "Other senior brass should be avoiding Vance until he has been cleared.  Socializing with him in the meantime just showcases the toxic culture..."
> 
> 
> Is everybody supposed to avoid Vance until he has been formally cleared?  Isn't that a double standard, since he hasn't been formally charged yet?  How do the senior heads of the military avoid talking to each other, and expect the organization to run as smoothly as possible during these rocky times?  (Busy organization.)
> 
> Sometimes a day out playing golf & chatting, is just that.  🤷‍♂️
> 
> 
> (Just my initial reaction.)


He is under investigation and the investigators report to the LGen until July. A little bit of a conflict of interest in my eyes. 

That is the only issue I have with this story. Innocent until proven guilty, but you shouldn't be meeting with that person if you have any sway over the investigation.


----------



## CBH99

boot12 said:


> I would potentially buy this argument if you, I, and Joe Blow McTouchy (of which all three of us were nobodies in the grand scheme of things) decided to go golfing at some random municipal course in bumfuck nowhere after one of us ran into legal trouble.
> 
> But a CAF-exclusive golf course in the National Capital Region in which we cleared out everyone else to have a private afternoon so as to not draw scrutiny?
> 
> The day that I (let's not kid ourselves that this will ever happen) am put in charge of thousands of people, millions of dollars of taxpayer budget, by all rights a critical component of the defence of the sovereignty of Canada, and perhaps more importantly in this context regularly have to give media interviews to the point where I am a (semi?)-public figure? I sure as shit am going to scrutinize who I am seen rubbing elbows in public with.
> 
> If this isn't enough, I would draw your attention to "The Globe and Mail Test", which is probably known to most Officers/Snr NCOs in the CAF. Some examples:
> 
> A ship might make sense, one official wrote, "but we need to survive the Globe and Mail test."
> 
> Military leadership sometimes speaks about the concept of “the Globe and Mail Test” referring to how particular military decisions or actions will be written about in the press thus informing the opinions of everyday Canadians.
> 
> I've been a captain for a long time, which is not a bad thing, because I've spent a lot of time working with and for very capable senior NCOs and officers who have been trying to do the right thing, and they can't any more. They can't do the things we used to do to take care of the family, they can't do the things they used to do to take care of the soldiers, because everyone's concerned that doing the right thing is actually going to get them into some sort of trouble. Is it going to cost us too much? Is it going to pass the Globe and Mail test?
> 
> In most cases (the most optimistic reading), this can be described as "how can an otherwise lawful and ethical decision be poorly interpreted by the media to make us (i.e., the CAF) look bad?" In other less frequent cases, it can be understood to mean "how bad will this look on me (or the unit, the formation, the element, the CAF, etc.) if this is leaked to and picked up by the press?"
> 
> 
> 
> Again, considering that we are consistently trying to prove to the Canadian public that we are a lawful, ethical organization (the pursuit of which is completely appropriate I would argue, in line with any other taxpayer-funded organizations in Canada, and especially among those which exert violence on behalf of the Crown), we should hold ourselves and our leadership to higher standards of ethical conduct.
> 
> Has Gen. Vance been formally convicted of anything? No, but even the most myopic person in our organization can see that his "brand"/association is completely radioactive given the claims leveled against a) him personally, and b) the organization writ large.
> 
> Again, I would refer back to the original four points in my last post. If these three individuals, who might be old friends, wanted to shoot the shit and get drunk reminiscing about the good old days, they could have all convened via Uber/Taxi at one of their respective houses in which nobody would have been the wiser.
> 
> To kick everyone else out of the golf course to hold a boys day on the links --like you used to be able to in the "good old days"-- in my mind speaks to ignorance or arrogance, neither of which we want from our senior decision makers.


Extremely good points and very well argued.  I agree with everything you said above  

The optics can certainly be bad, and I had actually forgotten about "The Globe & Mail Test."  Not in practice, but I haven't heard that term in ages.  Good reminder


----------



## CBH99

hattrick72 said:


> He is under investigation and the investigators report to the LGen until July. A little bit of a conflict of interest in my eyes.
> 
> That is the only issue I have with this story. Innocent until proven guilty, but you shouldn't be meeting with that person if you have any sway over the investigation.


Absolutely love this.  Agreed.

Must be a bit of a tricky minefield for some of the senior staff these days.  The ones who aren't under investigation, who are overseeing the investigations of their superiors or equals - careful not to have contact in such a way to damage the integrity of the investigations - yet still need to work together daily/weekly to keep the organization running.  All while the folks under investigation (in this case, the boss of all senior staff) haven't formally been charged.  Ugh.

And we thought DND HQ may have been a less than stellar place to work BEFORE all of this 😬

For some reason this makes me envision that game Hop Scotch   



I tried to take 2 different views on this, as per my post.

-  Out for a game with important work colleagues to talk things out and steer the CAF in a good direction for their departures.  (Except you Rouleau, you stay!)  Vance hasn't been formally charged.  A game of weekend golf to relax and chat.

-  The optics the media will portray to a general public that believe almost anything they are told to.  You also brought up it is the LGen overseeing the investigation into Vance, which does put a more inappropriate spin on this than I realized.  And which the media will no doubt capitalize on, very much to our detriment.



The more I think about the posts above from yourself and Boot12 - the more I'm thinking along the same lines.  I didn't realize the investigators reported to the LGen.


----------



## trigger324

I doubt the topic of discussion was about how retirement has been treating him or how well their rounds were going.


----------



## daftandbarmy

CBH99 said:


> Absolutely love this.  Agreed.
> 
> Must be a bit of a tricky minefield for some of the senior staff these days.  The ones who aren't under investigation, who are overseeing the investigations of their superiors or equals - careful not to have contact in such a way to damage the integrity of the investigations - yet still need to work together daily/weekly to keep the organization running.  All while the folks under investigation (in this case, the boss of all senior staff) haven't formally been charged.  Ugh.
> 
> 
> The more I think about the posts above from yourself and Boot12 - the more I'm thinking along the same lines.  *I didn't realize the investigators reported to the LGen.*



I'm betting that the LGen wasn't keenly aware of that either. 

It will likely pay dividends to have process maps drawn up of the 'chain of responsibility' for various key positions.


----------



## Jarnhamar

> "The decision by LGen Rouleau and VAdm Baines to go golfing with Gen Vance is troubling and unacceptable," said Lane in a statement. "The Minister will discuss next steps with Acting Chief of the Defence Staff."



On one hand, Vance hasn't been found guilty of anything. The MND deciding "next steps" for 2 CAF members going golfing with a civilian seems pretty messed up. On the other hand:



> As second-in-command of the military, Rouleau has authority over the military's provost marshal, which is in charge of the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service that is investigating Vance.



That certainly seems to give the impression of conflict of interest (even if he's far removed from the investigation) and likely imparts a certain message to the investigators.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Jarnhamar said:


> On one hand, Vance hasn't been found guilty of anything. The MND deciding "next steps" for 2 CAF members going golfing with a civilian seems pretty messed up. On the other hand:
> 
> 
> 
> That certainly seems like a conflict of interest and likely imparts a certain message to the investigators.



That looks really 'nepotastic'!


----------



## CBH99

Jarnhamar said:


> On one hand, Vance hasn't been found guilty of anything. The MND deciding "next steps" for 2 CAF members going golfing with a civilian seems pretty messed up. On the other hand:
> 
> 
> 
> That certainly seems like a conflict of interest and likely imparts a certain message to the investigators.


Let’s give the benefit of the doubt to the investigators for now.  I have faith they will do their investigations thoroughly & objectively.

Once the results are submitted, if there is a change between what is presented by them, and what gets presented after - the media will be all over that in a flash.  

And surely all of the senior staff are well aware that any attempt to sweep this under the rug will just make things far worse.  


Regardless, this seems to have opened the way to a new set of faces, attitudes, and personalities to take the lead at DND and hopefully the MND.  

I realize not rocking the boat is what the government is looking for when choosing these positions, but it will hopefully be more aggressive & respectable leadership that replaces those who end up replaced.  🙏🏻


----------



## CBH99

daftandbarmy said:


> That looks really 'nepotastic'!


It only looks that way because we have a military of around 20 people.  Bound to cross paths somewhere 😅


----------



## Good2Golf

boot12 said:


> First, to caveat: I only skimmed the CBC article. I first heard about this story via The Globe and Mail article I read in depth earlier this evening. Any pertinent details that were in the CBC article which I missed by only reading the G&M article in detail is my own fault.
> 
> Second caveat: In my very limited personal experience with both LGen Rouleau and VAdm Baines, I thought that both were exceptional, reasonable, and down to earth officers, and the type of leaders we needed to lead the CAF out of the multitude of issues that the CAF is currently facing.
> 
> -------
> 
> Assuming that the allegations described in the media are accurate_ (which always warrants scrutiny_) this seems to be a major lack of judgement by both currently serving officers. As this seems to be a simple who/what/when/where/why problem, the balance of probabilities seems to lean towards the allegations being mostly true.
> 
> One could argue that Gen. Vance has not been convicted of anything yet. While this is certainly true, given the preponderance of evidence provided by Maj Kellie Brennan and others to date, certainly the VCDS and CRCN would have been aware of the reports made against him. I would guess that all three men have almost certainly convicted subordinates in Summary Trials of offences during their careers with less compelling evidence.
> 
> More importantly, I think that this calls into question the judgement of the VCDS and the CRCN. I suppose that I assume that there are multiple possible reasons for this:
> 
> Both leaders assumed that meeting in public with Gen Vance was fine and would not draw ethical scrutiny. Again, I would refer to the previous paragraph about the balance of probabilities, and argue that this displays bad judgement in light of the current situation.
> Neither LGen Rouleau or VAdm Baines thought that this would be notable enough to make the press. Given the high profile nature of the sexual misconduct cases in the CAF, the fact that Gen Vance was the tipping point of all of this, and seeing as a source for the G&M indicated that the course was cleared of all other personnel to let the trio golf alone so that Vance wouldn't be recognized, I find this hard to believe.
> All three personnel involved expected that by virtue of their institutional power that they would be able to make their exclusive golf day happen without any leaks to the press. I feel like this scenario speaks to an arrogance given by their position in the organization, and again displays a poor understanding of the situation.
> As a distant fourth, that even if they were caught/exposed by the press, that the MND office would protect them. Surely this was a throwaway COA given the self-preservation instincts shown by the MND and his staff to date.
> In any case, I feel like this shows a real lack of judgement displayed by our senior leadership given the current issues we're all facing. I hope that I'm wrong.



Or.....


...and the Government will find itself having to explain why it’s view of this event was it was unethical, while the PM can quite literally breach ethics rule after ethics rule after ethics rule (3 and counting) with impunity.  

I’m not so sure this was as unplanned/unthought out as it seems...

🤔


----------



## ModlrMike

I believe the word we're looking for here to describe Mr Vance, is "unperson".  A word found in a famous work by George Orwell.


----------



## CBH99

Good2Golf said:


> Or.....
> View attachment 65425
> 
> ...and the Government will find itself having to explain why it’s view of this event was it was unethical, while the PM can quite literally breach ethics rule after ethics rule after ethics rule (3 and counting) with impunity.
> 
> I’m not so sure this was as unplanned/unthought out as it seems...
> 
> 🤔


That nonsense with SNC-Lavalin was more than just an ethics breach, in my opinion anyway.  

If the head honchos of a big corporation approach a Prime Minister of Canada and say “hey, sooooooo...would you mind changing this law right here?  We MAY have breached it several times, MAY be under criminal investigation, and since we are guilty, will most likely be charged.  But if you change this law, we won’t have to worry.  Be a pal?”

You don’t say “sure guys, no problem!”   You tell them to GTFO.  

(Random morning post.  Sorry!  Not derailing thread)


----------



## Kilted

This was a bad decision, but I think we are going to see cancel culture get significantly worse, just wait till even remote connections to people start to land you in hot water.


----------



## daftandbarmy

CBH99 said:


> It only looks that way because we have a military of around 20 people *that is directed by senior leaders whose careers appear to thrive on nepotism*. Bound to cross paths somewhere 😅



There, FTFY.

Might be a good idea to deepen and broaden the gene pool if we can.


----------



## Jarnhamar

CBH99 said:


> Let’s give the benefit of the doubt to the investigators for now.  I have faith they will do their investigations thoroughly & objectively.


Having faith in the system and that people are doing their jobs thoroughly & objectively contributed to the situation the CAF is in.

Vance allegedly said he owns the CFNIS.  Relationships extend past retirement after all.



CBH99 said:


> And surely all of the senior staff are well aware that any attempt to sweep this under the rug will just make things far worse.


I think we assume a lot of senior officers would recognize common sense and avoid the various pitfalls many seem to walk run into.

I'm really curious to see how this plays out. Are they making a statement? Is this MR showing the LPC what he thinks about being moved out of the VCDS position?
Or will we see a now-standard "I apologize, I had _no idea_ how this would look..... I promise to do better" statement.


----------



## Brad Sallows

The forces is an institution.  Some people want to change the institution, just as they have changed other institutions.  Expect relentless attention until the institution changes to suit them, or they can be made to go away.  Conduct self accordingly.


----------



## The Bread Guy

When talking about conflict of interest, like others here, I have zero doubt the investigators will do their job same as they would with any other probe, and from what little I've heard from people I trust, the boss in question very unlikely to be swayed.  

That said, a lot of conflict of interest rules/guidelines talk about considering both actual potential personal benefit as well as _the __appearance_ of conflict that has to be considered.

At this level, would they be dumb enough to discuss the "elephant in the room" on the greens?  I defer to those who know the parties way better than I do, but I generally doubt it.

The optics of just getting together without anybody else around, no matter what they discussed, with one of them under the microscope?  Not so great.


Good2Golf said:


> I’m not so sure this was as unplanned/unthought out as it seems...
> 
> 🤔


Never say never, nothing's 100% impossible, but to me, trying the "hey, this may look bad, but lookit buddy over there looking even worse" defence may not be the most ... astute approach, given the environment we're in.  

Still, as they say, truth can be stranger than fiction, so ... 🍿


----------



## CBH99

Jarnhamar said:


> Having faith in the system and that people are doing their jobs thoroughly & objectively contributed to the situation the CAF is in.
> 
> Vance allegedly said he owns the CFNIS.  Relationships extend past retirement after all.
> 
> 
> I think we assume a lot of senior officers would recognize common sense and avoid the various pitfalls many seem to walk run into.
> 
> I'm really curious to see how this plays out. Are they making a statement? Is this MR showing the LPC what he thinks about being moved out of the VCDS position?
> Or will we see a now-standard "I apologize, I had _no idea_ how this would look..... I promise to do better" statement.


You know...

As I wrote that post I had a voice in the back of my head the entire time basically chuckling at me, saying “Dude, come on... it common sense was being used, none of this nonsense would have happened in the first place.”

But nope, my fingers just kept on typin’ 🥴


I would HOPE that given the spotlight and the situation that caused the spotlight, they would be smart enough to recognize a really bad idea when they see one.  (Damn little voice is back...)

I keep assuming the broad ‘they’ reason the same way we do.  And I have to keep reminding myself that they don’t.


----------



## Loachman

Jarnhamar said:


> Having faith in the system and that people are doing their jobs thoroughly & objectively contributed to the situation the CAF is in.



Although many, if not most (and I suspect the latter), *do* seem to do their jobs thoroughly and objectively.


Jarnhamar said:


> Vance allegedly said he owns the CFNIS.  Relationships extend past retirement after all.



And many of the investigators may very well take his claim as a challenge, and do their utmost to prove him wrong.


----------



## TCM621

SupersonicMax said:


> Well, second scandal this week....
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/senior-military-leaders-golf-former-top-soldier-under-investigation-1.6064060


This is a complete non story. I don't golf but I have played basketball with people who have been to prison to attempted murder, assault, drug trafficking, etc. In the context of the game I care about their jumper not their morals. In this case, Vance isn't a criminal or even a suspected criminal, he is a guy who slept with a subordinate (well, subordinates) as part of a consensual relationship. 

So they went golfing with Vance, big deal. Maybe is a good golf partner, maybe he was the 10 guy on the list  they called to make their foursome. It wasn't like they invited Russel Williams on a day pass.


----------



## hattrick72

Jarnhamar said:


> Having faith in the system and that people are doing their jobs thoroughly & objectively contributed to the situation the CAF is in.
> 
> Vance allegedly said he owns the CFNIS.  Relationships extend past retirement after all.
> 
> 
> I think we assume a lot of senior officers would recognize common sense and avoid the various pitfalls many seem to walk run into.
> 
> I'm really curious to see how this plays out. Are they making a statement? Is this MR showing the LPC what he thinks about being moved out of the VCDS position?
> Or will we see a now-standard "I apologize, I had _no idea_ how this would look..... I promise to do better" statement.


If I was him, at the end of my career, my answer would be, "Are you seriously asking if I have breached an ethical code when the current PM had a non-disclosure agreement with a former highschool student, security assaulted a reporter, changed laws to help rich friends........" etc. etc.


----------



## McG

TCM621 said:


> Vance isn't a criminal or even a suspected criminal, he is a guy who slept with a subordinate (well, subordinates) as part of a consensual relationship.


Was it consensual? Or maybe (if only some of the times) coerced? That question is really what the investigation is about, is it not?


----------



## McG

hattrick72 said:


> If I was him, at the end of my career, my answer would be, "Are you seriously asking if I have breached an ethical code when the current PM had a non-disclosure agreement with a former highschool student, security assaulted a reporter, changed laws to help rich friends........" etc. etc.


A red herring defence is not a defence.


----------



## hattrick72

McG said:


> A red herring defence is not a defence.


Not a defense, just an FU


----------



## Good2Golf

2021 may turn out to be a good year for Marie Henein…and her potential new client(s)…we’ll see how far the virtuous Sajjan goes following the PM & Co.’s will…


----------



## SeaKingTacco

trigger324 said:


> I doubt the topic of discussion was about how retirement has been treating him or how well their rounds were going.


Since when does the Liberal Party or their apparatchiks get to approve what happens in a private discussion or even who can play golf with whom?

Think about the context of your statement. Take your time and re-read the Canadian Charter of Rights, too.


----------



## trigger324

The hell’s this round of golf got to do with the Liberal Party or the Charter of Rights & Freedoms?


----------



## OldSolduer

trigger324 said:


> I doubt the topic of discussion was about how retirement has been treating him or how well their rounds were going.


It doesn’t matter what the topic was. It’s a game of golf ffs.


----------



## OldSolduer

trigger324 said:


> The hell’s this round of golf got to do with the Liberal Party or the Charter of Rights & Freedoms?


Because they are driving this bus that some of your leaders are being tossed under.


----------



## trigger324

OldSolduer said:


> It doesn’t matter what the topic was. It’s a game of golf ffs.


I’ll take conflict of interest for $1000, Alex


----------



## SeaKingTacco

trigger324 said:


> I’ll take conflict of interest for $1000, Alex


Because Rouleau is the outgoing VCDS? Is that your concern?

What about Baines as CRCN?


----------



## trigger324

SeaKingTacco said:


> Because Rouleau is the outgoing VCDS? Is that your concern?
> 
> What about Baines as CRCN?


“Outgoing” gets a free pass? I’m sure he’s turning over to someone


----------



## SupersonicMax

SeaKingTacco said:


> Because Rouleau is the outgoing VCDS? Is that your concern?
> 
> What about Baines as CRCN?


CRCN isn’t in the NIS’ CoC.  VCDS is.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

trigger324 said:


> “Outgoing” gets a free pass? I’m sure he’s turning over to someone


Alright, I can concede that. Do you suppose the VCDS is even privy to CFNIS investigations?


----------



## trigger324

SeaKingTacco said:


> Alright, I can concede that. Do you suppose the VCDS is even privy to CFNIS investigations?


I think anything’s possible, if they want it to be. I mean the other guy said he owned the CFNIS and was untouchable. In that chain of command, I’d be leery.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

trigger324 said:


> I think anything’s possible, if they want it to be. I mean the other guy said he owned the CFNIS and was untouchable. In that chain of command, I’d be leery.


I think Vance was blowing hard on that point (as CDS). I have never known an MP to give up an investigation. Usually, it is quite the opposite.


----------



## brihard

SeaKingTacco said:


> Since when does the Liberal Party or their apparatchiks get to approve what happens in a private discussion or even who can play golf with whom?
> 
> Think about the context of your statement. Take your time and re-read the Canadian Charter of Rights, too.


Out of curiosity, what’s your Charter argument on this one? I’m curious about where you’re going with that.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

brihard said:


> Out of curiosity, what’s your Charter argument on this one? I’m curious about where you’re going with that.


Assembly and association.

I am pulling my horns in a bit, as I had assumed in the flurry of Senior Officer moves, he had already relinquished VCDS to Gen Allen and was now special advisor the CDS.


----------



## dapaterson

If "RolledSleeves47@aol.com" wants to email or Zoom or even make an old school phone call to check in on how "RandyRoyalJon@hotmail.com" is doing, that's fine.  A public outing, on the other hand, provides a poor impression, particularly if someone has previously been alleged to have stated that he controlled the MPs and NIS.


----------



## SupersonicMax

SeaKingTacco said:


> Assembly and association.
> 
> I am pulling my horns in a bit, as I had assumed in the flurry of Senior Officer moves, he had already relinquished VCDS to Gen Allen and was now special advisor the CDS.


If a Liberal Minister attends a conservative rally, that person will likely lose their ministry and get punted from the liberal party. There are expectations that come with each and every job.  The fact that the golf course was emptied for them is even more suspicious...


----------



## trigger324

SeaKingTacco said:


> Assembly and association.
> 
> I am pulling my horns in a bit, as I had assumed in the flurry of Senior Officer moves, he had already relinquished VCDS to Gen Allen and was now special advisor the CDS.


And I was getting at the timing of this round with the involved parties. I couldn’t agree more around the right to assemble and associate, but these days? The optics? They couldn’t have been more oblivious unless they were trying to


----------



## SeaKingTacco

trigger324 said:


> And I was getting at the timing of this round with the involved parties. I couldn’t agree more around the right to assemble and associate, but these days? The optics? They couldn’t have been more oblivious unless they were trying to


None of this makes any sense. We are not talking about stupid people here. They “get” the Ottawa environment and current politics.


----------



## OldSolduer

trigger324 said:


> “Outgoing” gets a free pass? I’m sure he’s turning over to someone


No one is getting a free pass. They have been tried in the court of public opinion and all found guilty


----------



## SupersonicMax

SeaKingTacco said:


> None of this makes any sense. We are not talking about stupid people here. They “get” the Ottawa environment and current politics.


And they attempted to hide Vance’s presence.  Yes, they know about the optics and tried to skew the optics.


----------



## OldSolduer

SeaKingTacco said:


> None of this makes any sense. We are not talking about stupid people here. They “get” the Ottawa environment and current politics.


Maybe a palace revolt by the Generals? Maybe some really shitty stuff the PMO has done?


----------



## trigger324

SeaKingTacco said:


> None of this makes any sense. We are not talking about stupid people here. They “get” the Ottawa environment and current politics.


So why do you think this round of golf really may have taken place, right about now? Just three guys getting together for a random round on an empty course?


----------



## trigger324

OldSolduer said:


> No one is getting a free pass. They have been tried in the court of public opinion and all found guilty


Re-read the dialogue back there, please


----------



## OldSolduer

trigger324 said:


> Re-read the dialogue back there, please


Your point?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

trigger324 said:


> So why do you think this round of golf really may have taken place, right about now? Just three guys getting together for a random round on an empty course?


Nope. I doubt that. But then again- who knows besides those three?


----------



## trigger324

I was going to ask you the same. Do I really have to explain it? SKT made mention of the _outgoing _VCDS, and I clarified. You missed the point so I asked you to re-read


----------



## OldSolduer

trigger324 said:


> I was going to ask you the same? Do I really have to explain it? SKT made mention of the _outgoing _VCDS, and I clarified. You missed the point so I asked you to re-read


Roger got it now.


----------



## CBH99

daftandbarmy said:


> There, FTFY.
> 
> Might be a good idea to deepen and broaden the gene pool if we can.


But why?  

Isn’t it great when mom & dad are also brother and sister?  Inbreeding has never had any sort of negative or odd consequences before... everybody is still treated normally.  Right?

Why deepen the senior leadership gene pool if we don’t have to?  Things are fine, everything is fine.  

< if only I knew how to insert a gif >


(PS - yes, agreed.  Let’s give some folks an opportunity to shine, and change things up at the top.)


----------



## FJAG

SeaKingTacco said:


> Alright, I can concede that. Do you suppose the VCDS is even privy to CFNIS investigations?





trigger324 said:


> I think anything’s possible, if they want it to be. I mean the other guy said he owned the CFNIS and was untouchable. In that chain of command, I’d be leery.



The VCDS could be privy if the PM decides that he ought to be informed.

On the other hand the "other guy" never "owned" CFNIS. (We only have an allegation he even said that)

Under s18.5 of the NDA:


> *18.4* The Provost Marshal’s responsibilities include
> (a) investigations conducted by any unit or other element under his or her command; ....





> General supervision
> *18.5* (1) The Provost Marshal acts under the general supervision of the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff in respect of the responsibilities described in paragraphs 18.4(a) to (d).





> General instructions or guidelines
> (2) The Vice Chief of the Defence Staff may issue general instructions or guidelines in writing in respect of the responsibilities described in paragraphs 18.4(a) to (d). The Provost Marshal shall ensure that they are available to the public.





> Specific instructions or guidelines
> (3) The Vice Chief of the Defence Staff may issue instructions or guidelines in writing in respect of a particular investigation.





> Availability to public
> (4) The Provost Marshal shall ensure that instructions and guidelines issued under subsection (3) are available to the public.





> Exception
> (5) Subsection (4) does not apply in respect of an instruction or guideline, or of a part of one, if the Provost Marshal considers that it would not be in the best interests of the administration of justice for the instruction or guideline, or that part of it, to be available to the public.


This is similar to the authority of the JAG with respect to the DMP with one glaring exception. The JAG must provide a copy of every instruction or guideline made under this section to the MND even if withheld from the public under (5).

Essentially there is a high degree of independence in the DMP and PM but not an absolute one and any "interference" if you will needs to be made public. Note in section (5) that the option to withhold such a guideline rests with the PM and NOT with the VCDS. 

These are very subtle points which do protect the justice system (both investigative and prosecutorial from command) interference by requiring any directions or guidance to be in writing and made public BUT one would expect many people simply won't see it that way.

🍻


----------



## Good2Golf

SupersonicMax said:


> And they attempted to hide Vance’s presence.  Yes, they know about the optics and tried to skew the optics.


So say…


> *One source* told The Globe that the Hylands Golf and Country Club was cleared of other golfers so the three men could play on the course without anyone noticing the presence of Gen. Vance.



Ah yes…a source…speaking anonymously no doubt…just says the course ‘was cleared’…leaving the ‘hanging chad’ implication that it was explicitly one of those three men who asked that the course be cleared.  Is this a known fact?  

It will be interesting to see the facts come out as to who knew what about whom doing what with whomever else, whenever and wherever…


----------



## coolintheshade

Kilted said:


> Why does all of this always come out late at night?


Ahahahaha.....it's clandestine cos Rouleau (ex SOF) is involved this time. LOL


----------



## coolintheshade

trigger324 said:


> I’ll take conflict of interest for $1000, Alex


Ahahaha...what do you call a senior officer still in uniform, hanging out with an outsed CDS accused of sexual harassment, lying, and claiming to 'own the MP'?


----------



## coolintheshade

SeaKingTacco said:


> Assembly and association.
> 
> I am pulling my horns in a bit, as I had assumed in the flurry of Senior Officer moves, he had already relinquished VCDS to Gen Allen and was now special advisor the CDS.


He won't be doing any 'special advising' to the A/CDS after this news break...as the optics is definitely going to look bad, especially with the media now all over this.


----------



## OldTanker

There is something rotten in the State of Denmark. These two LGens are publicly thumbing their noses at the government. To what end? It's one thing to lose your career for a 30-year-old indiscretion, another to be openly and collectively indiscreet as serving 3-stars. Unless of course it was simply an innocent game of golf and they are totally gormless, which opens up another set of questions. I wonder who won? Watch and shoot.


----------



## coolintheshade

OldTanker said:


> There is something rotten in the State of Denmark. These two LGens are publicly thumbing their noses at the government. To what end? It's one thing to lose your career for a 30-year-old indiscretion, another to be openly and collectively indiscreet as serving 3-stars. Unless of course it was simply an innocent game of golf and they are totally gormless, which opens up another set of questions. I wonder who won? Watch and shoot.


Leave Denmark out of this....the nation had a scare yesterday at the Euro championship when their star player Erikssen had a cardiac arrest, but seems to be OK. Anyhoo...reckon Vance had a hole in one? LOL


----------



## daftandbarmy

CBH99 said:


> But why?
> 
> Isn’t it great when mom & dad are also brother and sister?  Inbreeding has never had any sort of negative or odd consequences before... everybody is still treated normally.  Right?
> 
> Why deepen the senior leadership gene pool if we don’t have to?  Things are fine, everything is fine.
> 
> < if only I knew how to insert a gif >
> 
> 
> (PS - yes, agreed.  Let’s give some folks an opportunity to shine, and change things up at the top.)


----------



## coolintheshade

daftandbarmy said:


>


----------



## CBH99

Good2Golf said:


> So say…
> 
> 
> Ah yes…a source…speaking anonymously no doubt…just says the course ‘was cleared’…leaving the ‘hanging chad’ implication that it was explicitly one of those three men who asked that the course be cleared.  Is this a known fact?
> 
> It will be interesting to see the facts come out as to who knew what about whom doing what with whomever else, whenever and wherever…


It could have also been cleared for security reasons?  🤷‍♂️ 

I have no idea either way.  But considering how high profile they all are, the top brass of the CAF - perhaps it was cleared as a security measure, given the focus on Vance in the media?


----------



## Good2Golf

Well, I for one won’t be surprised if things don’t turn out to be 100% the way the story was formed and reported.


----------



## TCM621

McG said:


> Was it consensual? Or maybe (if only some of the times) coerced? That question is really what the investigation is about, is it not?


Unless I missed something, there aren't even claims of coercion from the women involved. If there was a claim that he coerced them by threatening their career, I could see your point. It seems like Vance was a p***y hound and found willing partners among his subordinates. It was wrong for a lot of reasons but there hasn't been any indication of criminal behaviour alleged or proven. 

Again, did I miss a pretty major development here? I have friends that have done stupid and illegal shit, as I said I have played sports with convicted criminals many times, and I don't just decide they don't exist because they did something wrong. He slept with a bunch of subordinates, it should have disqualified him from the job as CDS, and especially the head of Op Honour, but not a few hours on the links.


----------



## coolintheshade

TCM621 said:


> Unless I missed something, there aren't even claims of coercion from the women involved. If there was a claim that he coerced them by threatening their career, I could see your point. It seems like Vance was a p***y hound and found willing partners among his subordinates. It was wrong for a lot of reasons but there hasn't been any indication of criminal behaviour alleged or proven.
> 
> Again, did I miss a pretty major development here? I have friends that have done stupid and illegal shit, as I said I have played sports with convicted criminals many times, and I don't just decide they don't exist because they did something wrong. He slept with a bunch of subordinates, it should have disqualified him from the job as CDS, and especially the head of Op Honour, but not a few hours on the links.


You're what you decide to surround yourself with i.e. birds of the same feathers flock together. I mean would you hang around with pedophiles/nazis/racists/spouse abusers, or is this different? You claim to associate with convicted criminals. Asking for a friend


----------



## Weinie

coolintheshade said:


> You're what you decide to surround yourself with i.e. birds of the same feathers flock together. *I mean would you hang around with pedophiles/nazis/racists/spouse abusers, or is this different? You claim to associate with convicted criminals. Asking for a friend*


And are you making that leap in severity of association? Asking for a friend also.


----------



## CBH99

coolintheshade said:


> You're what you decide to surround yourself with i.e. birds of the same feathers flock together. I mean would you hang around with pedophiles/nazis/racists/spouse abusers, or is this different? You claim to associate with convicted criminals. Asking for a friend


He said he plays sports with some people who have criminal records.  (Could be a DUI, bar fight from youth, etc.)  He didn't say he hangs out with pedophiles or neo-nazis.  🤦‍♂️ 

Come on man.  Really?


----------



## ModlrMike

Good show. You managed to introduce a straw-man and Godwin in the same post.


----------



## CBH99

TCM621 said:


> Unless I missed something, there aren't even claims of coercion from the women involved. If there was a claim that he coerced them by threatening their career, I could see your point. It seems like Vance was a p***y hound and found willing partners among his subordinates. It was wrong for a lot of reasons but there hasn't been any indication of criminal behaviour alleged or proven.
> 
> Again, did I miss a pretty major development here? I have friends that have done stupid and illegal shit, as I said I have played sports with convicted criminals many times, and I don't just decide they don't exist because they did something wrong. He slept with a bunch of subordinates, it should have disqualified him from the job as CDS, and especially the head of Op Honour, but not a few hours on the links.


Nope.  You didn't miss any major developments.

One complained about an e-mail sent almost 10 years ago, where he apparently tested the waters by suggesting they attend a creepy clothing optional resort, which she seemed to have ignored and brushed off as a joke.  Doesn't seem to be any repeated incidents.  (Ofcourse, waiting on release like everybody else.)   Was it appropriate?  No.  She ignored it, and he didn't continue to send similar things after.  

She also said she complained following the appropriate channels, hoping it would be handled discreetly, and it would be considered when OP Honour leadership was being reviewed.  Seems like a bunch of people tried to pass it off on each other - which resulted in this media attention now.  Had various people just done their jobs instead of playing hot potato, it would have been dealt with ages ago.



The other complainant just infuriates me to be honest.  She may be a great person, great personality, etc - but in regards to this specific issue - I personally think she's a terrible role model for other women in the CAF who may need to handle a similar situation down the road.  (Or are now.)  I won't vent right now, but she just pisses me off in such an ugly way.  (*When it comes to sexual misconduct or sexual assault, I would never victim blame.*  In this case, however, she should be taking some accountability for their consensual, mutual, on-and-off again affair...unless I missed something big?)


----------



## OldTanker

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1404244170903068676


----------



## daftandbarmy

OldTanker said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1404244170903068676




“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”

― George Orwell, 1984


----------



## Jarnhamar

Jarnhamar said:


> * Or will we see a now-standard "I apologize,  I had no idea how this would look ..... I promise to do better" statement.*



lol

That's one down.


----------



## McG

TCM621 said:


> Unless I missed something, there aren't even claims of coercion from the women involved.





CBH99 said:


> Nope. You didn't miss any major developments.


So, you must have missed this: 








						Maj. Kellie Brennan tells MPs Vance said he was ‘untouchable,’ fathered 2 of her kids - National | Globalnews.ca
					

Brennan is one of the women at the heart of allegations first reported by Global News in February about former chief of the defence staff Gen. Jonathan Vance.




					globalnews.ca
				



Brennan claims there were threats of consequences, though not of physical violence, and she claims that she felt she could not say “no”


----------



## Navy_Pete

Jarnhamar said:


> lol
> 
> That's one down.








I don't get it, how did they think this would go down? It's not like they aren't all really well recognized in the NCR to start with. Vance is a serial adulterer who basically just undermined the entire OP Honor program while abusing his authority over an extended period of time having inappropriate personal relationships with a subordinate. How else did they think it would be taken when they are publically hanging out with him? Even if the investigation doesn't find anything criminal, there is more than enough for pretty much anyone in uniform to be drummed out under an AR.

If he's your winger just have him over for a bbq or something. They are public figures, subject to public scrutiny. This send a message of public support for Vance, and just further reinforces the perception (reality?) that the GOFOs are a weird inner circle that are detached from reality. I don't get it. These are really smart people, and have been managing their public image for years.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Rant time

For those of who have operational time, does it seem odd that a combat veteran would reach out to another to see how they are doing?  If they were under stress?  Send up the count but only for your people|?  What the actual fuck?

We are all of us soldiers et al

Rant off.. Carry on with the business of the press, which is the character assassinations of good people, to sell a fucking click bait.


----------



## SupersonicMax

PPCLI Guy said:


> Rant time
> 
> For those of who have operational time, does it seem odd that a combat veteran would reach out to another to see how they are doing?  If they were under stress?  Send up the count but only for your people|?  What the actual fuck?
> 
> We are all of us soldiers et al
> 
> Rant off.. Carry on with the business of the press, which is the character assassinations of good people, to sell a fucking click bait.


If you believe that sexual misconduct allegations and the associated institutional shortfalls are click bait, you are (were) part of the problem.  Going golfing with buddies is probably fine. But when there is a clear conflict of interest, you can’t do that. On top of that, it was (allegedly) under wraps, trying to conceal Vance’s presence.  Doing so jeopardized even more the very little credibility the CAF has left when it comes to policing itself...  People that were seen as good men before perhaps were not so good after all.


----------



## ballz

PPCLI Guy said:


> Rant time
> 
> For those of who have operational time, does it seem odd that a combat veteran would reach out to another to see how they are doing?  If they were under stress?  Send up the count but only for your people|?  What the actual fuck?
> 
> We are all of us soldiers et al
> 
> Rant off.. Carry on with the business of the press, which is the character assassinations of good people, to sell a fucking click bait.



Particularly when it comes to Rouleau, I can't say your sentiment resonates with me in anyway. In fact I think it's a bit out of touch. Rouleau should definitely have abstained, period. There's a lot of big talk about how the needs of the service and the team is bigger than yourself. That's easy to parrot at town halls with some buzzwords, now they need to put their money where their mouth is and they can't. Apparently it's even indignant to ask that of them now??

Let's say you're a Cpl, and there's a UDI ongoing in your unit because it's alleged that your Pl WO mistreated his subordinates in manner that may contravene the NDA. How much faith do you think the troops are going to have, both in the process/procedures themselves, and in the people in charge of those processes/procedures (i.e. unit leadership), if they know the Pl WO is out golfing with the RSM while the investigation goes on?

Is it not a reasonable expectation that the RSM doesn't go golfing with the guy at the Oromocto Golf Club which is full of the unit's troops at every hole, while the UDI is ongoing?

The fact that the RSM and WO fought in Afghanistan together actually doesn't help matters when it comes to accountability/transparency/having faith that things will be handled well, but at least that part we can say hand-on-heart is an unavoidable part of the business, we're always going to have that type of relationship/friendship existing.... but at least the RSM could show even the mildest amount of restraint and not go golfing with him at the Oromocto golf club where every can see it happening, because the RSM should know it's bad enough a WO is being investigated for this, the troops need to have confidence the unit leadership is handling it correctly and not sweeping it under the rug _as they often expect because that's what they see happen so often._

Yeah, sure, technically the CSM is doing the UDI and the RSM has nothing to do with it, hell he's not even in the Chain of Command.... "don't worry Cpl Bloggins, you've got nothing to worry about, this is all being handled with the utmost professionalism, just look at our previous track record, we're always really professional when we do these things, nothing to worry about!"

I'm sure, like the WO, Jon Vance has other battle buddies. Hell, maybe the RSM can even tell someone else to make sure someone checks in with him, without personally doing it himself. I think that'd be a fair play. I'm sure there's lots of retired people still buddy-buddy with Vance that he didn't need Rouleau of all the f**king people he could pick from.


----------



## daftandbarmy

PPCLI Guy said:


> Rant time
> 
> For those of who have operational time, does it seem odd that a combat veteran would reach out to another to see how they are doing?  If they were under stress?  Send up the count but only for your people|?  What the actual fuck?
> 
> We are all of us soldiers et al
> 
> Rant off.. Carry on with the business of the press, which is the character assassinations of good people, to sell a fucking click bait.



As Adjt I once had to deal with two Officers, friends, who were accused of sexual assault. 

We had served together on operational tours, partied on weekends, lived in the mess together etc. 

During the investigation we had no contact with each other at all. No one told us to do that. It just made sense and seemed to serve the needs of the case. We all understood that.

Once the case was cleared up (they were exonerated) things went back to normal. No hard feelings.

All three of us were Captains, aged between about 27 and 29 years at the time.

We figured it out. 

It's just too bad that a bunch of the most senior Officers in the CAF couldn't have done the same.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Navy_Pete said:


> I don't get it. These are really smart people, and have been managing their public image for years.



I have seen this comment a few times in this thread, not by you; you're just the last one to say it. 

Are they really that smart ?  There seems to be some problem in the ethical decision making capabilities of our senior leadership.


----------



## Remius

Halifax Tar said:


> I have seen this comment a few times in this thread, not by you; you're just the last one to say it.
> 
> Are they really that smart ?  There seems to be some problem in the ethical decision making capabilities of our senior leadership.


I think a lot of smart people get to a point where they think they are untouchable or that something seems minor to them that it must be minor for anyone else.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Remius said:


> I think a lot of smart people get to a point where they think they are untouchable or that something seems minor to them that it must be minor for anyone else.


So smart they get stupid ?


----------



## Remius

Honestly, I think this whole thing was a serious lack of judgment.  If these guys had just planned a normal game on some course somewhere else this would still have have made the news I’m sure of it.  But the fact that it seems like attempts were made to conceal it is what gives this story more legs.

A simple bbq at someone’s home might have sufficed but I doubt even that would have been seen in a good light (but at least it had a smaller chance of making the news).  

Given the current climate I think these two have now had a career stoppage.  Unfortunately the current climate does not give due process.  But those two should have known better.  There is a bounty on GOFOs.  I doubt they were unaware of that and should have been extra cautious if not ridiculously cautious about anything they do.  

when I was MCpl teaching on course, after all that SHARP training in the nineties I changed my habits with recruits.  Not because I was doing anything wrong but because the perception might be viewed that way.  Especially with female recruits.  Where once I might have adjusted a beret or gently pushed an arm in tighter to the body to correct the position of attention before I stopped completely doing that and just telling them.  Even then as young MCPl I knew that even if what I was doing was completely innocent  it could be perceived the wrong way.   So given the climate I was being extra diligent. 

If a MCpl can figure that out why can’t two of our top generals?


----------



## Remius

Halifax Tar said:


> So smart they get stupid ?


Or careless.


----------



## gryphonv

The part i'm confused about is this event would of been on their schedules for some time. People around them would of known in advance that the golfing event was planned and with who it was planned.

I highly doubt none of their subordinates would of mentioned  the bad optics of this. I've worked under Vice Admiral Baines when he was Esquimalt's Base Commander. I have tremendous respect for this guy, but I also know his schedule is well planned out for weeks if not month's in advance.

I guess it is possible that nobody raised an issue with it before the event. But I highly doubt it.


----------



## CBH99

McG said:


> So, you must have missed this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maj. Kellie Brennan tells MPs Vance said he was ‘untouchable,’ fathered 2 of her kids - National | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> Brennan is one of the women at the heart of allegations first reported by Global News in February about former chief of the defence staff Gen. Jonathan Vance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brennan claims there were threats of consequences, though not of physical violence, and she claims that she felt she could not say “no”


I just want to be sure I am clear about my position on this specific matter.  I realize that unless someone is randomly reading this thread from several pages ago, it is worth repeating and clarifying.

I fully support Maj. Brennan in coming forwards with her complaints, and I genuinely support a very thorough investigation to determine the facts.  If those facts support the allegations against Vance, then I believe Vance should be handled accordingly.  *I personally believe that if someone in such a powerful position politically, is supposed to be a solid role model for other leaders - AND is the head honcho of Op. Honour - then he should be treated perhaps more harshly than others.  I cannot stress enough how much I truly appreciate and value individuals who lead from the front, by example, and own up to mistakes - the older I get, the more I appreciate those qualities.

I am very much inclined to support someone who comes forwards & reports misconduct.  I am also in no way, shape, or form in a position to question or comment on any *specifics* until the results of the investigations are released to the public.  I'm in the same boat as everybody else here, and have access to the same info.

I am not attempting to victim blame in the slightest.  And my opinion is very much open to being changed on the matter, I am very much trying to take the approach of 'wait and see what comes out in the investigation'.  However, only based on what she has said publically so far, I do find myself getting frustrated with her statements.  Just facepalm type of reaction.  When the details come out, perhaps that will no longer be the case.


daftandbarmy said:


> As Adjt I once had to deal with two Officers, friends, who were accused of sexual assault.
> 
> We had served together on operational tours, partied on weekends, lived in the mess together etc.
> 
> During the investigation we had no contact with each other at all. No one told us to do that. It just made sense and seemed to serve the needs of the case. We all understood that.
> 
> Once the case was cleared up (they were exonerated) things went back to normal. No hard feelings.
> 
> All three of us were Captains, aged between about 27 and 29 years at the time.
> 
> We figured it out.
> 
> It's just too bad that a bunch of the most senior Officers in the CAF couldn't have done the same.


A few years back, I actually had a complaint filed against me and an investigation was initiated.  People who I had been chatting with daily for a few years, instantly yet politely distanced themselves from me.  I understood why, and just went with things.

I was exonerated, and like you said, things went back to normal pretty quickly afterwards.  I was 28yo at the time.  

(An individual who had been charged with some financial crimes and was going through court processes initiated a complaint, hoping they could use the fact that I was under investigation to help get them off the hook come trial.)

Like you said, nobody really discussed it.  It was understood all around.  Everybody was professional, and when things were all said & done, life went back to normal.  


It really is a shame that some good officers are going to have their proud careers end on a negative note, due to the behaviour of their colleagues.  


gryphonv said:


> The part i'm confused about is this event would of been on their schedules for some time. People around them would of known in advance that the golfing event was planned and with who it was planned.
> 
> I highly doubt none of their subordinates would of mentioned  the bad optics of this. I've worked under Vice Admiral Baines when he was Esquimalt's Base Commander. I have tremendous respect for this guy, but I also know his schedule is well planned out for weeks if not month's in advance.
> 
> I guess it is possible that nobody raised an issue with it before the event. But I highly doubt it.


Good point.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Remius said:


> Honestly, I think this whole thing was a serious lack of judgment.  If these guys had just planned a normal game on some course somewhere else this would still have have made the news I’m sure of it.  But the fact that it seems like attempts were made to conceal it is what gives this story more legs.


People don't attempt to conceal something for no reason.  They knew they didn't want to be seen together for some reason.  Innocuous or not, talk about a bonehead move.

My 8 year old try's to hide things under her bed, I expect more of CAF leadership...


----------



## CBH99

Wowa... not sure how that happened with my posts.  Sorry.  Should have been 2 very distinct posts separated by a few hours 🤦‍♂️


----------



## gryphonv

Halifax Tar said:


> People don't attempt to conceal something for no reason.  They knew they didn't want to be seen together for some reason.  Innocuous or not, talk about a bonehead move.
> 
> My 8 year old try's to hide things under her bed, I expect more of CAF leadership...


Maybe, they wanted it to be seen by certain people?


----------



## Remius

Halifax Tar said:


> People don't attempt to conceal something for no reason.  They knew they didn't want to be seen together for some reason.  Innocuous or not, talk about a bonehead move.
> 
> My 8 year old try's to hide things under her bed, I expect more of CAF leadership...


Agreed.  But we don’t know that for sure.  It sure looks that way though…


----------



## Remius

gryphonv said:


> Maybe, they wanted it to be seen by certain people?


Far easier ways to do that.  This wasn’t some calculated strategy.  They effed up.


----------



## shawn5o

Pikache said:


> Do the author a favour and post the link and a snippet of the article. He might get a few more bucks from the clicks going to his site.


Hi Pikache
I'm not sure what you saying - the link is there


----------



## shawn5o

Pikache said:


> You posting the entire article here doesnt give Spencer Fernando visits to his website. People visiting his website might earn him some money through site traffic/ad revenue.
> 
> It's a common courtesy when you want to post someone's article.


Boy am I ever late in replying.

Again the ink is there -


Pikache said:


> You posting the entire article here doesnt give Spencer Fernando visits to his website. People visiting his website might earn him some money through site traffic/ad revenue.
> 
> It's a common courtesy when you want to post someone's article.


WTF???

Perhaps your browser doesn't show the link. I'm reposting it and it shows up on my browser -

*Canada’s Military Has Become A Shambles*

SPENCER FERNANDO APRIL 12, 2021

Decades of bipartisan neglect, and now a Liberal government simultaneously obsessed with political correctness and political cover-ups is betraying the once-proud legacy of the Canadian Armed Forces.






Canada's Military Has Become A Shambles​Decades of bipartisan neglect, and now a Liberal government simultaneously obsessed with political correctness and political cover-ups is betraying the once-proud legacy of the Canadian Armed Forces. Nobody likes to say this about the Canadian Armed Forces, but the sad reality is that it has...



spencerfernando.com
☝️

Nobody likes to say this about the Canadian Armed Forces, but the sad reality is that it has become a shambles.


----------



## Underway

Halifax Tar said:


> People don't attempt to conceal something for no reason.  They knew they didn't want to be seen together for some reason.  Innocuous or not, talk about a bonehead move.
> 
> My 8 year old try's to hide things under her bed, I expect more of CAF leadership...


I am completely with you HT.  I almost threw my coffee across the room in frustration when I found out. As they say on Letterkenny  "Figuritout!"


----------



## shawn5o

daftandbarmy said:


> Yeah, about all those fires and floods and, oh yeah, the whole COVID response thing in Quebec etc...
> 
> It's easy to join the dog pile. It's harder to call BS when the multitudes seem to be on the same bandwagon


Hey d&d

I hope you realize those are not my words


----------



## daftandbarmy

Remius said:


> Honestly, I think this whole thing was a serious lack of judgment.  If these guys had just planned a normal game on some course somewhere else this would still have have made the news I’m sure of it.  But the fact that it seems like attempts were made to conceal it is what gives this story more legs.
> 
> A simple bbq at someone’s home might have sufficed but I doubt even that would have been seen in a good light (but at least it had a smaller chance of making the news).
> 
> Given the current climate I think these two have now had a career stoppage.  Unfortunately the current climate does not give due process.  But those two should have known better.  There is a bounty on GOFOs.  I doubt they were unaware of that and should have been extra cautious if not ridiculously cautious about anything they do.
> 
> when I was MCpl teaching on course, after all that SHARP training in the nineties I changed my habits with recruits.  Not because I was doing anything wrong but because the perception might be viewed that way.  Especially with female recruits.  Where once I might have adjusted a beret or gently pushed an arm in tighter to the body to correct the position of attention before I stopped completely doing that and just telling them.  Even then as young MCPl I knew that even if what I was doing was completely innocent  it could be perceived the wrong way.   So given the climate I was being extra diligent.
> 
> If a MCpl can figure that out why can’t two of our top generals?


----------



## daftandbarmy

shawn5o said:


> Hey d&d
> 
> I hope you realize those are not my words


My bad!


----------



## shawn5o

dimsum said:


> Oh, I'd say around May/June (maybe July?) when the CAF blew the whistle on treatment in Long Term Care homes.  That's not even a year ago.
> 
> Or when the CAF went to dig out Newfoundland during the last big snowstorm.
> Or any OP LENTUS mission, really.
> Or any Search and Rescue-related articles (mind you it's generally not national news, just local to the areas those squadrons operate).


Jesus

Doesn't anyone read full articles anymore. Those are the authors views


----------



## shawn5o

Loachman said:


> Post the URL along with the article (or a portion thereof), in this case Canada's Military Has Become A Shambles


I did. I don't know what is going on but the link shows up on my browser.


----------



## shawn5o

Ok folks - I hope the links show up in this article from CBC



> *Navy commander apologizes for golfing with former chief of defence staff under military police investigation*
> 
> _Vice-Admiral Craig Baines says he fully accepts responsibility for his actions_
> 
> Ashley Burke · CBC News · Posted: Jun 13, 2021 11:20 PM ET | Last Updated: 3 hours ago
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/navy-commander-apologizes-for-golfing-with-former-cds-vance-1.6064567
> 
> 
> 
> The commander of the Royal Canadian Navy has publicly apologized for golfing with former top soldier, retired general Jonathan Vance, who is under a military police investigation over allegations of inappropriate behaviour with female subordinates.
> 
> Vice-Admiral Craig Baines issued a written statement Sunday night addressed to all military members and national defence public servants saying he was sorry for his conduct.
> 
> Baines confirmed he golfed with Vance and military's second-in-command, Lt.-Gen Mike Rouleau, on June 2 in Ottawa.
> 
> "I fully accept responsibility and accountability for not understanding how such a public display of support sends the wrong signal as to my commitment to lead in resolving our systemic cultural and misconduct issues," Baines wrote.
> 
> "For this, I sincerely apologize."


More at link above

I don't get it. If a person who claims he is innocent then why should he act like he's guilty or showing penance for alleged wrongdoing.

Or is this another farce as Vice-Admiral Mark Norman faced?


----------



## CBH99

shawn5o said:


> Boy am I ever late in replying.
> 
> Again the ink is there -
> 
> WTF???
> 
> Perhaps your browser doesn't show the link. I'm reposting it and it shows up on my browser -
> 
> *Canada’s Military Has Become A Shambles*
> 
> SPENCER FERNANDO APRIL 12, 2021
> 
> Decades of bipartisan neglect, and now a Liberal government simultaneously obsessed with political correctness and political cover-ups is betraying the once-proud legacy of the Canadian Armed Forces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canada's Military Has Become A Shambles​Decades of bipartisan neglect, and now a Liberal government simultaneously obsessed with political correctness and political cover-ups is betraying the once-proud legacy of the Canadian Armed Forces. Nobody likes to say this about the Canadian Armed Forces, but the sad reality is that it has...
> 
> 
> 
> spencerfernando.com
> 
> 
> Nobody likes to say this about the Canadian Armed Forces, but the sad reality is that it has become a shambles.


I wouldn’t go that far.  

But morale is down, senior leadership is lacking in almost all meaningful ways, our MND is performing about as well as someone else without a military background/deployment experience would be, and our PM seems to actually pursue ideas which harm our national interests.  

It is easy to pile on the bandwagon during times like these.  Especially when these times are a result of nonsense that shouldn’t even have happened.  (Again, with the exception of a few things, we don’t know the details.)


But let’s look to the positive.

- A large training mission in Iraq.  Some Iraqi troops may have committed war crimes prior to receiving training from Canadian Forces.  

Other than noting these incidents when members become aware & reporting them up, there isn’t much we can do.  It is up to their military leadership, laws, and courts to handle it from there.  

Our job is to ensure they understand the real consequences of those crimes, so they don’t continue to happen in the future.  Our job can’t be to go back in time and prevent things that happened when we weren’t there.  

After completing their training from us, they should be far more professional and competent soldiers.  That’s the goal.  


- An active (or was) SOF component in Iraq that was very effective at killing ISIS.  Guys who very much commit war crimes.  


- A leadership position of a multi-national brigade in Latvia.  Great experience in commanding allied forces all bringing different kit to the party.

- An effective training operation in the Ukraine.


- All of the above while providing plenty of troops to an annual Operation Lentus, and over 1000 personnel to assist Ontario senior homes.  Our members did an AMAZING job and immediately shamed several LTCs with their skills and competency.  

When the missions are looked at together, our tempo hasn’t slowed down all that much.


There are good solid things happening.  But the media does tend to focus on the negative - and there very much is some - and I suppose that’s fair enough if the information is accurate.  



The main challenge the CAF seems to be having now isn’t a lack of money, it’s a lack of direction from the government and a lack of leadership to push the organization forwards.

- The government is too busy getting in its own way.  We can’t buy the kit we want because we (Canada) have introduced too many rules to our own procurement.  We have the power to eliminate some of our own self created rules, but...

- Senior staff - It’s common sense 101, don’t f**k your co workers.  Especially if you are married.  

And if you are going to say stupid things that clearly fall within the realm of misconduct, don’t do it over email.  (or just be professional leaders and don’t say it period.)

- Also senior leadership, sort out the basics.  Fast and easy, just do it.  We have more money coming in over the last few years than we have in ages - call who needs to be called, and fix stupid problems.  (Example - buy some dang flight suits!)


We aren’t in shambles.  We are with a group of senior managers who don’t seem interested in leading, and that causes a very noticeable affect on the landscape.


----------



## shawn5o

CBH99 said:


> I wouldn’t go that far.
> 
> But morale is down, senior leadership is lacking in almost all meaningful ways, our MND is performing about as well as someone else without a military background/deployment experience would be, and our PM seems to actually pursue ideas which harm our national interests.
> 
> It is easy to pile on the bandwagon during times like these.  Especially when these times are a result of nonsense that shouldn’t even have happened.  (Again, with the exception of a few things, we don’t know the details.)
> 
> 
> But let’s look to the positive.
> 
> - A large training mission in Iraq.  Some Iraqi troops may have committed war crimes prior to receiving training from Canadian Forces.
> 
> Other than noting these incidents when members become aware & reporting them up, there isn’t much we can do.  It is up to their military leadership, laws, and courts to handle it from there.
> 
> Our job is to ensure they understand the real consequences of those crimes, so they don’t continue to happen in the future.  Our job can’t be to go back in time and prevent things that happened when we weren’t there.
> 
> After completing their training from us, they should be far more professional and competent soldiers.  That’s the goal.
> 
> 
> - An active (or was) SOF component in Iraq that was very effective at killing ISIS.  Guys who very much commit war crimes.
> 
> 
> - A leadership position of a multi-national brigade in Latvia.  Great experience in commanding allied forces all bringing different kit to the party.
> 
> - An effective training operation in the Ukraine.
> 
> 
> - All of the above while providing plenty of troops to an annual Operation Lentus, and over 1000 personnel to assist Ontario senior homes.  Our members did an AMAZING job and immediately shamed several LTCs with their skills and competency.
> 
> When the missions are looked at together, our tempo hasn’t slowed down all that much.
> 
> 
> There are good solid things happening.  But the media does tend to focus on the negative - and there very much is some - and I suppose that’s fair enough if the information is accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> The main challenge the CAF seems to be having now isn’t a lack of money, it’s a lack of direction from the government and a lack of leadership to push the organization forwards.
> 
> - The government is too busy getting in its own way.  We can’t buy the kit we want because we (Canada) have introduced too many rules to our own procurement.  We have the power to eliminate some of our own self created rules, but...
> 
> - Senior staff - It’s common sense 101, don’t f**k your co workers.  Especially if you are married.
> 
> And if you are going to say stupid things that clearly fall within the realm of misconduct, don’t do it over email.  (or just be professional leaders and don’t say it period.)
> 
> - Also senior leadership, sort out the basics.  Fast and easy, just do it.  We have more money coming in over the last few years than we have in ages - call who needs to be called, and fix stupid problems.  (Example - buy some dang flight suits!)
> 
> 
> We aren’t in shambles.  We are with a group of senior managers who don’t seem interested in leading, and that causes a very noticeable affect on the landscape.


Good points
Thanks CBH99


----------



## rmc_wannabe

"Show me your friends and I will show you yourself.."

I said this elsewhere is similar terms, but this is part of what we need to change in our culture.

People like to tout the "well he hasn't been charged or convicted, so its just 3 dudes golfing...who cares?" bit. So freaking what? You don't need to be charged, tried, and convicted to have your character called into question. You don't need a conviction to have your reputation torn to tatters. The damage is already done. What's more, we tell our most junior NCMs to watch out for "dependas, base bunnies, shack rats, and car salesmen" based off of stereotypes and reputation. Why? * because these are shady people of poor character who don't have their best interests in mind*

When I was a kid, my parents told me to be mindful of the company I keep, as it reflects on my own credibility and reputation. I wasn't allowed to hang out with Timmy down the street because he was known in the community as being a troublemaker. I have ended friendships because the behaviour that person was exhibiting was something I couldn't abide. I didn't want to be associated with that kind of person. I don't think we need to have someone convicted of an offense to know that they're of poor judgement or character or both.

MR and VAdm Baines should have know the optics of this were going to blow up in their face. What's right and what looks to be right are 2 different things. 3 dudes golfing is nothing unusual; 3 GOFOs kicking pers off a course to try and limit exposure, one of said GOFOs being under investigation, by an organization that falls under another GOFO, is  quite peculiar and will draw suspicion.


----------



## Loachman

CBH99 said:


> our MND is performing about as well as someone else without a military background/deployment experience would be



The absolute best MND in my time was Perrin Beatty in the late 1980s. No military experience whatsoever, but extremely intelligent, enthusiastic, motivated, and willing to listen. He was over to visit us in Lahr twice while working on his White Paper, and came to the Mess for Happy Hour on two Friday nights. He even mentioned the Junior Officers with whom he'd spoken on both occasions in the forward of his White Paper, and gave us credit for our input. He would aske a question, mull it over for a few seconds, and then ask a well-thought-out supplementary question, demonstrating quite clearly that he had absorbed the previous answer. We were all most impressed.

The second-best MND in my time was Peter MacKay, who genuinely seemed to care.

The current MND does not come anywhere *near* close.

Several other MNDs with prior service also disappointed.


----------



## OldTanker

article-second-in-command-of-armed-forces-steps-down-takes-medical-leave-after

Anybody want to be a GOFO?


----------



## OldSolduer

OldTanker said:


> article-second-in-command-of-armed-forces-steps-down-takes-medical-leave-after
> 
> Anybody want to be a GOFO?


There’s a few on this thread that think they could.  Good luck with that


----------



## brihard

Damn. Rouleau’s statement is something. Exactly what I would expect and hope for from him.



> Vice-Admiral Baines’ participation was surely predicated on my attending therefore I would ask that only I be held accountable. As VCDS, and with the full knowledge and consent of the A/CDS, I also maintain communications with many General and Flag Officers (who wish so) because I am concerned with their well-being. These officers include some who are under investigation and others who are not, but as people who have committed their lives to the service of Canada, they have earned our duty of care.


----------



## Good2Golf

One would hope that the toxicity above his level will also be held to account in the end.


----------



## trigger324

OldTanker said:


> article-second-in-command-of-armed-forces-steps-down-takes-medical-leave-after
> 
> Anybody want to be a GOFO?


🍿


----------



## OldSolduer

brihard said:


> Damn. Rouleau’s statement is something. Exactly what I would expect and hope for from him.


I have never met the gentleman but that statement was bang on.
Ms Freeland is another matter. Is she vying for the MND office as well?


----------



## cavalryman

OldSolduer said:


> I have never met the gentleman but that statement was bang on.
> Ms Freeland is another matter. Is she vying for the MND office as well?


She's vying for Justin Trudeau's job, of course.


----------



## trigger324

cavalryman said:


> She's vying for Justin Trudeau's job, of course.


Well for all the Justin Trudeau hating that goes on, wouldn’t that be a good thing?


----------



## OldSolduer

trigger324 said:


> Well for all the Justin Trudeau hating that goes on, wouldn’t that be a good thing?


Sometimes better the devil you know. Freeland is an unknown.


----------



## trigger324

OldSolduer said:


> Freeland is an unknown.


To whom?


----------



## OldSolduer

trigger324 said:


> To whom?


Most of Canada. She was a media type prior to this iirc in Ontario. A virtual unknown in the political world until recently.
Paul Martin had been in politics for decades before he took the seat as leader of the LPC


----------



## CBH99

OldSolduer said:


> Sometimes better the devil you know.


Usually I would agree with you on that, but in this case I’m not so sure.  Like is it possible to to be so useless that there’s a negative plot point on the chart?

Like someone can be useless.  But can someone be less than useless?  I feel like we are about to experience some Star Trek-like mirror universe phenomenon...


----------



## OldSolduer

CBH99 said:


> Usually I would agree with you on that, but in this case I’m not so sure.  Like is it possible to to be so useless that there’s a negative plot point on the chart?
> 
> Like someone can be useless.  But can someone be less than useless?  I feel like we are about to experience some Star Trek-like mirror universe phenomenon...


Less than useless = dangerous with simple tasks


----------



## trigger324

OldSolduer said:


> Most of Canada. She was a media type prior to this iirc in Ontario. A virtual unknown in the political world until recently.
> Paul Martin had been in politics for decades before he took the seat as leader of the LPC


So, re-election it is for Prime Minister Trudeau, then!


----------



## CBH99

trigger324 said:


> So, re-election it is for Prime Minister Trudeau, then!


Wwhhhoooaaaa...

Just like you don’t have conversations about Satan while playing with a Quija Board, you can’t speak about such things 😬🤫🤫


----------



## MilEME09

Second-in-command of Canadian Forces steps down, takes medical leave after golf outing with Vance
					

Navy commander and second-in-command of the Canadian Armed Forces played golf with former chief of defence staff Jonathan Vance, who is under military police investigation for alleged sexual misconduct




					www.theglobeandmail.com
				




Lt. General Rouleau has now stepped aside as VCDS, though he was already rotating out of that spot. But moving to medical leave, sounds like popping smoke till clear


----------



## daftandbarmy

Survey says... we've probably got a long, long way to go:


*Harvard Business Review
Build Your Reputation as a Trustworthy Leader *

People’s expectations and definition of trustworthiness are broadening for leaders, and it takes a lot to gain that trust. The author offers four research-based practices for leaders to master to earn and keep the trust of others. First, make your values clear, then make sure you’re living up to them. Second, treat others and their work with dignity. Third, determine when to be vulnerable and open and when to protect confidences. Finally, cultivate a sense of unity across your organization. In times of unprecedented uncertainty, it’s critical to earn and keep the trust of others every day. If you hope to enjoy a career of great influence and impact, start by cultivating a trustworthy reputation.

The findings of my 15-year longitudinal study of more than 3,200 leaders on organizational honesty for my book, _To Be Honest: Lead with the Power of Truth, Justice, and Purpose__, _also show that to earn and keep trust, leaders must accept that reliability and integrity are merely table stakes. They don’t, on their own, earn you a reputation of being trustworthy. They may get you labeled as dependable or easy to work with, but to be trusted consistently requires more. If you want to be certain that the people you lead see you as trustworthy, here are four practices to master. My research revealed that if you do, you’ll be 16 times more likely to earn and keep the trust of others.


Build Your Reputation as a Trustworthy Leader


----------



## Kilted

MilEME09 said:


> Second-in-command of Canadian Forces steps down, takes medical leave after golf outing with Vance
> 
> 
> Navy commander and second-in-command of the Canadian Armed Forces played golf with former chief of defence staff Jonathan Vance, who is under military police investigation for alleged sexual misconduct
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theglobeandmail.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lt. General Rouleau has now stepped aside as VCDS, though he was already rotating out of that spot. But moving to medical leave, sounds like popping smoke till clear


I thought that that transition occurred in March?


----------



## Jarnhamar

That wasn't a golf game, it was a chess game.


----------



## coolintheshade

OldTanker said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1404244170903068676


This response from the average civilian on the street...is bang on.
 Laurie Carleton Smith @laursmith
@CBCAlerts

I don't get how dumb these guys are. Is it just me?


----------



## coolintheshade

Navy_Pete said:


> I don't get it, how did they think this would go down? It's not like they aren't all really well recognized in the NCR to start with. Vance is a serial adulterer who basically just undermined the entire OP Honor program while abusing his authority over an extended period of time having inappropriate personal relationships with a subordinate. How else did they think it would be taken when they are publically hanging out with him? Even if the investigation doesn't find anything criminal, there is more than enough for pretty much anyone in uniform to be drummed out under an AR.
> 
> If he's your winger just have him over for a bbq or something. They are public figures, subject to public scrutiny. This send a message of public support for Vance, and just further reinforces the perception (reality?) that the GOFOs are a weird inner circle that are detached from reality. I don't get it. These are really smart people, and have been managing their public image for years.


Vance aka 'milfhunter' / 'bangbro'/'. LOL

RCR...'pass no fault' they say, does this hold true still in light of current event / status quo?


----------



## coolintheshade

McG said:


> So, you must have missed this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maj. Kellie Brennan tells MPs Vance said he was ‘untouchable,’ fathered 2 of her kids - National | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> Brennan is one of the women at the heart of allegations first reported by Global News in February about former chief of the defence staff Gen. Jonathan Vance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Brennan claims there were threats of consequences, though not of physical violence, and she claims that she felt she could not say “no”*


Bolded is akin to your supervisor / CoC bypassing you for career advancement / deployments / good PER ....all bad practices that you will be hard pressed to prove with facts, as opposed to if they physically assaulted you. So yeah, we all have seen and know how that works.


----------



## coolintheshade

Halifax Tar said:


> People don't attempt to conceal something for no reason.  They knew they didn't want to be seen together for some reason.  Innocuous or not, talk about a bonehead move.
> 
> My 8 year old try's to hide things under her bed, I expect more of CAF leadership...


----------



## trigger324

coolintheshade said:


> This response from the average civilian on the street...is bang on.
> Laurie Carleton Smith @laursmith
> @CBCAlerts
> 
> I don't get how dumb these guys are. Is it just me?


Nope, it’s not just you. They’re dumb.


----------



## coolintheshade

OldTanker said:


> article-second-in-command-of-armed-forces-steps-down-takes-medical-leave-after
> 
> Anybody want to be a GOFO?


What's the financial pkg, and does it come with a staff car, free lodgings and golf course membership???? On 2nd thoughts, no thanks!


----------



## Loachman

cavalryman said:


> She's vying for Justin Trudeau's job, of course.


But her hair isn't as nice.


----------



## coolintheshade

Loachman said:


> But her hair isn't as nice.


Wigs/Toupe'/extensions can be had in 2 days via Amazon prime though


----------



## dangerboy

MGen Fortin is fighting back



> Maj.-Gen. Dany Fortin is challenging the federal government's decision to publicly terminate his secondment to lead Canada's vaccine logistics at the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC).
> 
> Last month, the Department of National Defence issued a terse three-line statement late on a Friday saying that Maj.-Gen. Fortin would be leaving his post and his future would be decided by the acting chief of the defence staff.
> 
> Sources later told CBC News that a sexual misconduct allegation against Fortin had been raised that predated the start of Operation Honour in 2015 — the military's now-defunct campaign to stamp out inappropriate behaviour in the ranks.
> 
> Today, Fortin's lawyer filed an application for a judicial review of his removal from the PHAC post. The application argues that "Fortin was denied procedural fairness in the lead-up to the decision, which the respondents knew or ought to have known would have grave consequences on his life, reputation and career.  More in link



https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/dany...49ywjF7Cql7EE2_HcMe0kJPSqWTa7x_nRSpg5FL1nIgwY


----------



## daftandbarmy

dangerboy said:


> MGen Fortin is fighting back
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/dany...49ywjF7Cql7EE2_HcMe0kJPSqWTa7x_nRSpg5FL1nIgwY


----------



## Loachman

Yet a much-more-recent claim regarding a certain prime minister, including a named victim, has yet to see *any* meaningful reaction, consequences, or apology:

Courtesy of Internet Anagram Server: "Just A Rude Unit".


----------



## PPCLI Guy

dangerboy said:


> MGen Fortin is fighting back
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/dany...49ywjF7Cql7EE2_HcMe0kJPSqWTa7x_nRSpg5FL1nIgwY


And so he should!


----------



## CBH99

Loachman said:


> But her hair isn't as nice.


Did you just make a comment about HER physical appearance?  Did you JUST ASSUME SHE WANTED TO BE REFERRED TO AS SHE, SINCE SHE DIDN’T SPECIFY SHE IDENTIFIES AS A MULTI GENDERED ENLIGHTENED SPACE GOD WHO HAS COME HERE TO SAVE US ALL FROM GLUTEN??

How dare you sir...  got a SHARP chit coming your way now 😤  (or whatever they call it now)


----------



## CBH99

Loachman said:


> But her hair isn't as nice.


Also... since I’m no longer triggered by something that doesn’t affect me in the slightest... 

If she can string a sentence together without looking at a piece of paper, or talking about some woke nonsense - hire her.  Just hire her.

Not like Julie Peyette style of hire.  Call a reference or two just to make sure she isn’t actually insane.  But then hire her.


----------



## PuckChaser

dangerboy said:


> MGen Fortin is fighting back
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/dany...49ywjF7Cql7EE2_HcMe0kJPSqWTa7x_nRSpg5FL1nIgwY


Good for him. Due process is the cornerstone of our democracy. I forsee many, many challenges like this in the future.


----------



## Loachman

1. I do not now, nor shall I ever, conform to "woke" stupidity and Marxist/Orwellian terms and tactics.

2. I know more than enough about Freeland to reject her and her corrupt and self-serving party completely.

They threw out the only member for whom I had any respect a couple of years ago.


----------



## hattrick72

Major General Dany Fortin has filed a court challenge alleging his dismissal from the vaccine rollout involved political interference by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and two of his cabinet ministers.


----------



## Jarnhamar

hattrick72 said:


> Major General Dany Fortin has filed a court challenge alleging his dismissal from the vaccine rollout involved political interference by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and two of his cabinet ministers.


Good. The CAF is just as bad at falsely accusing members as it is ignoring problems. Ignoring due process is too common IMO.


----------



## CBH99

coolintheshade said:


> What's the financial pkg, and does it come with a staff car, free lodgings and golf course membership???? On 2nd thoughts, no thanks!


Heck.  I’ll take it.   Staff car, few hundred thousand a year, all kinds of perks.  Severance package anyone??  

Plus I could just pop around the country to pay a visit to the troops, and do some cool things along the way.

I also solemnly swear not to hit on, sleep with, or send creepy emails to my colleagues.  I also won’t make any crude sexual jokes, as I genuinely don’t know any, nor does my social circle.  


I’m in.


----------



## CBH99

Jarnhamar said:


> Good. The CAF is just as bad at falsely accusing members as it is ignoring problems. Ignoring due process is too common IMO.


Agreed.  

Until anything of substance comes out, an allegation is really just a formal way of potentially gossiping.  That changes when the accuser can back up the allegation with something tangible or supportable.  

Being removed from the vaccine program when it needed a solid engine at the top, because someone said something about something that might have happened a while back?  

I understand & support wanting to send the right message.  Zero tolerance.   But he also has a right to not be instantly tarnished right off the bat.


----------



## ModlrMike

I think we have to realize (but not necessarily accept) that we are living in an age where instant justice is expected. Presumption of innocence and due process doesn't matter to the clamouring masses. Nothing short of a public immolation based on the accusation alone, is acceptable. There is no rehabilitation, unless you're from the favoured group-de-jour, and even if you're exonerated, you're still guilty merely by being accused.

J'accuse indeed.


----------



## Loachman

CBH99 said:


> I also won’t make any crude sexual jokes, as I genuinely don’t know any, nor does my social circle.



Wanna hear some?


----------



## CBH99

Loachman said:


> Wanna hear some?


Only if you are a Major or above 😈


----------



## Loachman

Nope.

And I've already been kicked out, over five years ago.

For the heinous crime of reaching my allowable limit of birthdays.


----------



## Remius

Scandalous.


----------



## OldSolduer

hattrick72 said:


> Major General Dany Fortin has filed a court challenge alleging his dismissal from the vaccine rollout involved political interference by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and two of his cabinet ministers.


Are you fuc(ing serious? WOW - who's his attorney?


----------



## OldSolduer

CBH99 said:


> Only if you are a Major or above 😈


I have a few to share.....there was an old man from......

Never mind.


----------



## hattrick72

ModlrMike said:


> I think we have to realize (but not necessarily accept) that we are living in an age where instant justice is expected. Presumption of innocence and due process doesn't matter to the clamouring masses. Nothing short of a public immolation based on the accusation alone, is acceptable. There is no rehabilitation, unless you're from the favoured group-de-jour, and even if you're exonerated, you're still guilty merely by being accused.
> 
> J'accuse indeed.


For this situation the General was informed of an investigation in March, but not the contents. The PHAC also knew, and remarked it will blow over and he can stay. In April the General heard rumours the complaint was sexual in nature, he reached out to tell the CAF and the A/CDS that the information isn't staying contained. As he now knew some of the details.... Shortly after that he was removed and he didn't step down. 

If they wanted instant justice, they could've removed him before he even started. Something must have changed; perhaps not agreeing with the government that the provinces were holding vaccines in the freezer was too much......


----------



## dimsum

OldSolduer said:


> Are you fuc(ing serious? WOW - who's his attorney?


Doesn't say here, but damn.









						Maj.-Gen. Dany Fortin files federal court challenge over his firing - National | Globalnews.ca
					

Through his lawyers, Fortin has denied any wrongdoing.




					globalnews.ca


----------



## Remius

OldSolduer said:


> Are you fuc(ing serious? WOW - who's his attorney?


Defence counsel services. Commander Mark Letourneau, or at least that is who he had.


----------



## Loachman

hattrick72 said:


> Major General Dany Fortin has filed a court challenge alleging his dismissal from the vaccine rollout involved political interference by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and two of his cabinet ministers.



I missed the last bit of this post earlier as I was just skimming through.

Source...?

Editted to add:

If anybody hears of a Go Fund Me page, I'd gleefully chip in.


----------



## OldSolduer

Its about time. 


PPCLI Guy said:


> And so he should!


----------



## dimsum

Loachman said:


> I missed the last bit of this post earlier as I was just skimming through.
> 
> Source...?
> 
> Editted to add:
> 
> If anybody hears of a Go Fund Me page, I'd gleefully chip in.











						Maj.-Gen. Dany Fortin files federal court challenge over his firing - National | Globalnews.ca
					

Through his lawyers, Fortin has denied any wrongdoing.




					globalnews.ca


----------



## Loachman

Roger. Thanks. I misinterpreted the other post.


----------



## cavalryman

OldSolduer said:


> I have a few to share.....there was an old man from......


Winnipeg?


----------



## Weinie

ModlrMike said:


> I think we have to realize (but not necessarily accept) that we are living in an age where instant justice is expected. Presumption of innocence and due process doesn't matter to the clamouring masses. Nothing short of a public immolation based on the accusation alone, is acceptable. There is no rehabilitation, unless you're from the favoured group-de-jour, and even if you're exonerated, you're still guilty merely by being accused.
> 
> J'accuse indeed.


It is this blithe acceptance (or maybe apathy or indifference, or fear, from the commons) that allows those who are pursuing these agendas to prosper. A pox on all of their houses.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Loachman said:


> Yet a much-more-recent claim regarding a certain prime minister, including a named victim, has yet to see *any* meaningful reaction, consequences, or apology:
> 
> Courtesy of Internet Anagram Server: "Just A Rude Unit".


and quite possible not the only instance considering the stories around the teaching career


----------



## Loachman

So I read.


----------



## trigger324

Celebrate all wins


----------



## Scoobs

This article has some more details about what's in the docs that MGen Fortin's legal team submitted to the courts today:  https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/dany-fortin-sexual-misconduct-vaccine-1.6065393


----------



## YZT580

hattrick72 said:


> For this situation the General was informed of an investigation in March, but not the contents. The PHAC also knew, and remarked it will blow over and he can stay. In April the General heard rumours the complaint was sexual in nature, he reached out to tell the CAF and the A/CDS that the information isn't staying contained. As he now knew some of the details.... Shortly after that he was removed and he didn't step down.
> 
> If they wanted instant justice, they could've removed him before he even started. Something must have changed; perhaps not agreeing with the government that the provinces were holding vaccines in the freezer was too much......


instant justise?  Is that an oxymoron?


----------



## YZT580

dimsum said:


> Doesn't say here, but damn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maj.-Gen. Dany Fortin files federal court challenge over his firing - National | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> Through his lawyers, Fortin has denied any wrongdoing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> globalnews.ca


good for him.


----------



## trigger324

“Troubling”


----------



## daftandbarmy

trigger324 said:


> View attachment 65459
> “Troubling”



And poor old Wayne started this job with a full head of hair


----------



## Loachman

Within Maj.-Gen. Fortin files legal challenge, claims political meddling in his dismissal from vaccine rollout is the statement that "At the time, Trudeau said he had highlighted his desire for the investigation to be 'fair, complete and rigorous'".

I understand his desire completely, as I hope for, some day, a series of investigations that are "fair, complete and rigorous".


----------



## daftandbarmy

Loachman said:


> Within Maj.-Gen. Fortin files legal challenge, claims political meddling in his dismissal from vaccine rollout is the statement that "At the time, Trudeau said he had highlighted his desire for the investigation to be 'fair, complete and rigorous'".
> 
> I understand his desire completely, as I hope for, some day, a series of investigations that are "fair, complete and rigorous".



The fate of Icarus is a lesson for those who choose to fly a little too close to the Sun.


----------



## trigger324

Loachman said:


> I understand his desire completely, as I hope for, some day, a series of investigations that are "fair, complete and rigorous".


And you can't fault him for that.


----------



## Loachman

daftandbarmy said:


> The fate of Icarus is a lesson for those who choose to fly a little too close to the Sun.



And I also hope for the Sunniest of Sunny Days.

His wax will melt eventually.


----------



## Remius

MilEME09 said:


> Second-in-command of Canadian Forces steps down, takes medical leave after golf outing with Vance
> 
> 
> Navy commander and second-in-command of the Canadian Armed Forces played golf with former chief of defence staff Jonathan Vance, who is under military police investigation for alleged sexual misconduct
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theglobeandmail.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lt. General Rouleau has now stepped aside as VCDS, though he was already rotating out of that spot. But moving to medical leave, sounds like popping smoke till clear


Looks like he’s leaving the CAF.  



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/vance-otoole-sajjan-golf-1.6064917


----------



## shawn5o

trigger324 said:


> View attachment 65459
> “Troubling”





trigger324 said:


> View attachment 65459
> “Troubling”


I think it's BS. I wish Vance and the other generals would grow a pair.

Disclosure - I don't care for Vance


----------



## cavalryman

Remius said:


> Looks like he’s leaving the CAF.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/vance-otoole-sajjan-golf-1.6064917


You know, if I was wearing my tinfoil hat too tightly, I might just begin wondering about the applicability of that famous line from Goldfinger with all these GOFOs being dismissed or retiring...

'Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action.'


----------



## Good2Golf

Fortin’s case is very interesting. All the articles refer to CAF/DND taking XX actions, etc. but are short on specifics as to who was taking the action.  

It could effectively been at most three people, I would think: MND, DM, A/CDS.

So who was it? 🤔


----------



## The Bread Guy

OldSolduer said:


> ... who's his attorney?


Thomas Conway of Conway Baxter Wilson according to the now-official record @ the Federal Court ...


You can search here under the magic #  T-957-21

Edited to add:  Or you can check out the law firm's news release here:


> ...
> Conway Baxter Wilson LLP/s.r.l. filed a Notice of Application for Judicial Review in the Federal Court of Canada on behalf of Major-General Dany Fortin. The Notice of Application relates to the decision to terminate and not reassign Major-General Fortin from his secondment at the Public Health Agency of Canada where he was serving as Vice President of Logistics and Operations for the COVID-19 Vaccine Rollout Task Force.
> 
> The Notice of Application is premised on three main issues: (1) the decision was unreasonable because it was not justified, transparent or intelligible; (2) in making the decision, the decision-makers denied Major-General Fortin  the requisite level of procedural fairness; and (3) there was improper political interference in the military chain of command by the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Health, the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Prime Minister of Canada ...


Application downloadable @ news release, or attached, for your viewing pleasure ...


----------



## OldSolduer

daftandbarmy said:


> And poor old Wayne started this job with a full head of hair


Actually he never really had a full head of hair


----------



## MilEME09

Remius said:


> Looks like he’s leaving the CAF.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/vance-otoole-sajjan-golf-1.6064917


Transition group sometimes isn't always on your way out, when I broke my leg I was transferred under them for 6 months until I was fit for duty. They had the resources to help me out with rehab etc... so if it's indefinite medical leave, Transition group makes sense but is not a 100% retirement notice.


----------



## Mills Bomb

This seems to get more interesting everyday.

If what Fortin is claiming is true, I hope his lawsuit is successful. I think what is most disturbing is the blatant double standard, the MND can turn away evidence of sexual misconduct from an ombudsman and face no consequences, but any senior CAF member apparently can be disgraced in front the nation on the grounds of "sexual misconduct" which they are saying is not even true, but simply political meddling. Who does the public and members of the CAF trust in this case, someone who has 30+ years of honourable service in the CAF, or the MND who has faced controversy regarding stolen valour, turning away evidence, and a PM who has been recorded several times doing black face amongst other ethics offences?

I would be extremely interested to know what other officers in senior positions are thinking right now, are they just walking on eggshells hoping they don't get accused of something next? Are they just trying to be a grey man and buy time until they release? Do any of them actually think they are safe? This is one time I can honestly say, I'm not even remotely envious of these senior positions or the political BS being in them seems to entail under the current government.


----------



## OldSolduer

cavalryman said:


> 'Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action.'


You might be closer to the truth than you think. 

As for de-throning several GOFOs in very senior positions one question lingers. Who benefits?


----------



## trigger324

Do you have the answer to that one question?


----------



## MilEME09

OldSolduer said:


> You might be closer to the truth than you think.
> 
> As for de-throning several GOFOs in very senior positions one question lingers. Who benefits?


Destabilize the CAF, demoralizing our forces, sounds like psyops to me.


----------



## cld617

CBH99 said:


> Did you just make a comment about HER physical appearance?  Did you JUST ASSUME SHE WANTED TO BE REFERRED TO AS SHE, SINCE SHE DIDN’T SPECIFY SHE IDENTIFIES AS A MULTI GENDERED ENLIGHTENED SPACE GOD WHO HAS COME HERE TO SAVE US ALL FROM GLUTEN??
> 
> How dare you sir...  got a SHARP chit coming your way now 😤  (or whatever they call it now)



This is some 2nd year Pte level of humor, for your sake I hope you actually are that young.  

While many have been quite overzealous with their demands for inclusion and being referred to a certain way, responding to a run of the mill comment which uses she with that level of outburst is pretty damned immature. The number of times I've ever been asked to refer to someone by their pronouns in uniform is a whopping zero, the number of times some ignoramus made a GBA+/did you assume my gender joke as though it was an intelligent thought worth sharing, is infinite. 

Grow up


----------



## Weinie

cld617 said:


> This is some 2nd year Pte level of humor, for your sake I hope you actually are that young.
> 
> While many have been quite overzealous with their demands for inclusion and being referred to a certain way, responding to a run of the mill comment which uses she with that level of outburst is pretty damned immature. The number of times I've ever been asked to refer to someone by their pronouns in uniform is a whopping zero, the number of times some ignoramus made a GBA+/did you assume my gender joke as though it was an intelligent thought worth sharing, is infinite.
> 
> Grow up


Ummm.........he was being sarcastic,in case you missed it.


----------



## Jarnhamar

MilEME09 said:


> Transition group sometimes isn't always on your way out, when I broke my leg I was transferred under them for 6 months until I was fit for duty. They had the resources to help me out with rehab etc... so if it's indefinite medical leave, Transition group makes sense but is not a 100% retirement notice.


I was under the impression that a posting to JPSU or even just going on medical leave takes a while to facilitate.


----------



## Jarnhamar

daftandbarmy said:


>


Looks like the SNCO and WO mess.


----------



## Weinie

Jarnhamar said:


> I was under the impression that a posting to JPSU or even just going on medical leave takes a while to facilitate.


He has removed himself from the CoC, via an option that the CAF offers.


----------



## Good2Golf

trigger324 said:


> Do you have the answer to that one question?


The answer’s out there…and who knows…it might not even include old, male, white general/admiral.

Perhaps we’ll see in due course.

Some of us won’t be too surprised.  Others may be very surprised. Perhaps shocked.  In the end though, toxic is toxic.


----------



## dapaterson

Jarnhamar said:


> Looks like the SNCO and WO mess.



Made up stories about how tough they are?  Checks out.


----------



## trigger324

Good2Golf said:


> The answer’s out there…and who knows…it might not even include old, male, white general/admiral.
> 
> Perhaps we’ll see in due course.
> 
> Some of us won’t be too surprised.  Others may be very surprised. Perhaps shocked.  In the end though, toxic is toxic.


Right, and those who benefit, as the question was posed, should very well be the victims.


----------



## trigger324

Weinie said:


> He has removed himself from the CoC, via an option that the CAF offers.


Removing oneself from the CoC? Does everybody have that option?


----------



## Good2Golf

trigger324 said:


> Right, and those who benefit, as the question was posed, should very well be the victims.


That may not be the only answer.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Good2Golf said:


> The answer’s out there…and who knows…it might not even include old, male, white general/admiral.
> 
> Perhaps we’ll see in due course.
> 
> Some of us won’t be too surprised.  Others may be very surprised. Perhaps shocked.  In the end though, toxic is toxic.



The truth is out there? Really?


----------



## Loachman

cld617 said:


> Grow up



Breathe deeply.

D - e -e - e - e - e - p - l - y - y - y . . .

I - i - i - i - i - n - n - n -  n . . .

and 

O - o - o - o u - u - u - u - t . . .

R - e - e - l - a - a - x - x - x . . . 

Doesn't that feel *much* better now?


----------



## Weinie

trigger324 said:


> Removing oneself from the CoC? Does everybody have that option?


OK. You can troll my responses til you feel better. I really don't care how you view this.


----------



## trigger324

Weinie said:


> OK. You can troll my responses til you feel better. I really don't care how you view this.


I’m trolling? Cool your jets dude, that was a legit question


----------



## hattrick72

trigger324 said:


> Removing oneself from the CoC? Does everybody have that option?


You have two options, you go to mental health and layout why you need MELs and you remove yourself from the CoC, but may well fall within that CoC's responsibility. The second option is you VR and that completely removes you from the CoC. If you VR now, you too can be a part of the transition center.


----------



## trigger324

hattrick72 said:


> You have two options, you go to mental health and layout why you need MELs and you remove yourself from the CoC, but may well fall within that CoC's responsibility. The second option is you VR and that completely removes you from the CoC. If you VR now, you too can be a part of the transition center.


Right, those options have always have existed, as we all know, but I’ve never seen anyone removed from a CoC outside terminating service. You always answer to someone in one way or another, do you not? That seems to be a CoC to me.


----------



## Good2Golf

The TC becomes your unit and your CoC.  It can be permanent, or temporary depending on the situation.


----------



## trigger324

Good2Golf said:


> The TC becomes your unit and your CoC.  It can be permanent, or temporary depending on the situation.


Exactly how I’d always perceived it. Thank you


----------



## Weinie

trigger324 said:


> Right, those options have always have existed, as we all know, but I’ve never seen anyone removed from a CoC outside terminating service. You always answer to someone in one way or another, do you not? That seems to be a CoC to me.


Right. Parsing actions instead of acknowledging actions. LGen Rouleau has resigned. He no longer is part of the CAF CoCfrom a Command construct. He will still be part of a admin CoC until such time as he retires.


----------



## trigger324

Weinie said:


> Right. Parsing actions instead of acknowledging actions. LGen Rouleau has resigned. He no longer is part of the CAF CoC.


His timing is remarkable


----------



## Weinie

trigger324 said:


> His timing is remarkable


Sigh...............

Your conclusions are obvious.


----------



## Pieman

All these allegations could have been handled with a couple of meetings and some conversations between the two parties. You know, like how adults solve problems.

Imagine being punished and losing your career for checking in on the well being of a fellow soldier no matter the situation, does that seem fair or just? F the investigation. We all know that nothing would take higher priority than knowing the well being of another soldier potentially in trouble. 

This Man asks Vance to go golfing with the intension of making sure he is doing okay, and ends up losing his career. I realize there are some ethical issues due to the investigation, and it could have been done smarter. However, that's how he decided to do it and should just have been moved to clear any bias in the investigation.  

What if Vance hung himself over the stress of this situation? People would be strung up for not checking in on him.


----------



## MilEME09

Jarnhamar said:


> I was under the impression that a posting to JPSU or even just going on medical leave takes a while to facilitate.


Took me about a 2 weeks from injury to JPSU, has a amazing Adj who got everything rolling quickly


----------



## MJP

Jarnhamar said:


> I was under the impression that a posting to JPSU or even just going on medical leave takes a while to facilitate.


Medical leave can be fairly quick, sometime arranging for continuing or specialist care not so much


MilEME09 said:


> Took me about a 2 weeks from injury to JPSU, has a amazing Adj who got everything rolling quickly


That is super fast and not the norm.  It was also likely easier as a Pres mbr as D Mil C did not have to get involved as they are often the slowest point in the process.  Other key hang-ups are the medical staff approving JPSSU as a viable option and the units themselves as they need to start the process but are also the lynch pin to keep the ball rolling. Often they lose sight of an application as it bounces from org to org.


----------



## ModlrMike

daftandbarmy said:


> The fate of Icarus is a lesson for those who choose to fly a little too close to the *Sun King*.


FTFY


----------



## Jarnhamar

Pieman said:


> Imagine being punished and losing your career for checking in on the well being of a fellow soldier no matter the situation, does that seem fair or just?


It's disingenuous for anyone to suggest LGen Rouleau didn't expect this to go down exactly how it went down. I think he went into this knowing it would hit the public, knowing how the PMO would react and knowing what he would be asked to do. He's not the kinda guy to get _ambushed with a cup of coffee._

Why would he do that? No idea. He could be a little pissed at getting taken out of the VCDS role to fill the _"_new_" strategic advisor to the chief of the Defence Staff on future capabilities- _replaced by someone who incidentally gets to proudly wear the mantle of the first female VCDS.

Maybe he doesn't like what happened to General Fortin and this is him giving the finger to Ottawa.


----------



## MilEME09

MJP said:


> That is super fast and not the norm.  It was also likely easier as a Pres mbr as D Mil C did not have to get involved as they are often the slowest point in the process.  Other key hang-ups are the medical staff approving JPSSU as a viable option and the units themselves as they need to start the process but are also the lynch pin to keep the ball rolling. Often they lose sight of an application as it bounces from org to org.


Completely possible, As JPSU Calgary got my doctors, physio, and reserve Force compensation all set up really fast. Apparently my CO was calling them frequently to make sure I was looked after. One of the best command teams I've had that year.


----------



## ballz

Jarnhamar said:


> It's disingenuous for anyone to suggest LGen Rouleau didn't expect this to go down exactly how it went down. I think he went into this knowing it would hit the public, knowing how the PMO would react and knowing what he would be asked to do. He's not the kinda guy to get _ambushed with a cup of coffee._
> 
> Why would he do that? No idea. He could be a little pissed at getting taken out of the VCDS role to fill the _"_new_" strategic advisor to the chief of the Defence Staff on future capabilities- _replaced by someone who incidentally gets to proudly wear the mantle of the first female VCDS.
> 
> Maybe he doesn't like what happened to General Fortin and this is him giving the finger to Ottawa.



I tend to think that MGen Rouleau knew exactly what he was doing as well. What I can't find a reasonable explanation for, is that if that was his intention, how did CRCN get dragged into it? If Rouleau wanted to give the finger to Ottawa for a host of possible reasons, why wouldn't he do it himself?

Seems unlikely that CRCN had similar intentions as it looks like he's trying to stay on.


----------



## Remius

There are far better ways to give the finger to whoever than to do it the way it went down.


----------



## Good2Golf

Remius said:


> There are far better ways to give the finger to whoever than to do it the way it went down.


…are you certain it has fully played out?


----------



## Remius

Good2Golf said:


> …are you certain it has fully played out?


No.  But there are far better ways than to end up as an embarrassing story in the globe and mail.


----------



## OldSolduer

cld617 said:


> This is some 2nd year Pte level of humor, for your sake I hope you actually are that young.
> 
> While many have been quite overzealous with their demands for inclusion and being referred to a certain way, responding to a run of the mill comment which uses she with that level of outburst is pretty damned immature. The number of times I've ever been asked to refer to someone by their pronouns in uniform is a whopping zero, the number of times some ignoramus made a GBA+/did you assume my gender joke as though it was an intelligent thought worth sharing, is infinite.
> 
> Grow up


Check your outrage at the door please.


----------



## OldSolduer

trigger324 said:


> Do you have the answer to that one question?


If I had the answer to that question I wouldn't be here.


----------



## cld617

Weinie said:


> Ummm.........he was being sarcastic,in case you missed it.


I'm vividly aware the post hinged on sarcasm, that's the point. 

By making "did you just assume my gender" jokes every time someone makes a gender based comment, it takes away the seriousness of the initiatives we're currently operating under to bring a bit of professionalism and respect into this organization. When a trans or queer mbr hears those sorts of comments, what do you think their thoughts are? You're basically making light of some basic respect they're hoping for, to not assume their gender. 

I get it, it's a bit of levity at those who make everything a bigger deal than it needs to be. It's childish and doesn't serve any useful purpose.


----------



## Good2Golf

Remius said:


> No.  But there are far better ways than to end up as an embarrassing story in the globe and mail.


Ah…you know this from direct experience then, or by staying at a HolidayInn Express recently?


----------



## OldSolduer

cld617 said:


> I'm vividly aware the post hinged on sarcasm, that's the point.
> 
> By making "did you just assume my gender" jokes every time someone makes a gender based comment, it takes away the seriousness of the initiatives we're currently operating under to bring a bit of professionalism and respect into this organization. When a trans or queer mbr hears those sorts of comments, what do you think their thoughts are? You're basically making light of some basic respect they're hoping for, to not assume their gender.
> 
> I get it, it's a bit of levity at those who make everything a bigger deal than it needs to be. It's childish and doesn't serve any useful purpose.


I guess the fun cop has arrived. Have a nice day.


----------



## cld617

OldSolduer said:


> I guess the fun cop has arrived. Have a nice day.



I guess your appreciation and cognitive capacity wrt respect is equal to all the GOFO's who have touchy-touchy problems.


----------



## OldSolduer

cld617 said:


> I guess your appreciation and cognitive capacity wrt respect is equal to all the GOFO's who have touchy-touchy problems.


Like I said - have a nice day. I know very well what the limits are. Your inference that I have touchy feely issues and your  condescending attitude are indicative oh what I like to call "Holier than thou virtue signalers ". Sir that does not go over well with me and never has.

We do not share the same sense of humor and most likely will disagree on many things.


----------



## Pieman

Jarnhamar said:


> It's disingenuous for anyone to suggest LGen Rouleau didn't expect this to go down exactly how it went down. I think he went into this knowing it would hit the public, knowing how the PMO would react and knowing what he would be asked to do. He's not the kinda guy to get _ambushed with a cup of coffee._
> 
> Why would he do that? No idea. He could be a little pissed at getting taken out of the VCDS role to fill the _"_new_" strategic advisor to the chief of the Defence Staff on future capabilities- _replaced by someone who incidentally gets to proudly wear the mantle of the first female VCDS.
> 
> Maybe he doesn't like what happened to General Fortin and this is him giving the finger to Ottawa.


I really don't know why he would do that either. It seems completely irrational which leads me to believe that your assumption that LGen Rouleau knew how it would go down is incorrect. So, it's not disingenuous to suggest it. Your other assumptions for his reasons to go golfing are deeply speculative, which is not a worthy science. Him caring more about the well being of Vance over the BS going on, like he said he did? I can see that being genuinely the case.


----------



## cld617

OldSolduer said:


> We do not share the same sense of humor and most likely will disagree on many things.


I'd hope not, as I don't consider making fun of initiatives to make the CAF a more inclusive place for all, humorous.


----------



## OldSolduer

cld617 said:


> I'd hope not, as I don't consider making fun of initiatives to make the CAF a more inclusive place for all, humorous.


Like I said your virtuous condescending attitude betrays you.


----------



## Pieman

Good2Golf said:


> Ah…you know this from direct experience then, or by staying at a HolidayInn Express recently?


What's wrong with HolidayInn Express??......Or is it now the Canadian version of La Quinta Inn?


----------



## Good2Golf

Pieman said:


> What's wrong with HolidayInn Express??......Or is it now the Canadian version of La Quinta Inn?


HIE is awesome, I learned medical skills that far outstripped my TCCC course, for example, over just one night’s stay! 😉 

That’s why I figure Remius either has experience working at high levels across the Four Corners, or he stayed at a HIE, in order to know the most effective way to give it to the machine…


----------



## Weinie

cld617 said:


> I'd hope not, as I don't consider making fun of initiatives to make the CAF a more inclusive place for all, humorous.


Reel in your sanctimony, and your neck. None of us here on this site are against CAF initiatives to make the CAF better or more inclusive, many of us are against virtue signaling.


----------



## Kilted

Do we have anyone left who isn't in an acting position?


----------



## cavalryman

Kilted said:


> Do we have anyone left who isn't in an acting position?


I'm sure Corporal Bloggins in the Royal North-West Fusiliers isn't acting, although his platoon sergeant might consider him a bad actor.


----------



## Pieman

Kilted said:


> Do we have anyone left who isn't in an acting position?


HQ is gonna be two woman and a laptop soon enough.



Weinie said:


> None of us here on this site are against CAF initiatives to make the CAF better or more inclusive, many of us are against virtue signaling.


Your hotdog avatar is fat shaming me!


----------



## Remius

Good2Golf said:


> HIE is awesome, I learned medical skills that far outstripped my TCCC course, for example, over just one night’s stay! 😉
> 
> That’s why I figure Remius either has experience working at high levels across the Four Corners, or he stayed at a HIE, in order to know the most effective way to give it to the machine…


But you seem to know so.  We can discuss like adults or you can keep being a smart ass and ruining the tone here.


----------



## OldSolduer

cavalryman said:


> I'm sure Corporal Bloggins in the Royal North-West Fusiliers isn't acting, although his platoon sergeant might consider him a bad actor.


Didn’t he or she - don’t want to assume gender here - become CO of a Mess Tin Repair Battalion?


----------



## Brad Sallows

Enjoying watching the humourless Stasi zealots come out of the woodwork the past couple of years.  Their moment to denounce everything and express outrage at all levity has arrived.

Old joke: A friend bails you out of jail.  A true friend looks at you from across the cell and says, "We sure fucked up, didn't we?"


----------



## Remius

Good2Golf said:


> Ah…you know this from direct experience then, or by staying at a HolidayInn Express recently?


So let me explain in the hopes that maybe you can actually offer your own insights instead of what you posted.

you think this might be some elaborate way of sticking it to the man. So you are saying that a man who has been a consummate professional his entire career, decides that his master plan is going to golfing with a disgraced CDS and the CRCN and clear that golf course so no one would know with the hopes that it gets leaked in some weird show of defiance at what you think he sees as a purge of GOFOs in some larger plot.  And you think that this is the best way to do that.  Ok…

he would have stuck it to the man way more by standing at a podium resign and announcing that he no longer had faith in “insert name here” and that he can longer serve in an institution or for a gvt that is doing “insert here”

The biggest issue with what you propose is that he has put two of his friends back on the front page.  Was that good for Vance’s mental health?  Or would his explanation not be genuine about a mental health check?  He and the CRCN have issued apologies for their actions and taken ownership of that.  Still part of the master plan?  See the various holes in what you are prop


If we believe that then we must assume that he knowingly intended to cause damage to the institution that is already crisis.  Do you think he would intentionally damage the CAF reputation further?   Because that golf trip just added to the CAF leadership credibility issue.    I honestly don’t think he intended to do that.  Which leaves us with a lapse in judgement. 

 I have no reason to doubt his intentions in regards to Vance’s mental health.  “Hey let’s go golfing, get your mind off things, we’ll make sure no one is around to bug you”

I prefer to think this was lapse in judgement.  Because the alternative is that he is knowingly trying to burn down the whole place on his way out, lied about the reason for the golf outing and I don’t think for a second that you believe that.


----------



## Good2Golf

Sure, let’s just go with you being right.


----------



## Remius

Good2Golf said:


> Sure, let’s just go with you being right.


Well that’s better than what my wife says.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> Because the alternative is...



...that he just wanted to make a point about how fucked up the purgers and informers have become?


----------



## Remius

Brad Sallows said:


> ...that he just wanted to make a point about how fucked up the purgers and informers have become?


Based on that then, we shouldn’t take his public statement at face value?  Come on.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Sure, take stuff at face value if you wish.  But using crises to pursue agendas isn't something people recently discovered.


----------



## Weinie

Remius said:


> So let me explain in the hopes that maybe you can actually offer your own insights instead of what you posted.
> 
> you think this might be some elaborate way of sticking it to the man. So you are saying that a man who has been a consummate professional his entire career, decides that his master plan is going to golfing with a disgraced CDS and the CRCN and clear that golf course so no one would know with the hopes that it gets leaked in some weird show of defiance at what you think he sees as a purge of GOFOs in some larger plot.  And you think that this is the best way to do that.  Ok…
> 
> he would have stuck it to the man way more by standing at a podium resign and announcing that he no longer had faith in “insert name here” and that he can longer serve in an institution or for a gvt that is doing “insert here”
> 
> The biggest issue with what you propose is that he has put two of his friends back on the front page.  Was that good for Vance’s mental health?  Or would his explanation not be genuine about a mental health check?  He and the CRCN have issued apologies for their actions and taken ownership of that.  Still part of the master plan?  See the various holes in what you are prop
> 
> 
> If we believe that then we must assume that he knowingly intended to cause damage to the institution that is already crisis.  Do you think he would intentionally damage the CAF reputation further?   Because that golf trip just added to the CAF leadership credibility issue.    I honestly don’t think he intended to do that.  Which leaves us with a lapse in judgement.
> 
> I have no reason to doubt his intentions in regards to Vance’s mental health.  “Hey let’s go golfing, get your mind off things, we’ll make sure no one is around to bug you”
> 
> I prefer to think this was lapse in judgement.  Because the alternative is that he is knowingly trying to burn down the whole place on his way out, lied about the reason for the golf outing and I don’t think for a second that you believe that.


The  above and a toonie will get you a medium double double at any Timmies in Canada.


----------



## Mick

Of course!!!  The classic "devious, career-ending, golfing-based, apologize-and-take-indefinite-medical-leave" scheme!  That'll show the government.

Seems like exactly the kind of move an articulate and professional officer - known for his integrity - would make.

If only VAdm Norman had devised such a plan.

Or maybe it was just a lapse in judgement, however well-meaning his intentions were, for which LGen Rouleau has taken responsibility.


----------



## brihard

I think Remius makes good points actually. I think there’s good reason that many of us think Rouleau is a bastion of professionalism and integrity. He’s smart enough to grasp the further damage this can cause to the institution. I don’t think he would deliberately act to hurt CAF. I therefore infer that this played out differently from how he thought it would. I believe him when he presents this as looking out for the well being of a colleague and friend... It’s awfully lonely at the top.

I have no doubt other games are being played here. But I don’t think Rouleau would act to discredit the institution. I think he respects it and the troops too much for that.


----------



## Good2Golf

brihard said:


> I have no doubt other games are being played here. But I don’t think Rouleau would act to discredit the institution. I think he respects it and the troops too much for that.


Haven’t seen anyone imply MR was acting to discredit the institution.  Have seen people incorrectly infer that others have done so.  Not the same thing.

I take MR’s full statement as he intended it.  That, however, doesn’t mean that there aren’t factors at play related to the activity, that most people don’t appreciate now, but that will eventually come to be appreciated more widely as being part of a larger realization of issues within the Department.

Time will tell.


----------



## Mick

Good2Golf said:


> Haven’t seen anyone imply MR was acting to discredit the institution.  Have seen people incorrectly infer that others have done so.  Not the same thing.
> 
> I take MR’s full statement as he intended it.  That, however, doesn’t mean that there aren’t factors at play related to the activity, that most people don’t appreciate now, but that will eventually come to be appreciated more widely as being part of a larger realization of issues within the Department.
> 
> Time will tell.


Wouldn't resigning (in protest or otherwise) be more effective? 

LGen Rouleau seems to be direct and articulate - what do you suppose is achieved by explaining, apologizing and stepping aside?  Note that he directly states what his intentions were, the unfortunate optics, and why he is now stepping aside.


----------



## Good2Golf

Mick said:


> Wouldn't resigning (in protest or otherwise) be more effective?


Maybe you think so.  I don’t know if you’re right.  

If more comes from further investigation into the matter, maybe that will be of greater benefit to address the root cause of the overall situation.  



Mick said:


> LGen Rouleau seems to be direct and articulate - what do you suppose is achieved by explaining, apologizing and stepping aside?  Note that he directly states what his intentions were, the unfortunate optics, and why he is now stepping aside.


Frankly, the fact that MR took this COA indicates to me that for whatever reasons, he assessed it as the most appropriate for the situation, the apparent branching of which, the majority here are attributing to some level of either incompetence or hubris.  

Personally, I’m not joining the masses to write MR off as having fumbled the ball.  I may very well be wrong, but having spent a few tours in Ottawa, including not insignificant interaction with a number of Central Agencies, I’m quite willing to go out on a limb and believe that this whole thing isn’t over by a long shot.  

The power dynamics at play are likely more intricate than most here believe.

$0.02


Regards
G2G


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

trigger324 said:


> Right, those options have always have existed, as we all know, but I’ve never seen anyone removed from a CoC outside terminating service. You always answer to someone in one way or another, do you not? That seems to be a CoC to me.


This happens all the time.  I've recommended multiple CAF members for this very process.  All it takes is a bit of paperwork and concurrence from the Medical community.


The CAF remains administratively and medically responsible for you but your job becomes preparing for your transition out of the CAF.

We don't know what Mike Rouleau's medical conditions are.  That's his business and nobody needs to know why he is in the Transition Group.


----------



## Pieman

Remius said:


> Well that’s better than what my wife says.


Does she often complain about "Mansplaining" by any chance?


----------



## Haggis

Loachman said:


> Yet a much-more-recent claim regarding a certain prime minister, including a named victim, has yet to see *any* meaningful reaction, consequences, or apology:
> 
> Courtesy of Internet Anagram Server: "Just A Rude Unit".


"The editorial in the Creston Valley Advance suggested that the day after the incident, Trudeau offered an apology of sorts: "I'm sorry," he is quoted as saying. "If I had known you were reporting for a national paper I never would have been so forward." So, he did apologize, but only for groping _the reporter_, not the *woman*.


----------



## Haggis

Mick said:


> Wouldn't resigning (in protest or otherwise) be more effective?


LCol Taylor did exactly that.  It was a momentary blip in the news cycle and them back to normal until someone brings it up again on a slow news day.


----------



## Remius

Weinie said:


> The  above and a toonie will get you a medium double double at any Timmies in Canada.


Thanks.  


Pieman said:


> Does she often complain about "Mansplaining" by any chance?


No, because I know better than that.  I’m very well trained.


----------



## The Bread Guy

dangerboy said:


> MGen Fortin is fighting back


Legal docs & lawyers' statement in similar thread here.


----------



## brihard

Good2Golf said:


> Maybe you think so.  I don’t know if you’re right.
> 
> If more comes from further investigation into the matter, maybe that will be of greater benefit to address the root cause of the overall situation.
> 
> 
> Frankly, the fact that MR took this COA indicates to me that for whatever reasons, he assessed it as the most appropriate for the situation, the apparent branching of which, the majority here are attributing to some level of either incompetence or hubris.
> 
> Personally, I’m not joining the masses to write MR off as having fumbled the ball.  I may very well be wrong, but having spent a few tours in Ottawa, including not insignificant interaction with a number of Central Agencies, I’m quite willing to go out on a limb and believe that this whole thing isn’t over by a long shot.
> 
> The power dynamics at play are likely more intricate than most here believe.
> 
> $0.02
> 
> 
> Regards
> G2G


I put a lot of stock in your experience and insight, so I hope you’re right. I don’t have the necessary insight into that level of the institution to take this at anything other than face value. Either way I’m inclined to be as charitable to MR as possible, and I hope somehow he ninjas his way through this. I know that I’ll believe anything he says about his own conduct unless I get compelling reasons not to. He has earned that.


----------



## FSTO

Mick said:


> Wouldn't resigning (in protest or otherwise) be more effective?
> 
> LGen Rouleau seems to be direct and articulate - what do you suppose is achieved by explaining, apologizing and stepping aside?  Note that he directly states what his intentions were, the unfortunate optics, and why he is now stepping aside.


Historically resigning to protest government policy hasn't worked in the slightest in Canada. A plethora of GOFOs resigned during the unification of the armed forces of Canada, didn't change the direction of the government at all. Since then there have been several officers who have resigned for one reason or another. VAdm Chuck Thomas comes to mind (yes, the father of the current DM) and his actions barely registered. Canadians don't care about the CAF, we could self immolate and most Canadians would barely notice.


----------



## Remius

Well since we are Theory crafting.   Maybe Admiral Norman is behind all of this.  After all, when he went through his purge from the system, many here stated he would get back on those that did him wrong.  Maybe the fall of Vance and company was orchestrated by him and all this collateral damage is his doing…👽


----------



## Loachman

Haggis said:


> "The editorial in the Creston Valley Advance suggested that the day after the incident, Trudeau offered an apology of sorts: "I'm sorry," he is quoted as saying. "If I had known you were reporting for a national paper I never would have been so forward." So, he did apologize, but only for groping _the reporter_, not the *woman*.



Almost.

He was sorry that he groped a reporter for a *national* paper, implying that he was concerned about the possible extent of the coverage but would not have cared were she only a reporter for a mere *local* paper.

Regardless, nobody else could have shrugged off such an assault so casually and been allowed to get away with it by media or enough voters.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Jarnhamar said:


> Looks like the SNCO and WO mess.


C&POs Wrestling is a thing lol


----------



## Remius

FSTO said:


> Historically resigning to protest government policy hasn't worked in the slightest in Canada. A plethora of GOFOs resigned during the unification of the armed forces of Canada, didn't change the direction of the government at all. Since then there have been several officers who have resigned for one reason or another. VAdm Chuck Thomas comes to mind (yes, the father of the current DM) and his actions barely registered. Canadians don't care about the CAF, we could self immolate and most Canadians would barely notice.


That’s the sad reality of all of this.  Most Canadians have no real idea who these people are.  All they see is another general stepping down due to some controversy and that the CAF has a sexual harassment problem.

So with the CAF’s reputation in tatters, leadership replaced and or shuffled, the government of the day may see a target rich environment for cutting after accumulating an immense amount of debt over the last few years.


----------



## trigger324

Remius said:


> That’s the sad reality of all of this.  Most Canadians have no real idea who these people are.  All they see is another general stepping down due to some controversy and that the CAF has a sexual harassment problem.


I'm not so sure about that. The military earned so much visibility within the last 10-15 years that was positive, a movement started where I still get thanked for my service on the norm when I'm grabbing my coffee on the way in, or grabbing 2L of milk on the way home dressed in my work clothes. I bet most of you do too. The military isn't invisible on the normal day to day and certainly not on Remembrance Day for example when it gets maximum coverage or every time the Snowbirds do a show.

Who's the media really shining the negative light on here? The government or the CAF? My money is on the government.


----------



## FSTO

trigger324 said:


> I'm not so sure about that. The military earned so much visibility within the last 10-15 years that was positive, a movement started where I still get thanked for my service on the norm when I'm grabbing my coffee on the way in, or grabbing 2L of milk on the way home dressed in my work clothes. I bet most of you do too. The military isn't invisible on the normal day to day and certainly not on Remembrance Day for example when it gets maximum coverage or every time the Snowbirds do a show.
> 
> Who's the media really shining the negative light on here? The government or the CAF? My money is on the government.


Thank you for your service comments (when they see the uniform) and attendance at Remembrance Day ceremonies are easy things for joe public to do. But other than that we are not given a second thought. This is reflected in Defence Committee "debates". For example has any MP actually been able to drill down to get to the root of issues facing the forces? Nope, most if not all of the questions from the MP's are gotcha attempts instead of insightful drill down of the issues. When Canada bought the used fighters from Oz, did any MP ask the minister WTF? And the MP's lack of probing questions are a reflection of their party staff's inability or unwillingness to get to the root of the issues facing the CAF today.


----------



## Mick

Good2Golf said:


> Maybe you think so.  I don’t know if you’re right.
> 
> If more comes from further investigation into the matter, maybe that will be of greater benefit to address the root cause of the overall situation.
> 
> 
> Frankly, the fact that MR took this COA indicates to me that for whatever reasons, *he assessed it as the most appropriate for the situation*, the apparent branching of which, the majority here are attributing to some level of either incompetence or hubris.
> 
> Personally, I’m not joining the masses to write MR off as having fumbled the ball.  I may very well be wrong, but having spent a few tours in Ottawa, including not insignificant interaction with a number of Central Agencies, I’m quite willing to go out on a limb and believe that this whole thing isn’t over by a long shot.
> 
> The power dynamics at play are likely more intricate than most here believe.
> 
> $0.02
> 
> 
> Regards
> G2G


To be clear, I think LGen Rouleau is an honourable man and I respect his integrity, which he continues to display by stepping aside.

I would also argue that he has openly and directly admitted that his actions were inappropriate, and has accepted responsibility.

I'll admit that my opinion is based solely on what I've read in the news, and LGen Rouleau's explicit statement.  




Haggis said:


> LCol Taylor did exactly that.  It was a momentary blip in the news cycle and them back to normal until someone brings it up again on a slow news day.


I understand your point, but LCol Taylor isn't as high profile as the VCDS.  

The only other resignations I can think of, off the top of my head, would be RAdm Landymore, and _maybe_ MGen Ross in 2003 re Afghanistan?

I'd honestly be surprised if this develops into much more than a momentary blip as well.

Wait and see, I suppose.


----------



## Remius

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservatives-call-for-defence-ministers-resignation-1.6067045
		


I can't say I disagree with the CPC on this.  That guy needs to go.


----------



## Jarnhamar

ballz said:


> What I can't find a reasonable explanation for, is that if that was his intention,* how did CRCN get dragged into it? *


Maybe MR gave him his best _*Smokes, lets go! *_voice._ 

CRCN's*"*_I didn't know any better" was pretty weak.





boot12 said:


> One could argue that Gen. Vance has not been convicted of anything yet. While this is certainly true, given the preponderance of evidence provided by Maj Kellie Brennan and others to date, certainly the VCDS and CRCN would have been aware of the reports made against him.* I would guess that all three men have almost certainly convicted subordinates in Summary Trials of offences during their careers with less compelling evidence.*


I've come back to this a few times and think it's insightful and accurate.


----------



## MilEME09

Remius said:


> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservatives-call-for-defence-ministers-resignation-1.6067045
> 
> 
> 
> I can't say I disagree with the CPC on this.  That guy needs to go.


After everything that's happened with the minister, the department, including the high turn over rate of CDS, VCDS and others, one has to start looking at the possibility of a higher leadership issues at the department. Given we have two officers relieved over a golf game but after everything, the minister keeps his job, it's not about the good of the department, it's about one politicians career.


----------



## dimsum

trigger324 said:


> I'm not so sure about that. The military earned so much visibility within the last 10-15 years that was positive, a movement started where I still get thanked for my service on the norm when I'm grabbing my coffee on the way in, or grabbing 2L of milk on the way home dressed in my work clothes. I bet most of you do too. The military isn't invisible on the normal day to day and certainly not on Remembrance Day for example when it gets maximum coverage or every time the Snowbirds do a show.
> 
> Who's the media really shining the negative light on here? The government or the CAF? My money is on the government.


That is very location-specific.  That has happened exactly twice to me - once in Comox and once in Calgary.  

Where I am now (where there is a decent presence but not a "military town"), people look at me like I have 3 heads.  It's actually a little awkward wearing my uniform in public.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Remius said:


> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservatives-call-for-defence-ministers-resignation-1.6067045
> 
> 
> 
> I can't say I disagree with the CPC on this.  That guy needs to go.


Can we stop with the calls for resignation over everything ?  

I mean if the best my party's can do is "off with their heads" and offer no real alternative we deserve to be the eternal bridesmaid.


----------



## OldSolduer

MilEME09 said:


> After everything that's happened with the minister, the department, including the high turn over rate of CDS, VCDS and others, one has to start looking at the possibility of a higher leadership issues at the department. Given we have two officers relieved over a golf game but after everything, the minister keeps his job, it's not about the good of the department, it's about one politicians career.


The politician in question is apparently a very good fundraiser


----------



## Haggis

trigger324 said:


> I'm not so sure about that. The military earned so much visibility within the last 10-15 years that was positive, a movement started where I still get thanked for my service on the norm when I'm grabbing my coffee on the way in, or grabbing 2L of milk on the way home dressed in my work clothes. I bet most of you do too. The military isn't invisible on the normal day to day and certainly not on Remembrance Day for example when it gets maximum coverage or every time the Snowbirds do a show.
> 
> Who's the media really shining the negative light on here? The government or the CAF? My money is on the government.


Support for the CAF is a mile wide but an inch deep.   The CAF and associated extended family are a very small percentage of the population.  Very few Canadians care about the CAF or veterans unless they need them for disaster relief, have a personal connection to either or the media tells them they should care.

Except for the MND, the government at large will distance itself from the CAF, an entity unto itself,  when bad news arises.


----------



## Remius

Halifax Tar said:


> Can we stop with the calls for resignation over everything ?
> 
> I mean if the best my party's can do is "off with their heads" and offer no real alternative we deserve to be the eternal bridesmaid.


I normally agree with that sentiment but there are always cases were replacing a minister is warranted.  Given the current crisis and debacle I don't think it is unreasonable for the opposition to make that call.  But yes, if they always call for resignations, when it is a legit call it falls flat. 

But on this I don't think that O'toole is off the mark.   Even the media is asking why he is still there.


----------



## Good2Golf

Haggis said:


> *Except for the MND*, the government at large will distance itself from the CAF, an entity unto itself,  when bad news arises.



🤔 It seems like the MND has been offering more platitudes and distancing himself than even the PM…


----------



## daftandbarmy

Good2Golf said:


> 🤔 It seems like the MND has been offering more platitudes and distancing himself than even the PM…



There's alot of this going on right now:


----------



## lenaitch

dimsum said:


> That is very location-specific.  That has happened exactly twice to me - once in Comox and once in Calgary.
> 
> Where I am now (where there is a decent presence but not a "military town"), people look at me like I have 3 heads.  It's actually a little awkward wearing my uniform in public.


Our daughter works in a small city with a Base and it's no uncommon to hear a local say they didn't know it was there.  It's in the city limits.


----------



## mariomike

dimsum said:


> It's actually a little awkward wearing my uniform in public.


Canadians may not be as used to seeing military uniforms as our neighbours to the south. They had a draft until 1973. Our last one was 1945.

Or, veterans wearing identifying clothing and insignia. How often do we see the old-timers proudly wearing their RCL jackets anymore?

Even now I think their National Guard may be more visible than our PRes. ( I am sure someone with more up to date experience will correct me, if I am wrong. )

Also, wearing ANY public service uniform off-duty in public ( while going to and from work, funeral etc. ) can be a little awkward when something, or somebody, goes down.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Canadians do not pay attention to the CAF beyond the big stories of the day.  Few would know what the points of going to Rwanda or the Balkans were if there had been no major massacres.  Few would have paid any attention to matters in Afghanistan if there had been no bodies coming home.  Many just want to brag on the achievements of others - Canadian soldiers wearing blue hats, Olympic athletes winning medals.  They don't want to hear about war crimes, failures, scandals, reprehensible behaviour.

For the past 50 years, Canada has been governed roughly 60% of the time by a party that, during that time, has ranged from indifferent through hostile to spending federal revenues on defence.  The other party isn't hostile but its stated intentions founder on its apathy.

The long game seems to be to slowly bleed away capability.  A loss or weakening of capability then becomes an excuse for stepping back and contracting a bit more.  Excuses to shift the culture from soldiery to HR-centric uniformed civil service are also welcome.  Every crisis or scandal is a chance to promote a couple more items from that job jar, and for politicians to jockey for promotion.


----------



## daftandbarmy

mariomike said:


> Canadians may not be as used to seeing military uniforms as our neighbours to the south. They had a draft until 1973. Our last one was 1945.
> 
> Or, veterans wearing identifying clothing and insignia. How often do we see older guys wearing RCL jackets anymore?
> 
> *Even now I think their National Guard may be more visible than our PRes. ( I am sure someone with more up to date experience will correct me, if I am wrong. )
> *
> Also, wearing ANY public service uniform off-duty in public ( while going to and from work, funeral etc. ) can be a little awkward when something, or somebody, goes down.



As the PRes has assumed the role of 'Mini-Me' to the Reg F, aping many of its worst social distancing type behaviours even before COVID, they are just as distant and disconnected from the civilian worlds in which they live.

So no worries there


----------



## dimsum

mariomike said:


> Even now I think their National Guard may be more visible than our PRes. ( I am sure someone with more up to date experience will correct me, if I am wrong. )


Well, there was something that happened in/around Jan 6th...   

But I digress.


----------



## shawn5o

FSTO said:


> Historically resigning to protest government policy hasn't worked in the slightest in Canada. A plethora of GOFOs resigned during the unification of the armed forces of Canada, didn't change the direction of the government at all. Since then there have been several officers who have resigned for one reason or another. VAdm Chuck Thomas comes to mind (yes, the father of the current DM) and his actions barely registered. Canadians don't care about the CAF, we could self immolate and most Canadians would barely notice.


My experience is that the Canadian public does care for the CF, no matter some inappropriate actions taken by some.


----------



## Remius

shawn5o said:


> My experience is that the Canadian public does care for the CF, no matter some inappropriate actions taken by some.


I think it is the type and level of "care".  My time in recruiting and doing many public events representing the CAF has opened my eyes to just how much the general population does not actually know or care to know.  Basic stuff we in the CAF take for granted. 


that we are a peacekeeper army
confusion about us being in Iraq vs Afghanistan
the difference between the branches
our military history
what we actually do vs what they think we do
that everyone in green is infantry
that everyone in blue is a pilot
that everyone in the navy is a commissionaire or vice versa (that we actually even have a navy)

Just a few examples. 

They care about how we are treated, when soldiers die etc.  but that's it.  It doesn't go much deeper.  While most CAF types know who General Rouleau is and his reputation,  I am sure his name escapes most Canadians and that he's just another general stepping down from an organisation that is looking more and more effed up.


----------



## trigger324

Brad Sallows said:


> Canadians…don't want to hear about war crimes, failures, scandals, reprehensible behaviour.


I think that would be a good thing


----------



## Brad Sallows

I mean ostrich-head-buried don't want to hear, followed by mob-like calls for "justice".  Not a good thing.


----------



## QV

Brad Sallows said:


> Canadians do not pay attention to the CAF beyond the big stories of the day.  Few would know what the points of going to Rwanda or the Balkans were if there had been no major massacres.  Few would have paid any attention to matters in Afghanistan if there had been no bodies coming home.  Many just want to brag on the achievements of others - Canadian soldiers wearing blue hats, Olympic athletes winning medals.  They don't want to hear about war crimes, failures, scandals, reprehensible behaviour.
> 
> For the past 50 years, Canada has been governed roughly 60% of the time by a party that, during that time, has ranged from indifferent through hostile to spending federal revenues on defence.  The other party isn't hostile but its stated intentions founder on its apathy.
> 
> The long game seems to be to slowly bleed away capability.  A loss or weakening of capability then becomes an excuse for stepping back and contracting a bit more.  Excuses to shift the culture from soldiery to HR-centric uniformed civil service are also welcome.  Every crisis or scandal is a chance to promote a couple more items from that job jar, and for politicians to jockey for promotion.


Almost like decades of influence by adversaries of the West is slowly bearing fruit.


----------



## Remius

QV said:


> Almost like decades of influence by adversaries of the West is slowly bearing fruit.


To be honest I think we are our own worst enemy at times.


----------



## Brad Sallows

"I'm sorry. If I had known you had a voice, I would never have been an asshole."


----------



## OldSolduer

Remius said:


> To be honest I think we are our own worst enemy at times.


That I will agree to. I have some opinions as to why - and they are just opinions.

Good Idea Fairies needed to be told to STFU and sit down.


----------



## SupersonicMax

OldSolduer said:


> Good Idea Fairies needed to be told to STFU and sit down.


Not sure I understand what that means.  Do you have concrete examples?


----------



## QV

MilEME09 said:


> Destabilize the CAF, demoralizing our forces, s*ounds like psyops to me.*






Remius said:


> To be honest I think we are our own worst enemy at times.


It's naive to think in those limited parameters. You're only partly right when you state we are our own worst enemy. We are, because we've allowed years of foreign influence by adversaries to shape our current situation. We've known it this whole time but did nothing to fix it.

For example this has been going on for the better part of three decades maybe more, no significant scandals since then, no dismantling... what do you think could be achieved in 30-40 years of soft but prolific influence by our adversaries? Do you think we would be stronger or weaker as a result?









						China set up crime web in Canada, report says
					

THE 'SIDEWINDER' SECRETS




					www.theglobeandmail.com
				











						The McAdam file: Bribery, Chinese gangsters and betrayal
					

Brian McAdam was a seasoned Canadian diplomat when he was posted to Hong Kong in 1989. He became the embassy's immigration control officer two years later, and…




					ottawacitizen.com
				




Apologies for the tangent...


----------



## OldSolduer

SupersonicMax said:


> Not sure I understand what that means.  Do you have concrete examples?


From what I saw in 38 years service a lot of people were wrapped up in projects, surveys, and the administrative nausea those things entail that weren't really helping the CAF focus on its primary mission. A lot of people seem to have thought the role of the CAF was to peace keep and we all know that is not the primary mission.


----------



## Remius

QV said:


> It's naive to think in those limited parameters. You're only partly right when you state we are our own worst enemy. We are, because we've allowed years of foreign influence by adversaries to shape our current situation. We've known it this whole time but did nothing to fix it.
> 
> For example this has been going on for the better part of three decades maybe more, no significant scandals since then, no dismantling... what do you think could be achieved in 30-40 years of soft but prolific influence by our adversaries? Do you think we would be stronger or weaker as a result?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China set up crime web in Canada, report says
> 
> 
> THE 'SIDEWINDER' SECRETS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theglobeandmail.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The McAdam file: Bribery, Chinese gangsters and betrayal
> 
> 
> Brian McAdam was a seasoned Canadian diplomat when he was posted to Hong Kong in 1989. He became the embassy's immigration control officer two years later, and…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ottawacitizen.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apologies for the tangent...


No apology needed.  But you should know I said “at times”


----------



## Remius

OldSolduer said:


> From what I saw in 38 years service a lot of people were wrapped up in projects, surveys, and the administrative nausea those things entail that weren't really helping the CAF focus on its primary mission. A lot of people seem to have thought the role of the CAF was to peace keep and we all know that is not the primary mission.


this ^^


----------



## daftandbarmy

Think of a number between 1 and a million... add a couple of zeroes


Fortin's allegations may prove politics supersedes all in handling of military's misconduct crisis: expert​ 
Fortin claims that his firing was decided not by his military superior but by the defence minister, the health minister and the prime minister's office

The allegation of political interference in the dismissal of the general heading Canada’s vaccine rollout, if true, may prove that political calculations “rule” how the government manages the sexual misconduct crisis in the military, says one eminent military expert.

 “Houston, we’ve got a problem,” thinks Michel Drapeau, a well-known military law expert who has represented dozens of CAF members in sexual misconduct cases.

He was reacting to a request by Maj.-Gen Dany Fortin for a judicial review by the Federal Court of the government’s decision to fire him from his position as vice-president for operations at the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) on May 14.

A few days later, military police revealed in a statement they had referred a sexual misconduct investigation to Quebec prosecutors. To date, no charges have been laid.

In his application for judicial review, Fortin claims that he was not afforded proper due process before his removal, and that his firing was decided not by his military superior but by the defence minister, the health minister and the prime minister’s office. He is asking that the government be ordered to reinstate him to his secondment at PHAC or an equivalent post for a Maj.-Gen.

None of his claims have been tested in court and the federal government has not yet filed a response to his application.

To justify his request, Fortin explains that he was informed by acting Chief of Defence Staff Lt.-Gen Wayne Eyre back in March that military police had launched an investigation into him regarding an alleged sexual misconduct that occurred over 30 years ago. At the time, he was told by Eyre and PHAC President Iain Stewart that it was “business as usual” and that he was presumed innocent.









						Fortin's allegations may prove politics supersedes all in handling of military's misconduct crisis: expert
					

Fortin claims that his firing was decided not by his military superior but by the defence minister, the health minister and the prime minister's office




					nationalpost.com


----------



## Haggis

Mick said:


> I understand your point, but LCol Taylor isn't as high profile as the VCDS.


So, do we wait and see what happens if one or more of the 30-odd female GO/FOs decide to publicly resign in protest?  

Will that make a difference?

Probably not.


----------



## SupersonicMax

OldSolduer said:


> From what I saw in 38 years service a lot of people were wrapped up in projects, surveys, and the administrative nausea those things entail that weren't really helping the CAF focus on its primary mission. A lot of people seem to have thought the role of the CAF was to peace keep and we all know that is not the primary mission.


So, we should bin any new ideas and embrace the status quo?  If not, what is the threshold for good enough idea (without the benefit of hindsight)?

FWIW, peace keeping is one of the primary roles of the CAF defined within _Strong, Secure, Engaged_, our current defence policy along with the protection of Canada and North America, and the participation to NATO operations.


----------



## Haggis

OldSolduer said:


> From what I saw in 38 years service a lot of people were wrapped up in projects, surveys, and the administrative nausea those things entail that weren't really helping the CAF focus on its primary mission. A lot of people seem to have thought the role of the CAF was to peace keep and we all know that is not the primary mission.


When I worked at NDHQ, we handled a ton of "surveys", RFI's reports and "administrative nausea" that seemed unimportant to those completing them but were used to inform political decision makers and guide defence policy.  Many were legislated requirements and many were not.


----------



## Good2Golf

SupersonicMax said:


> FWIW, peace keeping is one of the primary roles of the CAF defined within _Strong, Secure, Engaged_, our current defence policy along with the protection of Canada and North America, and the participation to NATO operations.


 Which is why we committed to strongly to MINUSMA.

…oh, wait…


----------



## SupersonicMax

Good2Golf said:


> Which is why we committed to strongly to MINUSMA.
> 
> …oh, wait…


The lack of commitment is not proof that it isn’t one of the primary missions envisioned by the Government.  Just look how committed to the defence of Canada (and much required NORAD modernization)...  Yet, no one can argue it is not one of our primary mission, arguably the most important one....


----------



## Mick

Haggis said:


> So, do we wait and see what happens if one or more of the 30-odd female GO/FOs decide to publicly resign in protest?
> 
> Will that make a difference?
> 
> Probably not.


No, but a high-profile VCDS resigning while outlining specific grievances seems much more likely to "make a difference" instead of apologizing, taking responsibility while providing an explanation of intent, and not outlining any grievances whatsoever.


----------



## Jarnhamar

We should play CAF Twitter Bingo:

_Troubling_
_Accept full responsibility_
_Do better_
_Way ahead_
_Didn't understand the full impact_
_Needs of victims _


----------



## trigger324

Jarnhamar said:


> We should play CAF Twitter Bingo:
> 
> _Troubling_
> _Accept full responsibility_
> _Do better_
> _Way ahead_
> _Didn't understand the full impact_
> _Needs of victims _


When you don’t have any buzz words, what do you really have?


----------



## Good2Golf

SupersonicMax said:


> The lack of commitment is not proof that it isn’t one of the primary missions envisioned by the Government.  Just look how committed to the defence of Canada (and much required NORAD modernization)...  Yet, no one can argue it is not one of our primary mission, arguably the most important one....


Bingo.  Primacy ≠ Commitment…for any mission really. 

If we were committed to NORAD, we would have: Repaired PIN-3; replaced TPS-70; stopped arsing around replacing the Hornet; and moved positively on NORAD Renewal/ABMS.

UN participation at all time lows and out of Mali we go, like a spoiled child, when we don’t get the UNSC seat. 

Yup, everything’s an important mission, which conveniently in Canada, means we don’t need to be committed to them…


----------



## SupersonicMax

Good2Golf said:


> Bingo.  Primacy ≠ Commitment…for any mission really.
> 
> If we were committed to NORAD, we would have: Repaired PIN-3; replaced TPS-70; stopped arsing around replacing the Hornet; and moved positively on NORAD Renewal/ABMS.
> 
> UN participation at all time lows and out of Mali we go, like a spoiled child, when we don’t get the UNSC seat.
> 
> Yup, everything’s an important mission, which conveniently in Canada, means we don’t need to be committed to them…


Absolutely.  However, it is still our guiding document for developing capabilities (as incomplete as SSE is for defining precisely what we need to do).  We need to prepare doing what is spelled out within SSE and it includes Peace Keeping.


----------



## OldSolduer

SupersonicMax said:


> So, we should bin any new ideas and embrace the status quo?  If not, what is the threshold for good enough idea (without the benefit of hindsight)?
> 
> FWIW, peace keeping is one of the primary roles of the CAF defined within _Strong, Secure, Engaged_, our current defence policy along with the protection of Canada and North America, and the participation to NATO operations.


One of the missions. In my mind we have ONE mission - the defence of Canada. Peacekeeping is cool - kind of - and until the government realizes that peacekeeping isn't sitting on an OP in the Buffer Zone on the Green Line in Nicosia in spit shone jungle boots, pressed combats and starched hats.....and yes peacekeeping can get ugly.

I am in no way saying the CAF shouldn`t discourage innovation. What I`m saying is stupid industrious people ( we have a few) need to be curbed.


----------



## Weinie

OldSolduer said:


> One of the missions. In my mind we have ONE mission - the defence of Canada. Peacekeeping is cool - kind of - and until the government realizes that peacekeeping isn't sitting on an OP in the Buffer Zone on the Green Line in Nicosia in spit shone jungle boots, pressed combats and starched hats.....and yes peacekeeping can get ugly.
> 
> I am in no way saying the CAF shouldn`t discourage innovation. What I`m saying is stupid industrious people ( we have *QUITE *a few) need to be curbed.


FTFY.


----------



## futurepensioner

PPCLI Guy said:


> And so he should!


It may be good that he is fighting back, but it again demonstrates that there are different rules for Senior Officers then there are for all the other ranks.

First off, he is fighting back before there is a decision whether or not he is guilty of what he has been accused of.

Secondly, what about all the other military members who are not Senior Officers who have been accused of something (guilty or not) and had there lives/careers ruined?  Did they have the means or the ability to "fight back"?  In some cases the "fight back" over the ruined careers were against the Senior Officers who, it seems, are now considering things to be "unfair" now that it has happened to them (because their "Senior" persons are allegedly screwing them around).

I know of several individuals who have had their careers ruined over allegations that, in the end, turned out to be false or they were found "not guilty", but by that time the damage had already been done.  Where is the justice for them?  Oh yeah, it was denied by the Senior Officers in the CAF.

I hope he is able to get himself some justice if the allegations prove to be false/vexatious - no one deserves to be put through the wringer for BS.   

Maybe one day others members will get to be able to get the same level of justice.  And just maybe, the Senior Officers will take note of this and remember it when they have t deal with subordinates on similar matters in the future (somehow in my pessimistic mind, I doubt that will ever happen). 

I do hold some hope though on the concept of "equal Justice For All".


----------



## Weinie

futurepensioner said:


> It may be good that he is fighting back, but it again demonstrates that there are different rules for Senior Officers then there are for all the other ranks.
> 
> First off, he is fighting back before there is a decision whether or not he is guilty of what he has been accused of.
> 
> Secondly, what about all the other military members who are not Senior Officers who have been accused of something (guilty or not) and had there lives/careers ruined?  Did they have the means or the ability to "fight back"?  In some cases the "fight back" over the ruined careers were against the Senior Officers who, it seems, are now considering things to be "unfair" now that it has happened to them (because their "Senior" persons are allegedly screwing them around).
> 
> I know of several individuals who have had their careers ruined over allegations that, in the end, turned out to be false or they were found "not guilty", but by that time the damage had already been done.  Where is the justice for them?  Oh yeah, it was denied by the Senior Officers in the CAF.
> 
> I hope he is able to get himself some justice if the allegations prove to be false/vexatious - no one deserves to be put through the wringer for BS.
> 
> Maybe one day others members will get to be able to get the same level of justice.  And just maybe, the Senior Officers will take note of this and remember it when they have t deal with subordinates on similar matters in the future (somehow in my pessimistic mind, I doubt that will ever happen).
> 
> I do hold some hope though on the concept of "equal Justice For All".


I am certainly not as aware of the circumstances that you describe as you seem to be portraying. Having said that, a MGen, especially one with a high-profile job, will always get more attention, media and otherwise, if things go pear-shaped.

I would postulate that most senior officers do not ascribe to the "guilty, even awaiting trial/even though proven innocent" approach to mil justice.


----------



## MilEME09

By a vote of 169-151, the opposition parties came together to pass my motion in the House of Commons condemning Minister Sajjan.


----------



## ModlrMike

Not covered by CBC, so it didn't happen.


----------



## Kilted

Is there such thing as an Acting-Minister of National Defence?


----------



## The Bread Guy

Kilted said:


> Is there such thing as an Acting-Minister of National Defence?


I stand to be corrected, but in theory, you could have one, but that presumes:
1)  _nobody_ else in caucus wants the position enough to want to hang onto it as long as the government of the day's in place, or
2)  the PM feels there's something to be gained by a _partial_ solution involving appointing a sorta-kinda-just-for-now cabinet minister.  

On (1), I'd be surprised to see nobody wanting to climb the greasy pole enough to NOT want to be in cabinet (even the U.K. gets Ministers for Northern Ireland, right?). 

As for (2)?  Well, let the record show, right?


----------



## The Bread Guy

ModlrMike said:


> Not covered by CBC, so it didn't happen.


Yup -- only that the motion was coming, so I guess it must not have happened if it wasn't reported.


----------



## dapaterson

Kilted said:


> Is there such thing as an Acting-Minister of National Defence?



Currently, the Minister of Veteran's Affairs is double-hatted as Associate Minister of National Defence.









						Associate Minister of National Defence - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## brihard

dapaterson said:


> Currently, the Minister of Veteran's Affairs is double-hatted as Associate Minister of National Defence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Associate Minister of National Defence - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org


That’s a product of the efforts to ‘close the seam’ where releasing CAF members would have a really rocky transition to VAC.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Kilted said:


> Is there such thing as an Acting-Minister of National Defence?



Technically (i.e., using that title), no.  The National Defence Act states



> 3 There is hereby established a department of the Government of Canada called the Department of National Defence over which the Minister of National Defence appointed by commission under the Great Seal shall preside.
> 
> Minister
> Duties
> 
> 4  The Minister holds office during pleasure, has the management and direction of the Canadian Forces and of all matters relating to national defence and is responsible for
> 
> (a) the construction and maintenance of all defence establishments and works for the defence of Canada; and
> (b) research relating to the defence of Canada and to the development of and improvements in materiel.
> 
> Designation of person to execute Minister’s functions
> 
> 5  *The Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister, may designate any other person in addition to the Minister to exercise any power or perform any duty or function that is vested in or that may be exercised or performed by the Minister under this Act.*
> 
> Associate Minister
> 
> 6  The Governor General may, by commission under the Great Seal, appoint an Associate Minister of National Defence to hold office during pleasure and to exercise and perform such powers, duties and functions of the Minister as may be assigned to the Associate Minister by the Governor in Council.



The Associate Minister is not a "2ic" who automatically assumes control of the department in the absence (physically, intellectually or morally) of the Minister unless the Governor in Council (in other words, the PM) has already so assigned such function.  And while it would be extremely unusual to designate another individual to perform the duties of the Minister without actually naming another person as the Minister, it could, legally, be done.  But what would be the purpose?


----------



## TCM621

Blackadder1916 said:


> Technically (i.e., using that title), no.  The National Defence Act states
> 
> 
> 
> The Associate Minister is not a "2ic" who automatically assumes control of the department in the absence (physically, intellectually or morally) of the Minister unless the Governor in Council (in other words, the PM) has already so assigned such function.  And while it would be extremely unusual to designate another individual to perform the duties of the Minister without actually naming another person as the Minister, it could, legally, be done.  But what would be the purpose?


The DM "speaks with the Minister's voice" when the minister is unavailable so they are a 2IC who takes over but cant actually be a the minister even in an acting capacity.


----------



## OldSolduer

dapaterson said:


> Currently, the Minister of Veteran's Affairs is double-hatted as Associate Minister of National Defence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Associate Minister of National Defence - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org


Hypothetically speaking could the PM appoint whoever he wanted as the MND - elected or not.


----------



## Loachman

SupersonicMax said:


> Yet, no one can argue it is not one of our primary mission, arguably the most important one....



Yes, I can.

The most important one is defence of Canada and our national interests, in conjunction with our allies, and aiding them in their own defence.

Peacekeeping has *always* been a sideline.

We had more people stationed in Germany during the Cold War than we ever had on peacekeeping missions - as was right and proper.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Looks like the Minister of National Defense got a 5B

*MPs vote to censure Sajjan over handling of sexual misconduct in the Armed Forces*


----------



## SupersonicMax

Loachman said:


> Yes, I can.
> 
> The most important one is defence of Canada and our national interests, in conjunction with our allies, and aiding them in their own defence.
> 
> Peacekeeping has *always* been a sideline.
> 
> We had more people stationed in Germany during the Cold War than we ever had on peacekeeping missions - as was right and proper.


Didn’t I say that the defence of Canada is our most important mission?  If you quoted the whole post, you’d see the context.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Jarnhamar said:


> Looks like the Minister of National Defense got a 5B
> 
> *MPs vote to censure Sajjan over handling of sexual misconduct in the Armed Forces*



Or an 'atta boy' for doing such an awesome job.

And yet more proof that reservists don't have much say in what happens in the CAF because they aren't part of the 'Old Boys' Club' .  

Justin Trudeau expresses support for Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan despite censure by MPs​
He may have been censured by the House of Commons this week over his handling of sexual misconduct in the military, but Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan is not going anywhere, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Friday.

Amid mounting calls for Sajjan to resign or be fired — both from opposition politicians and experts who study the military — Trudeau continued to express support for his embattled minister, who he said is committed to transforming military culture.

“He continues to have my confidence. He is the right person for the job,” Trudeau told reporters.

“I know the level to which he is dedicated to transforming, for the better, the culture of the military in many ways. *He’s certainly not a part of the old boys’ club that is causing such problems right now in the military.”*

Trudeau was speaking after a Conservative motion to censure Sajjan — expressing the House’s disappointment in his leadership — passed in a late-night Thursday vote with the support of the NDP and Bloc Québécois.

While the motion carries no formal consequences for Sajjan, it serves as a “strong signal” to the prime minister that Sajjan has lost the respect of the other parties in the House and should be sacked, said Conservative defence critic James Bezan, who tabled the motion.

“It is so sad that the prime minister would rather stand beside and protect Minister Sajjan than to stand up and protect the women and men who have suffered sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces,” Bezan said in an interview Friday following Trudeau’s comments. “It again proves that Justin Trudeau is a fake feminist.”

Trudeau labelled the motion a “crass political attack,” saying it slandered the reputation of a man who has served as a police officer, soldier and federal minister. Members of the Liberal cabinet took to Twitter en masse in the wake of Thursday’s vote, reiterating their support.









						Justin Trudeau expresses support for Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan despite censure by MPs
					

He may have been censured by the House of Commons this week over his handling of sexual misconduct in the military, but Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan is not going anywhere, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Friday.




					www.thestar.com


----------



## Weinie

daftandbarmy said:


> Or an 'atta boy' for doing such an awesome job.
> 
> And yet more proof that reservists don't have much say in what happens in the CAF because they aren't part of the 'Old Boys' Club' .
> 
> Justin Trudeau expresses support for Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan despite censure by MPs​
> He may have been censured by the House of Commons this week over his handling of sexual misconduct in the military, but Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan is not going anywhere, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Friday.
> 
> Amid mounting calls for Sajjan to resign or be fired — both from opposition politicians and experts who study the military — Trudeau continued to express support for his embattled minister, who he said is committed to transforming military culture.
> 
> “He continues to have my confidence. He is the right person for the job,” Trudeau told reporters.
> 
> “I know the level to which he is dedicated to transforming, for the better, the culture of the military in many ways. *He’s certainly not a part of the old boys’ club that is causing such problems right now in the military.”*
> 
> Trudeau was speaking after a Conservative motion to censure Sajjan — expressing the House’s disappointment in his leadership — passed in a late-night Thursday vote with the support of the NDP and Bloc Québécois.
> 
> While the motion carries no formal consequences for Sajjan, it serves as a “strong signal” to the prime minister that Sajjan has lost the respect of the other parties in the House and should be sacked, said Conservative defence critic James Bezan, who tabled the motion.
> 
> “It is so sad that the prime minister would rather stand beside and protect Minister Sajjan than to stand up and protect the women and men who have suffered sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces,” Bezan said in an interview Friday following Trudeau’s comments. “It again proves that Justin Trudeau is a fake feminist.”
> 
> Trudeau labelled the motion a “crass political attack,” saying it slandered the reputation of a man who has served as a police officer, soldier and federal minister. Members of the Liberal cabinet took to Twitter en masse in the wake of Thursday’s vote, reiterating their support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Trudeau expresses support for Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan despite censure by MPs
> 
> 
> He may have been censured by the House of Commons this week over his handling of sexual misconduct in the military, but Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan is not going anywhere, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Friday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thestar.com


 "*He’s certainly not a part of the old boys’ club that is causing such problems right now in the military.”*

Sigh........................


----------



## Loachman

SupersonicMax said:


> Didn’t I say that the defence of Canada is our most important mission?  If you quoted the whole post, you’d see the context.



The whole original quote:



SupersonicMax said:


> The lack of commitment is not proof that it isn’t one of the primary missions envisioned by the Government. Just look how committed to the defence of Canada (and much required NORAD modernization)... Yet, no one can argue it is not one of our primary mission, arguably the most important one....



Which was in response to:



OldSolduer said:


> A lot of people seem to have thought the role of the CAF was to peace keep and we all know that is not the primary mission.



I took, therefore, "Yet, no one can argue it is not one of our primary mission, arguably the most important one....", to refer to peacekeeping, whether that was your intent or not.

If "Just look how committed to the defence of Canada" was actually a *serious* statement describing historical governmental attitude towards the defence of Canada, then I misinterpreted, because I have yet to experience any *real* governmental commitment since joining in 1973.

Even the two Conservative governments (not counting Joe Clark's brief misadventure) during that almost half-century either lost interest very quickly after some initial good work (Stephen Harper) or only made excessively-generous promises that lived for barely two years, if that long.

And we're now well into the *third* federal government that has failed to replace your main ride.


----------



## Loachman

Weinie said:


> "*He’s certainly not a part of the old boys’ club that is causing such problems right now in the military.”*
> 
> Sigh........................



Perhaps Trudeau could set a better example for the Armed Forces by taking responsibility for his own sexual-assaulty past.


----------



## ModlrMike

Not part of the old boys network says the guy who got the job primarily because of his name and connections.


----------



## Kilted

Weinie said:


> "*He’s certainly not a part of the old boys’ club that is causing such problems right now in the military.”*
> 
> Sigh........................


That we know of, it wouldn't surprise me at all if a complaint was made about him, pretty much everyone else in a senior position has had at least one by now.  Or perhaps it might be like Vance, as soon as he's out of the position someone might come forward.


----------



## FSTO

ModlrMike said:


> Not part of the old boys network says the guy who got the job primarily because of his name and connections.


The Liberals and hypocrisy are the Siamese twins of Canadian Politics.


----------



## CBH99

Loachman said:


> And we're now well into the *third* federal government that has failed to replace your main ride.


I'm sure the SAR Herc, Twin Otter/Buffalo crowd shares his pain   😉


----------



## CBH99

Weinie said:


> *"He’s certainly not a part of the old boys’ club that is causing such problems right now in the military.”*
> 
> Sigh........................


Sorry mods (Like actually sorry, I won't mean to curse often on the forums)

But... Holy shit.  Wow.  Just wow.  How can someone in that position say something that is so wrong, in so many ways at once?  'Take a breath.  Think it through.  Still seem like a good thing to say?  No.  Then rethink it.'


_-  "He’s certainly not a part of the old boys’ club".  _*Yes, yes he is.  *

In fact, the fact that he was a Major, had tours to the sandbox, and advised on planning major operations makes him pretty familiar with what most would consider 'the boys club' at the time.  Old boys club now, because, well, time gets us all...



-  "that is causing such problems right now in the military."  *Do you ENJOY constantly having one foot in boiling oil, or is it so damn blistered and damaged you just don't feel it anymore?  Like it's just a normal part of life for you, isn't it? * 

Are they the cause of such problems right now in the military?  Obviously, in one sense, yes.  Very much so.  Lead by example, don't text your co-workers on any level anything that could be misinterpreted as sexual in nature.  Interested in someone, and may want to pursue something more?  Great, be a gentleman and approach them about it in a nice & respectful way, etc.

But all of these individuals are also entitled to due process, fairness, and to have the matters settled objectively and honestly - not by media slander and nonsense.  And when the PM just threw all of them under the boss at once, it doesn't help reinforce due process.



*But are they the only thing causing problems in the military right now?  No, no they are not.* 

Most of the people who have come forwards I find credible thus far, and deserve to have their concerns and complaints followed up on.  

*Some of the people who have come forwards are questionable, and their stories are questionable - I'm reserving any hard opinion one way or another until the facts are released to the public.  Which is why due process is so important, and truly is the foundation of our justice system.  (In theory, anyway.)      


That one statement alone from the PM was so mind-bogglingly dumb, I hope the opposition parties see the opening & exploit it with as many reasonable yet pointed questions as possible.


----------



## Loachman

CBH99 said:


> I'm sure the SAR Herc, Twin Otter/Buffalo crowd shares his pain   😉



At least their new rides are being built, finally.


----------



## Loachman

CBH99 said:


> Sorry mods (Like actually sorry, I won't mean to curse often on the forums)



You might be the very first one to do so, but I am sure that somebody could dredge up a prior example.



CBH99 said:


> But... Holy shit.  Wow.  Just wow.  How can someone in that position say something that is so wrong, in so many ways at once?



Because he is clueless and tone-deaf and too wrapped up in himself.

And many other non-positive things.



CBH99 said:


> In fact, the fact that he was a Major, had tours to the sandbox, and advised on planning major operations makes him pretty familiar with what most would consider 'the boys club' at the time.  Old boys club now, because, well, time gets us all...



He retired as a Lieutenant-Colonel, I believe.



CBH99 said:


> That one statement alone from the PM was so mind-bogglingly dumb,



Like so many of its predecessors.

Good rant, that was.


----------



## OldSolduer

ModlrMike said:


> Not part of the old boys network says the guy who got the job primarily because of his name and connections.


I don't know how old many of you are but the very name "Trudeau" conjures up in my mind hatred of anything west of Toronto, an all consuming anti  Alberta policy (the National Energy Plan that Trudeau the First and his lackey Marc Lalonde introduced in the early 80s), Trudeau the First's obstruction of justice when one of his kids was caught with marijuana and his basically telling the West to "fuddle duddle" off. 
Now we have an empty headed court jester - Trudeau the Second -  leading the nation - what could possibly go wrong? 

Rant off


----------



## CBH99

Loachman said:


> You might be the very first one to do so, but I am sure that somebody could dredge up a prior example.
> 
> 
> 
> Because he is clueless and tone-deaf and too wrapped up in himself.
> 
> And many other non-positive things.
> 
> 
> 
> He retired as a Lieutenant-Colonel, I believe.
> 
> 
> 
> Like so many of its predecessors.
> 
> Good rant, that was.


Why Thank You sir.  

I don’t know what’s been happening with me over the last few months - but I feel like something finally just snapped in my mind, and now I just sit here with a blown mind and open jaw at so many things.  

I don’t know if this is what getting older and jaded feels like?  Or I just need a vacation? Or if my day job is just getting to me, and then I still need a vacation.  I went for a walk earlier tonight in a green space behind my house, I just found myself saying... “I need to stop trying to stay up to date on the world.  Too much nonsense.”

I have sworn a few times over the last few months.  I know it’s not the end of the world, but my apologies regardless.  Vent was needed on that one 😅

Cheers


----------



## CBH99

Loachman said:


> At least their new rides are being built, finally.


When you’re right, you’re right.


----------



## suffolkowner

I've said it before that in any country that takes National Defence or even politics seriously the MND would have resigned a long time ago.
Stephen Saidemen's take on it which I'm in pretty much full agreement on





__





						Censuring the Defence Minister--Getting it Right and Wrong
					

So, the House of Commons censured Minister of National Defence Harjit Sajjan.   Given that I have been calling for Sajjan to be removed fro...




					saideman.blogspot.com


----------



## Haggis

Weinie said:


> "*He’s certainly not a part of the old boys’ club that is causing such problems right now in the military.”*
> 
> Sigh........................


He's part of several "old boys" clubs, whether he likes/realizes it or not.   Military, police, Liberal, politician.


----------



## MilEME09

Haggis said:


> He's part of several "old boys" clubs, whether he likes/realizes it or not.   Military, police, Liberal, politician.


The moment he decided not to look at evidence confirmed he is part of that club. The entire department has no faith in him, and at this point I'd argue his conduct could be grounds to strip him of his OMM. I think if a hard objective look was taken, it would be taken away from him, he definitely no long brings honor to the appointment.


----------



## Haggis

MilEME09 said:


> The entire department has no faith in him, and at this point I'd argue his conduct could be grounds to strip him of his OMM. I think if a hard objective look was taken, it would be taken away from him, he definitely no long brings honor to the appointment.


Only the GiC can strip him of his ORMM.  In that the PM supports him so fully, that's not going to happen.  The PM need Sajjan, more specifically, his riding and his riding's money.


----------



## coolintheshade

hattrick72 said:


> Major General Dany Fortin has filed a court challenge alleging his dismissal from the vaccine rollout involved political interference by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and two of his cabinet ministers.



Hmmmm...I guess a precedent set with the previous VCDS under Vance, is what brought this one. Anyhoo....

For those keeping track at home there are now 8 GoFo's implicated in either sexual/harrasment/leadership misconduct who have either since retired, been relieved from their position or are currently under investigation.


Gen Vance (Former CDS - Sexual Misconduct)
Adm MacDonald (CDS - Sexual Misconduct)
LGen Rouleau (VCDS - Leadership Misconduct)
VAdm Edmundson (Comd MILPERSCOM - Rape)
MGen Fortin (Vaccine Rollout - Sexual Misconduct)
MGen Dawe (Comd CANSOFCOM - leadership misconduct, wrote letter of support for soldier convicted of rape twice)
VAdm Baines - Temporary Leave (Comd RCN - Leadership Misconduct)
BGen Bernard (2/IC Vaccine Rollout - Racist Slur in Workplace)
Edit:

This also doesn’t include those who quietly retired like Coates. Did I miss anyone?


----------



## coolintheshade

OldSolduer said:


> Are you fuc(ing serious? WOW - who's his attorney?


I'll guess Ghomeshi's attorney, same lady that represented the ex VCDS????


----------



## coolintheshade

Remius said:


> Looks like he’s leaving the CAF.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/vance-otoole-sajjan-golf-1.6064917


No more posing to be a 'gunner' on a helicopter for that hero shot to post on social media, while pretending to be Rambo with Aviator glasses on. Oh, and the hand written notes


----------



## Good2Golf

coolintheshade said:


> I'll guess Ghomeshi's attorney, same lady that represented the ex VCDS????


No.  

Mgen Fortin’s lawyer has already been identified earlier in this thread.  The focus is on litigation (offence), not defence.


----------



## Journeyman

coolintheshade said:


> No more posing to be a 'gunner' on a helicopter for that hero shot to post on social media, while pretending to be Rambo with Aviator glasses on. Oh, and the hand written notes


And that was news 5 days ago.  You're on a roll.  Thank you Mike, for the Ignore function.


----------



## Kilted

coolintheshade said:


> Hmmmm...I guess a precedent set with the previous VCDS under Vance, is what brought this one. Anyhoo....
> 
> For those keeping track at home there are now 8 GoFo's implicated in either sexual/harrasment/leadership misconduct who have either since retired, been relieved from their position or are currently under investigation.
> 
> 
> Gen Vance (Former CDS - Sexual Misconduct)
> Adm MacDonald (CDS - Sexual Misconduct)
> LGen Rouleau (VCDS - Leadership Misconduct)
> VAdm Edmundson (Comd MILPERSCOM - Rape)
> MGen Fortin (Vaccine Rollout - Sexual Misconduct)
> MGen Dawe (Comd CANSOFCOM - leadership misconduct, wrote letter of support for soldier convicted of rape twice)
> VAdm Baines - Temporary Leave (Comd RCN - Leadership Misconduct)
> BGen Bernard (2/IC Vaccine Rollout - Racist Slur in Workplace)
> Edit:
> 
> This also doesn’t include those who quietly retired like Coates. Did I miss anyone?


Should we just make up Bingo cards with the names of the GO/FO who are left on them?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Kilted said:


> Should we just make up Bingo cards with the names of the GO/FO who are left on them?



Save yourself some time and just make them for the male GOFOs...


----------



## Kilted

daftandbarmy said:


> Save yourself some time and just make them for the male GOFOs...


Hey, equal opportunity.


----------



## OldSolduer

Journeyman said:


> And that was news 5 days ago.  You're on a roll.  Thank you Mike, for the Ignore function.


Me thinks someone has an issue or two


----------



## ballz

coolintheshade said:


> Hmmmm...I guess a precedent set with the previous VCDS under Vance, is what brought this one. Anyhoo....
> 
> For those keeping track at home there are now 8 GoFo's implicated in either sexual/harrasment/leadership misconduct who have either since retired, been relieved from their position or are currently under investigation.
> 
> 
> Gen Vance (Former CDS - Sexual Misconduct)
> Adm MacDonald (CDS - Sexual Misconduct)
> LGen Rouleau (VCDS - Leadership Misconduct)
> VAdm Edmundson (Comd MILPERSCOM - Rape)
> MGen Fortin (Vaccine Rollout - Sexual Misconduct)
> MGen Dawe (Comd CANSOFCOM - leadership misconduct, wrote letter of support for soldier convicted of rape twice)
> VAdm Baines - Temporary Leave (Comd RCN - Leadership Misconduct)
> BGen Bernard (2/IC Vaccine Rollout - Racist Slur in Workplace)
> Edit:
> 
> This also doesn’t include those who quietly retired like Coates. Did I miss anyone?



I think Friday should be considered in there as well for leadership failings, I guess he also just quietly retired but the accusations were not insignificant (far worse than Coates).

Meinzinger was also accused in the same article of essentially sitting on an issue until it became public. Not as bad as Friday but unfortunately it's the culture of responding to issues by humming, hawing, and ultimately doing nothing, unless it becomes public, that has gotten us here, so it's also worth noting.


----------



## MilEME09

Reforms to military justice system 'essential' to protect misconduct victims, says former Supreme Court judge
					

The retired justice found numerous areas where commanders have both direct and indirect influence over military police, prosecutors, defence lawyers and even…




					nationalpost.com
				




Good article about the need for reforms in the military justice system


----------



## FJAG

MilEME09 said:


> Reforms to military justice system 'essential' to protect misconduct victims, says former Supreme Court judge
> 
> 
> The retired justice found numerous areas where commanders have both direct and indirect influence over military police, prosecutors, defence lawyers and even…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nationalpost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good article about the need for reforms in the military justice system


We have a military justice system (including the MPs) that is 99 44/100ths % free from the interference of the chain of command. There are two exceptions:

One is the summary trial system which is there for a very good reason - to allow commanding officers to enforce low level offence disciplinary issues quickly and efficiently. The problem here is that we tend to merge the low level disciplinary system with the high level criminal one and as such the two are confused. The fact that a CO can give penal sanctions doesn't help the distinction. We moved to fix this years ago but .... I guess there simply aren't enough people in Ottawa to do the job 

The second is that there are gaps in the system which allow good idea ferries to come up with things like putting the independent judiciary into the chain of command so that there is a CO, or leaving the law in such a state that it's nigh onto impossible to try a judge or very senior officer. 

It's not like the legal branch hasn't been dealing with this crap since even before the Charter came into effect. We just can't seem to shed ourselves of the little dumb gaps.

I really hate seeing COs stripped of their powers. We're taking people who we entrust with life and death decisions over their troops and are telling them we don't trust them to get a summary trial for dirty boots right or to throw a troop into the digger for drunkenness. The Supreme Court understood that forty some years ago when it validated the military justice system in general - several times.

Sigh! We truly are a very stupid people.

Here's hoping the next of the dozens of amendments to the NDA that we've already done will finally please the reporters.

🍻


----------



## CBH99

MilEME09 said:


> Reforms to military justice system 'essential' to protect misconduct victims, says former Supreme Court judge
> 
> 
> The retired justice found numerous areas where commanders have both direct and indirect influence over military police, prosecutors, defence lawyers and even…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nationalpost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good article about the need for reforms in the military justice system


I was unaware about something mentioned in the article - that only the NIS can actually lay charges?  Other MP's can only recommend charges?

I didn't know about that?  What do non NIS members do then?  (Not being facetious or sarcastic.  Can someone expand on this part for me?)


----------



## MJP

CBH99 said:


> I was unaware about something mentioned in the article - that only the NIS can actually lay charges?  Other MP's can only recommend charges?
> 
> I didn't know about that?  What do non NIS members do then?  (Not being facetious or sarcastic.  Can someone expand on this part for me?)


They turn the file over to the mbr's unit and the unit does the charge. Depending on the charge or ability to elect they either do the summary trial or it is referred to court martial.


----------



## CBH99

MJP said:


> They turn the file over to the mbr's unit and the unit does the charge. Depending on the charge or ability to elect they either do the summary trial or it is referred to court martial.


Sorry to ask what might seem like an obvious question to some here, just wanting to clarify - does that include Criminal Code charges?


----------



## dapaterson

Strictly speaking, no, but practically speaking, yes.

Usually a CAF member will be charged under NDA 130 which can include any CC charge.

A pure CC charge would not be handled by the military justice system.

However, a pure CC charge would also mean that the CAF would not (normally) provide legal assistance.


----------



## Navy_Pete

FJAG said:


> good idea ferries


As always, enjoy your posts, but got a genuine belly laugh out of this typo. May be getting a bit punchdrunk from working on something too long, but think I'll use this as a ship name for an example I'm working on and see if anyone notices that we're talking about a MV Good Ideas, and will have to suggest that any time there is a govt competition for names (a la Boaty McBoatyface).


----------



## FJAG

Navy_Pete said:


> As always, enjoy your posts, but got a genuine belly laugh out of this typo. May be getting a bit punchdrunk from working on something too long, but think I'll use this as a ship name for an example I'm working on and see if anyone notices that we're talking about a MV Good Ideas, and will have to suggest that any time there is a govt competition for names (a la Boaty McBoatyface).


🤦‍♂️ I'm hoping it was an autocorrect thing.

🍻


----------



## dimsum

Navy_Pete said:


> I'll use this as a ship name for an example I'm working on and see if anyone notices that we're talking about a MV Good Ideas


I, for one, am always supportive of ship names a la The Culture from Iain M. Banks    

(and SpaceX, but they're Culture fans too)


----------



## CBH99

dapaterson said:


> Strictly speaking, no, but practically speaking, yes.
> 
> Usually a CAF member will be charged under NDA 130 which can include any CC charge.
> 
> A pure CC charge would not be handled by the military justice system.
> 
> However, a pure CC charge would also mean that the CAF would not (normally) provide legal assistance.


*This post clears up SOOOO MUCH CONFUSION I had about the current 'crisis', and where some of these claims that complaints/investigations were being interfered with by a member's CoC.  It all makes a lot more sense now.*


About a year ago, the Chief of Sheriff's Branch here in Alberta, along with a senior Criminal Intelligence officer, did a very good & very blunt presentation to various members.  Some of the members in attendance were RCMP, Sheriffs, Edmonton Police Service, Conservation, Communications Officers, etc.

They were both very blunt and clear that if ANYBODY in the CoC, including themselves, tried to interfere with an investigation - to record as much information as possible, and execute on what we felt was appropriate.  They encouraged the use of e-mails or letters when a member of our CoC was communicating directly about an investigation, whether it be inquiring or giving us guidance and direction.  

The idea wasn't to create distrust among members, or because the senior guys didn't trust us.  Quite the opposite.  They wanted to run a tight ship when it came to ethics & conduct, and have it be well known among members AND the public.  Public trust was paramount, and they didn't want any of us to ever suspect or feel like the leadership was above the Code of Conduct or the law.


----------



## ModlrMike

There's a distinct difference between interfering, and asking for an update on progress. A distinction too many people don't recognize. Too often, once things are referred to the MP/NIS, they go into a black hole. It makes it very difficult to reassure alleged victims that their case is being taken seriously when everyone is on radio silence. A recent case I was stick handling took 18 months before the report was released to the unit. You know how many updates either the complainant or CO got along the way?


----------



## shawn5o

CBH99 said:


> *This post clears up SOOOO MUCH CONFUSION I had about the current 'crisis', and where some of these claims that complaints/investigations were being interfered with by a member's CoC.  It all makes a lot more sense now.*
> 
> 
> About a year ago, the Chief of Sheriff's Branch here in Alberta, along with a senior Criminal Intelligence officer, did a very good & very blunt presentation to various members.  Some of the members in attendance were RCMP, Sheriffs, Edmonton Police Service, Conservation, Communications Officers, etc.
> 
> They were both very blunt and clear that if ANYBODY in the CoC, including themselves, tried to interfere with an investigation - to record as much information as possible, and execute on what we felt was appropriate.  They encouraged the use of e-mails or letters when a member of our CoC was communicating directly about an investigation, whether it be inquiring or giving us guidance and direction.
> 
> The idea wasn't to create distrust among members, or because the senior guys didn't trust us.  Quite the opposite.  They wanted to run a tight ship when it came to ethics & conduct, and have it be well known among members AND the public.  Public trust was paramount, and they didn't want any of us to ever suspect or feel like the leadership was above the Code of Conduct or the law.


I do recall a Sgt MP investigating an offence and he was continually "bothered" by the CoC (in 3VP). All he would ask is "Are you ordering me to stop the investigation?" Of course, the answer was always "no carry on." Now this was back in the early 90s and I cannot remember the outcome.


----------



## CBH99

ModlrMike said:


> There's a distinct difference between interfering, and asking for an update on progress. A distinction too many people don't recognize. Too often, once things are referred to the MP/NIS, they go into a black hole. It makes it very difficult to reassure alleged victims that their case is being taken seriously when everyone is on radio silence. A recent case I was stick handling took 18 months before the report was released to the unit. You know how many updates either the complainant or CO got along the way?


Absolutely.  And I agree 100%.  

This presentation was given by our senior guys (I was still a very very new junior guy at the time) - when the unit the presentation was intended for had their investigations somewhat botched or stick handled by other agencies.  

The purpose was precisely that.  They wanted the SOLGEN guys to be very clear on what their expectations were.  Professionalism and keeping people informed of progress was encouraged - having senior guys from our agency or another agency interfering was not.  (There had been some examples of blatant interference & negligence, and our seniors didn’t want us anywhere near what could have been an exploding ship.)


----------



## lenaitch

I am, admittedly, completely unfamiliar with the military law enforcement structure, but wonder why it seems to be rather complicated.  Is the NIS service separate from the MP service?  If so, I wonder why it wasn't set up like a civilian deployed police service, where the expertise and focus can't be expected to reside in each location, so benchmark cases engage specialized 'crime' or 'detective' units to assist or take over (depending on local policy), but they are all the same team.

Also, I'm curious why, if MPs investigate an incident, why they can't 'prosecute' it themselves.  I get, I think, the concept of command authority in the military, but it seems that there could be a division of matters that would remain under the purview of the command team and those that would be referred to the MPs (including those that the command team choose to 'send upstairs', for whatever reason).  In civilian law enforcement, command/leadership retains authority to exercise discipline under the applicable code of discipline but most large departments have a dedicated 'professional standards' unit for investigating matters, laying of charge notices and case preparation.  One significant difference is that the majority of discipline matters originate externally from the public.

My mind tried to draw some kind of parallel between US service law enforcement and their various investigative services but determined that my only real knowledge of them comes from entertainment TV.

If the reason is 'the NDA', that's fair.  We're all stuck with the legislation that binds us.


----------



## QV

lenaitch said:


> I am, admittedly, completely unfamiliar with the military law enforcement structure, but wonder why it seems to be rather complicated.  Is the NIS service separate from the MP service?  If so, I wonder why it wasn't set up like a civilian deployed police service, where the expertise and focus can't be expected to reside in each location, so benchmark cases engage specialized 'crime' or 'detective' units to assist or take over (depending on local policy), but they are all the same team.
> 
> Also, I'm curious why, if MPs investigate an incident, why they can't 'prosecute' it themselves.  I get, I think, the concept of command authority in the military, but it seems that there could be a division of matters that would remain under the purview of the command team and those that would be referred to the MPs (including those that the command team choose to 'send upstairs', for whatever reason).  In civilian law enforcement, command/leadership retains authority to exercise discipline under the applicable code of discipline but most large departments have a dedicated 'professional standards' unit for investigating matters, laying of charge notices and case preparation.  One significant difference is that the majority of discipline matters originate externally from the public.
> 
> My mind tried to draw some kind of parallel between US service law enforcement and their various investigative services but determined that my only real knowledge of them comes from entertainment TV.
> 
> If the reason is 'the NDA', that's fair.  We're all stuck with the legislation that binds us.


The NIS are MPs.  It's just an assignment.  Detachment MPs used to swear charges in the CC with much more frequency, but then "primacy of military justice system" became more... mandatory_ (I think around 2011ish with a change to MP Gp Orders). _The Gp Orders were much more realistic prior to that change IMHO.  As a result, since 2011, most files stayed within the NDA.


----------



## dapaterson

Under the current construct, charges can be addressed through a summary trial (unit commanding officer or their delegate) or via a court martial.  NIS charges are refered (to my understanding) to the Director, Military Prosecutions who then proceeds with court martial.  Unit level charges, o nthe other hand, have a limited shelf life (proceedings must  begin within a year of the alleged incident).

The not-yet-in-force amendments to the NDA (bill C-77) besides introducing the Victim's Bill of Rights, also eliminated Summary Trials and replaces them with summary proceedings, removes potential penal consequences from the punishments available to a CO, and reduces the scope and nature of what can be brought before a summary proceeding, pushing more complex / more serious issues to court martial.

The role(s) of the military police, whether part of the NIS or not, have to be understood within the context of the larger CAF disciplinary system.


----------



## QV

dapaterson said:


> The role(s) of the military police, whether part of the NIS or not, have to be understood within the context of the larger CAF disciplinary system.


Which is where I think things are a problem, as I've bantered on about endlessly here in the past. Disciplinary matters and crimes need to be separately handled altogether. Police handle the crimes (and traffic, mental health act, and so on), military chain of command handles the military discipline. Presently they are blended.


----------



## TCM621

Civilian cops can only recommend charges AFAIK so I don't see why the MP's would be any different. My understanding is that they would recommend charges be laid to the appropriate authority and then that authority makes the decision. If charges aren't laid as appropriate the responsibility lays with the authority. 

Even in the civvy world decisions are made not charge people all the time for various reasons. Shouldn't a CO/base commander/etc not have the same ability that a prosecutor does? I would think it would be even more important that a commander have that flexibility because, at the end of the day, our system has to be able to function in a war scenario (not just a limited action like Afghanistan or Iraq). 

Again, I don't think it is the system so much as the people who we put in charge of the system. In other words, it isn't the fact that they have discretion, it's that they misuse that discretion when it comes to certain people. The Tiger Williams situation is a good example. General Vance should have punished the VCDS and the CAF CWO, possibly via some forms of charges but instead he ignored it. Everyone who has spent any amount of time in the CAF has seen an analogous situation where someone skates for something another would have been raked over the coals for.


----------



## QV

TCM621 said:


> Civilian cops can only recommend charges AFAIK so I don't see why the MP's would be any different. .


Depends on the province, some have a process where the crown screens for charge approval.  Some don't.


----------



## brihard

QV said:


> Depends on the province, some have a process where the crown screens for charge approval.  Some don't.


BC and Quebec have charges approved by crown. Anywhere else that I’m aware of, police can individually swear charges for most routine criminal matters, setting aside certain charges that require Attorney General consent, or offences that fall under the umbrella of the Security Offences Act that vests primacy in the RCMP.


----------



## TCM621

QV said:


> Depends on the province, some have a process where the crown screens for charge approval.  Some don't.


So if an officer lays charges does the Crown have to prosecute? Or is prosecution still at the discretion of the Crown? I'm just wondering if it is a case of terminology.


----------



## QV

TCM621 said:


> So if an officer lays charges does the Crown have to prosecute? Or is prosecution still at the discretion of the Crown? I'm just wondering if it is a case of terminology.


No, there are a number of reasons they may not prosecute.  A low likelihood of conviction, they deem it not in the public interest... for example.


----------



## brihard

TCM621 said:


> So if an officer lays charges does the Crown have to prosecute? Or is prosecution still at the discretion of the Crown? I'm just wondering if it is a case of terminology.


Crown can always withdraw or stay a charge. Police can lay a charge but crown owns the prosecution.


----------



## lenaitch

Thanks for the feedback folks.  In Ontario, the roles are discrete; discretion to 'lay a charge' lies solely in the hands of the police (many provincial regulatory statutes vest that authority in a 'director' or something similar) and discretion of the prosecution rests with the Crown (reasonable prospect of conviction, public interest, etc.).  In particularly serious or complex cases or processes, such as search warrants, it is not unusual for the police to seek advice from Crown Law, but that would be separate from eventually-assigned trial Crown.  Even in cases where approval of the AG is required, in my experience, once said approval is received, we still initiated the Information.

I am aware of the situations in BC and Quebec.  In Quebec, I believe it is inherent in their system; in BC I understand it was an effort to manage caseload (and therefore, cost).


----------



## FJAG

TCM621 said:


> So if an officer lays charges does the Crown have to prosecute? Or is prosecution still at the discretion of the Crown? I'm just wondering if it is a case of terminology.


Very briefly, and very generally, in Manitoba:
1) the police investigate and if they believe an offence has been committed they lay an "information" outlining the charges and evidence that is delivered to the crown;
2) if the crown determines if the charge is to be proceeded with in which case the matter proceeds to a provincial court where bail may be determined (if not already by way of arrest);
3) if the charge is of a minor nature (a summary conviction one) the charge proceeds summarily on the information to a plea and trial before a Provincial Court judge (in many cases, the crown gets to choose as to whether to proceed summarily or by way of indictment);
4) if the charge is a serious one and not within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Provincial court, in most cases the accused may choose to be tried by a provincial court judge without a jury and without a preliminary inquiry (usually the case if the accused plans to plead guilty) or to be tried by a Queen's Bench judge either with or without a jury;
5) if the matter is to proceed for a trial by Queen's Bench, the crown redrafts the charge into an "indictment" and the matter proceeds to a preliminary inquiry before a provincial court judge to test the evidence (the test is a very low one and almost all cases are remanded for full trial). In rare cases the crown can skip the preliminary inquiry through a "direct indictment" (in even rarer cases, the crown can even proceed to a direct indictment where the charge is dismissed at the preliminary inquiry) in which case the matter goes to trial before a QB judge.

🍻


----------



## coolintheshade

Kilted said:


> Hey, equal opportunity.


IKR....unconscious bias course now on DLN by the way. LOL


----------



## Jarnhamar

coolintheshade said:


> IKR....unconscious bias course now on DLN by the way. LOL


Your unconscious bias is showing; the course is on GC Campus.


----------



## daftandbarmy

It just gets curiouser and curiouser....


Defence minister's office trying to 'exert control' over investigations: military ombudsman​
The country's military ombudsman has fired broadside at the Liberal government, accusing the defence minister's office of trying to "exert control" over investigations and ignoring recommendations for change.

Gregory Lick's blistering criticism is contained in a position paper released Tuesday and was prompted by the ongoing investigations into sexual misconduct in the military.

He is calling for the ombudsman's office to be made entirely independent, reporting to Parliament, not the minister's office.

"When leaders turn a blind eye to our recommendations and concerns in order to advance political interests and their own self-preservation or career advancement, it is the members of the defence community that suffer the consequences," Lick said in a virtual media event on Tuesday.

"It is clear that inaction is rewarded far more than action."

His remarks and written presentation mirror the testimony of his predecessor Gary Walbourne, who told a parliamentary committee last winter that Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan refused to look at evidence of alleged inappropriate behaviour by former chief of the defence staff, retired general Jonathan Vance, which had been received by the ombudsman's office.

Walbourne had made similar complaints and recommendations about independence.

In Lick's position paper, he cites how the minister's office had placed reports "on hold" and has been "delaying their publication and availability to the public."

He writes that the ombudsman has been given "direction on the conduct of systemic investigations" only to have those orders revoked without justification.

The report cites an example from just last week where "the Department of National Defence attempted to exert control over the review and approval of questions" that were prepared for members of the military who are involved in the ongoing systematic investigation into employment equity.

"The office pushed back as the approval process put forth by the department would have undermined the independence of the investigation," the report said. Lick also said he's seen examples of case where the defence department sat on "sensitive information that could be unflattering" to the military.

"This cannot persist," Lick wrote in his report.

He also accused the department and the military of scuttling attempts at negotiating independence for the ombudsman's office.

"Reporting directly to Parliament would eliminate political influence and ensure that all pertinent information and recommendations regarding the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department reach all Members of Parliament in a timely manner," the report said.

Lick said the inability of the government and the military to deal with sexual misconduct can be directly related to a lack of accountability.

"The cycle of scandals followed by studies, recommendations for independent oversight, half-solutions, and resistance by the Department or the Canadian Armed Forces will only be broken when action is taken," the report said.



			Military ombudsman criticizes 'erratic' handling of military misconduct, alleges interference in other cases


----------



## MilEME09

John Ivison: Military ombudsman has no confidence in Sajjan and the government shouldn't either
					

It is clear the military cannot be trusted to reform itself. It is equally clear that this defence minister cannot be trusted to restore confidence in the…




					nationalpost.com
				




Another angle as well on the situation


----------



## OldSolduer

I really think deep down this is what the PM wants - a military that can’t be trusted, therefore we can reduce it to a token military that only exists to say we have one. JT is a fan of China…


----------



## MilEME09

OldSolduer said:


> I really think deep down this is what the PM wants - a military that can’t be trusted, therefore we can reduce it to a token military that only exists to say we have one. JT is a fan of China…


You'd think being a fan of China he would want a stronger military


----------



## trigger324

OldSolduer said:


> I really think deep down this is what the PM wants - a military that can’t be trusted, therefore we can reduce it to a token military that only exists to say we have one. JT is a fan of China…


Oh please


----------



## SeaKingTacco

QV said:


> Which is where I think things are a problem, as I've bantered on about endlessly here in the past. Disciplinary matters and crimes need to be separately handled altogether. Police handle the crimes (and traffic, mental health act, and so on), military chain of command handles the military discipline. Presently they are blended.


So, two soldiers get into a fight. Discipline or Crime?

Theft from the QM. Discipline or Crime?

Falsifying a claim. Discipline or Crime?

Point being: Who decides where discipline ends and crime begins. The CO of a unit? A random MP Cpl?

BTW, if somebody gets sent downtown to see the provincial judge, guess who pays for the lawyer (hint- not the CAF). So be careful what you wish for.


----------



## OldSolduer

trigger324 said:


> Oh please


You never lived through Trudeau the First. He emasculated the CAF in the 70s and 80s. JT is no fan of anything military


----------



## SupersonicMax

Anything that would result in a summary trial today, discipline.


----------



## SupersonicMax

The current state of the CAF roots back to a long time ago, the fall of the Soviet Union.  Since then, we have had no national strategy and therefore there is no impetus for any government to fund the military.  It is not unique to JT.


OldSolduer said:


> You never lived through Trudeau the First. He emasculated the CAF in the 70s and 80s. JT is no fan of anything military


----------



## SeaKingTacco

SupersonicMax said:


> Anything that would result in a summary trial today, discipline.


Including NDA 130?


----------



## OldSolduer

SupersonicMax said:


> The current state of the CAF roots back to a long time ago, the fall of the Soviet Union.  Since then, we have had no national strategy and therefore there is no impetus for any government to fund the military.  It is not unique to JT.


You sir are bang on IMO. Pierre the First started it.


----------



## SupersonicMax

S


SeaKingTacco said:


> Including NDA 130?


Sure, if it would have been dealt with via Summary Trial.


----------



## trigger324

OldSolduer said:


> You never lived through Trudeau the First. He emasculated the CAF in the 70s and 80s. JT is no fan of anything military


Yes I did and I’m surprised you did because the way you make it sound, life was just so bad in the 70’s I can’t believe we made it this far.


----------



## ModlrMike

The Code of Service Discipline enumerates those acts that constitute a breach of discipline. This includes what would be considered indictable offences and summary offences in the civilian world. The difference being that we do not make the distinction between what is a crime (theft, fraud etc), and what is a purely disciplinary matter (AWOL, insubordination). For us, they are both breaches of discipline, just at different points on the continuum.


----------



## OldSolduer

trigger324 said:


> Yes I did and I’m surprised you did because the way you make it sound, life was just so bad in the 70’s I can’t believe we made it this far.


I have no idea where you’re from but in my mind PET was the second worst PM we’ve ever had. Guess who is ranked the very worst?
Others on this site that have a better historical knowledge than I will tell you that PET and his gang of thieves took a fiscally responsible government and turned it into a financial mess where our national debt is sky high. Have I mentioned the National Energy Policy? Look that up.


----------



## trigger324

OldSolduer said:


> I have no idea where you’re from but in my mind PET was the second worst PM we’ve ever had. Guess who is ranked the very worst?
> Others on this site that have a better historical knowledge than I will tell you that PET and his gang of thieves took a fiscally responsible government and turned it into a financial mess where our national debt is sky high. Have I mentioned the National Energy Policy? Look that up.


You’ll have to show us on the doll where PET hurt you. Your resolve to lay blame for anything and everything on his son shows a bias so blatant you can’t even get your facts straight in your post above. “Pierre the first” and the fall of the Soviet Union? That doesn’t even add up chronologically.


----------



## OldSolduer

trigger324 said:


> You’ll have to show us on the doll where PET hurt you. Your resolve to lay blame for anything and everything on his son shows a bias so blatant you can’t even get your facts straight in your post above. “Pierre the first” and the fall of the Soviet Union? That doesn’t even add up chronologically.


Well you go on about your business. Pierre was a friend of the USSR. Pierre also was an activist during WW 2 encouraging Canadians not to fight in the war. I will never have anything good to say about the Trudeau clan. Good day.


----------



## QV

SeaKingTacco said:


> So, two soldiers get into a fight. Discipline or Crime?
> 
> Theft from the QM. Discipline or Crime?
> 
> Falsifying a claim. Discipline or Crime?
> 
> Point being: Who decides where discipline ends and crime begins. The CO of a unit? A random MP Cpl?
> 
> BTW, if somebody gets sent downtown to see the provincial judge, guess who pays for the lawyer (hint- not the CAF). So be careful what you wish for.


If there is a criminal code offence for the act, it’s a crime.  There is no CCC offence for “ insubordinate behaviour”, or “absent without authority”.  The decision to go crime or discipline would be a super simple one.


----------



## QV

OldSolduer said:


> Well you go on about your business. Pierre was a friend of the USSR. Pierre also was an activist during WW 2 encouraging Canadians not to fight in the war. I will never have anything good to say about the Trudeau clan. Good day.


There may even be some CIA or FBI docs about this released, I think the time passed and it was declassified... I may be remembering this wrong too.  Not that the FBI have been very fair to even their own leaders ...


----------



## SupersonicMax

QV said:


> If there is a criminal code offence for the act, it’s a crime.  There is no CCC offence for “ insubordinate behaviour”, or “absent without authority”.  The decision to go crime or discipline would be a super simple one.


So, two privates get into a fight at the mess (assault).  That goes to court?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

SupersonicMax said:


> So, two privates get into a fight at the mess (assault).  That goes to court?


Court, downtown. On their own dime for a defence lawyer, too.

I hear a few Jrs clamouring for the “right” to face a real judge, in a real court Instead a presiding officer in a summary trial.

They might think twice after a legal bill into the 5 figures and a real criminal record….


----------



## Blackadder1916

QV said:


> If there is a criminal code offence for the act, it’s a crime.  There is no CCC offence for “ insubordinate behaviour”, or “absent without authority”.  The decision to go crime or discipline would be a super simple one.





SupersonicMax said:


> So, two privates get into a fight at the mess (assault).  That goes to court?



Or a private is involved in a fight with a corporal . . . is that "assault" (CCC) or "Striking or offering violence to a superior officer" (NDA sec 84) and/or "Abuse of subordinates" (NDA sec 95)?


----------



## Halifax Tar

SupersonicMax said:


> The current state of the CAF roots back to a long time ago, the fall of the Soviet Union.  Since then, we have had no national strategy and therefore there is no impetus for any government to fund the military.  It is not unique to JT.


I would argue it goes back to unification.


----------



## Kilted

QV said:


> There may even be some CIA or FBI docs about this released, I think the time passed and it was declassified... I may be remembering this wrong too.  Not that the FBI have been very fair to even their own leaders ...


Didn't he receive a dishonourable discharge or whatever we called a 5F at the time?  I've always wondered how that didn't disqualify him from being an MP?


----------



## OldSolduer

Kilted said:


> Didn't he receive a dishonourable discharge or whatever we called a 5F at the time?  I've always wondered how that didn't disqualify him from being an MP?


One of his miracle babies was charged with possession of marijuana - JT went on about this at length - and daddy PET made the charges go away. SO there we have obstruction of justice to add to it. FJAG may need to weigh in on this particular circumstance. 

Anyways I've steered this conversation off its original intent. My apologies for the Trudeau rant but honestly I dislike this family.


----------



## mariomike

Kilted said:


> Didn't he receive a dishonourable discharge or whatever we called a 5F at the time?


Did he?



OldSolduer said:


> Anyways I've steered this conversation off its original intent. My apologies for the Trudeau rant but honestly I dislike this family.


I remember when he was PM. What shocked and appalled me was the way he dressed. I was used to serious men wearing suits and ties.


----------



## dimsum

mariomike said:


> I remember when he was PM. What shocked and appalled me was the way he dressed. I was used to serious men wearing suits and ties.


The 80s was a sartorially-weird time.


----------



## Infanteer

Colour that Pierre Trudeau suit an ugly mint green and you've got the Army DEU....


----------



## QV

SupersonicMax said:


> So, two privates get into a fight at the mess (assault).  That goes to court?


I've been over this before.  A consensual fight is not a crime, so that would be a discipline problem.  An assault is different than a consensual fight, and assault is a crime.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

QV said:


> I've been over this before.  A consensual fight is not a crime, so that would be a discipline problem.  An assault is different than a consensual fight, and assault is a crime.


Ok, but who decides?


----------



## SupersonicMax

SeaKingTacco said:


> Ok, but who decides?


The CO with JAG advise.  A bit like an Article 15 in the USAF or Captain’s Mast in the USN.  Someone always has the option to ultimately opt for a CM instead but CO gets to decide whether the offense can be dealt with through non judicial means.


----------



## QV

SupersonicMax said:


> The CO with JAG advise.  A bit like an Article 15 in the USAF or Captain’s Mast in the USN.  Someone always has the option to ultimately opt for a CM instead but CO gets to decide whether the offense can be dealt with through non judicial means.


I'd argue that decision would be made by the Military Police taking the call. After their initial investigation they'd decide if criminal charges are necessary or if it should be referred to the unit for disciplinary proceedings. If it goes to the unit then the CO can consult with JAG and carry on. If it goes downtown, the unit can be informed some basic details but that should be it.

Edit to add:  if the military stuck with what it does best (discipline) and left criminal proceedings to those that do it best (civil court) there would likely be a lot less problems. For example, it wouldn't look like the CAF is covering up a sexual assault case that caught dismissed at a CM if a civil court dismissed it.  

Roping everything domestically in to the military justice system via S. 130 of the NDA is, in my lowly opinion, wrong and not in the spirit to which 130 exists. Any person in Canada should be treated fairly and equally with respect to the law, and that includes military personnel. There shouldn't be a special court to prosecute military people of civil crimes. The military court should be solely used to prosecute military people of military offences. If there is an overlap where an offence is similar in both the Criminal Code offence and National Defence act offence (stealing/theft) it should go by way of a civil court because no other person in Canada gets a special court to prosecute their "stealing". The standard of prosecution for Criminal Code offences in Canada should be the same no matter who your employer is. And really, civil court just does certain things better because they are set up for it; DUI cases, domestic violence, etc.  Nothing stopping the unit from pursuing administrative measures at any time for a CAF member who acted up. 

Anyway, this is where I'd change things if I could.


----------



## Remius

The US is looking at possibly overhauling its military Justice system when is comes to sexual assault.









						House lawmakers introduce bill to overhaul military justice system
					

A bipartisan group of House lawmakers introduced a bill Wednesday to remove the decision to prosecute serious crimes from the chain of command, the latest step in a march toward a major change to t…




					thehill.com


----------



## lenaitch

QV said:


> I'd argue that decision would be made by the Military Police taking the call. After their initial investigation they'd decide if criminal charges are necessary or if it should be referred to the unit for disciplinary proceedings. If it goes to the unit then the CO can consult with JAG and carry on. If it goes downtown, the unit can be informed some basic details but that should be it.
> 
> Edit to add:  if the military stuck with what it does best (discipline) and left criminal proceedings to those that do it best (civil court) there would likely be a lot less problems. For example, it wouldn't look like the CAF is covering up a sexual assault case that caught dismissed at a CM if a civil court dismissed it.
> 
> Roping everything domestically in to the military justice system via S. 130 of the NDA is, in my lowly opinion, wrong and not in the spirit to which 130 exists. Any person in Canada should be treated fairly and equally with respect to the law, and that includes military personnel. There shouldn't be a special court to prosecute military people of civil crimes. The military court should be solely used to prosecute military people of military offences. If there is an overlap where an offence is similar in both the Criminal Code offence and National Defence act offence (stealing/theft) it should go by way of a civil court because no other person in Canada gets a special court to prosecute their "stealing". The standard of prosecution for Criminal Code offences in Canada should be the same no matter who your employer is. And really, civil court just does certain things better because they are set up for it; DUI cases, domestic violence, etc.  Nothing stopping the unit from pursuing administrative measures at any time for a CAF member who acted up.
> 
> Anyway, this is where I'd change things if I could.



But what if the alleged criminal offence occurs OUTCAN?  I suppose if it occurred 'off property' the matter could be considered a problem for local law enforcement (if there is one), but what if it happens inside the bounds of a military establishment, even temporary?  It might be an easier answer if the country we are in is friendly.


----------



## dapaterson

If we preserve S130 but limit its application to OUTCAN, would that be sufficient?

There are Status of Visiting Forces arrangements when CAF members are in foreign countries that must be considered as well.


----------



## Loachman

daftandbarmy said:


> Defence minister's office trying to 'exert control' over investigations: military ombudsman
> 
> The country's military ombudsman has fired broadside at the Liberal government, accusing the defence minister's office of trying to "exert control" over investigations and ignoring recommendations for change.



Bravo, that man!!!


----------



## Loachman

SupersonicMax said:


> The current state of the CAF roots back to a long time ago, the fall of the Soviet Union.  Since then, we have had no national strategy and therefore there is no impetus for any government to fund the military.  It is not unique to JT.



For some of us here, the Fall of the Soviet Union was not that long ago.

And there was little enough impetus to adequately fund the CF before that, either.

Trudeau I only bought Leopards and CF18s because NATO countries made him. Mulroney made grandiose promises, and then trashed them all. Harper began well, but completely faded towards his end.

So yes, no uniquity.


----------



## FJAG

QV said:


> Roping everything domestically in to the military justice system via S. 130 of the NDA is, in my lowly opinion, wrong and not in the spirit to which 130 exists.


Sorry. S 130 is being used in exactly the spirit it was intended to. You may disagree with it's broad scope, but that is exactly what it was intended to be used for.



dapaterson said:


> If we preserve S130 but limit its application to OUTCAN, would that be sufficient?
> 
> There are Status of Visiting Forces arrangements when CAF members are in foreign countries that must be considered as well.


As well as s 132.

I'd be very careful with respect to s130. It has many uses even within Canada. There are numerous ways to solve the perceived problem without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Just one suggestion: a) take steps that the police and DMP prosecutors and judges are truly independent of the chain of command; b) have the police reports and all unit based charges go to the regional DMP prosecutor for evaluation (just like with the crown) c) allow the prosecutor to divert minor charges to the chain of command for hearing d) allow the accused to override that decision by making an election for a trial before a judge (except in the most minor of circumstances.)

This is not too dissimilar from the present system other than that charges travel direct from the investigator to the prosecutor without any exposure to the chain of command which ensures that the decision to prosecute is solely in the hands of independent agencies.

Obviously it would also need a restructuring of how we deal with arrest, bail etc

🍻


----------



## Loachman

mariomike said:


> Did he?
> 
> 
> I remember when he was PM. What shocked and appalled me was the way he dressed. I was used to serious men wearing suits and ties.



Now we get socks.


----------



## MilEME09

Sajjan military assistant had inappropriate relationship while with Vancouver police
					

An army reservist who was ordered suspended from the Vancouver Police Department for having an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate has been working as a military assistant to Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan




					www.theglobeandmail.com
				





And on the next bomb she'll against the minister...covering for a subordinate

Bit don't worry he isn't part of the old boys club


----------



## cavalryman

MilEME09 said:


> Sajjan military assistant had inappropriate relationship while with Vancouver police
> 
> 
> An army reservist who was ordered suspended from the Vancouver Police Department for having an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate has been working as a military assistant to Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theglobeandmail.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And on the next bomb she'll against the minister...covering for a subordinate


Shot out, over.


----------



## OldSolduer

cavalryman said:


> Shot out, over.


This is a self digging hole. What next?


----------



## daftandbarmy

cavalryman said:


> Shot out, over.



Nice to see the Class A community 'sticking together' 

Copied from another source as I couldn't get past the G&M firewall:

OTTAWA -- An army reservist who was ordered suspended from the Vancouver Police Department for having an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate has been working as a military assistant to Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan.

Sajjan's office says the military was responsible for hiring Maj. Greg McCullough, and that neither the minister nor his staff knew about the complaint or disciplinary action taken against him while he was a sergeant in the Vancouver police.

"Neither the minister nor staff were aware of the complaints to the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner or the disciplinary actions taken by the Vancouver Police Department," spokesman Daniel Minden said in a statement.

"We expect all members of the Canadian Armed Forces to uphold the highest standards of professional conduct. The hiring process for military assistants is done by the Canadian Armed Forces. We are looking into this matter further."

Revelations about McCullough's hiring come as Sajjan faces calls from the opposition to resign over his handling of sexual misconduct allegations involving the top brass, and concerns about an "Old Boys network" that protects senior officers from repercussions.

McCullough is a senior member of the same army reserve unit that Sajjan commanded before entering politics, the British Columbia Regiment (Duke of Connaught's Own) and both served on the Vancouver Police Department.

Asked about the relationship between the two, Minden said: "The minister did not work together with Maj. McCullough at the Vancouver Police Department. They had met each other while serving as reservists in the British Columbia Regiment."

Minden referred questions about when McCullough was hired, why the position was created and the process followed to the Department of National Defence.

Sajjan currently has six military assistants, Defence Department spokesman Daniel Le Bouthillier said in an email.

All are employees of the military and not political staff, but work closely with the minister's office to provide a wide variety of support.

"This support includes, for instance, the facilitation of information flow between the CAF and the (defence minister), the provision of logistical support for travel and communications, the scheduling of military briefings and overall liaison services," he said.

McCullough was hired in March 2020 on a two-year contract "to support (Sajjan) while he is in his home riding," Le Bouthillier added. "The hiring was done as a Reserve Employment Opportunity, which is an advertised hiring process open to eligible members of the Reserve Force across Canada."

Le Bouthillier did not say who asked for the position to be created, the military or the minister's office.

Asked how often military assistants are hired outside Ottawa, Le Bouthillier said: "We have no formal record of such a situation."

Reached by telephone on Wednesday, McCullough told The Canadian Press that he works for the military in his current position and not for Sajjan. He also said the minister was not involved in hiring him.

"Minister Sajjan had nothing to do with my hiring process," he said.

"He required a military assistant on the West Coast because of the amount of time that he spends here, and that's it. I didn't speak with Minister Sajjan about this process, and I serve the Canadian Armed Forces."

McCullough repeated the same answer when asked about his relationship with Sajjan.

Media reports last year say McCullough was given a 15-day suspension in 2018 following an external investigation that found he failed to disclose a relationship with Const. Nicole Chan, and entered into the relationship despite knowing she was in a vulnerable state.

The 2018-19 OPCC annual report does not name McCullough, but did call for a five-day suspension for a police officer who "was in a personal, intimate relationship with a police officer who was under his direct supervision" and "failed to disclose this relationship with his supervisor."

The OPCC also called for 10-day suspension for the same officer for having "entered into the relationship with another police officer with the knowledge that the police officer was in a vulnerable state, mentally and emotionally."

The commission said the suspensions could be served concurrently.

It went on to note the first officer had since retired and "co-operated fully in the investigation and participated in all relevant processes. The police officer sought professional help in understanding his actions and wrote an apology to the other police officer."

McCullough retired from the Vancouver police in 2018, according to media reports.

Chan, who also had a relationship with another superior officer who was later fired from the Vancouver police, took her own life in January 2019.

The Vancouver Police Department did not respond to a request for comment in time for publication Wednesday.

McCullough said by text message that he disputed some of the previous media reporting surrounding what happened, though he did not provide specifics, and added: "I do not dispute the (OPCC's) finding, it is a matter of record."

"I was a proud member of the VPD and continue to serve this country in the military."









						Sajjan military assistant had inappropriate relationship while with Vancouver police
					

An army reservist who was ordered suspended from the Vancouver Police Department for having an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate has been working as a military assistant to Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan.




					www.ctvnews.ca


----------



## Jarnhamar

daftandbarmy said:


> though he did not provide specifics, and added: "I do not dispute the (OPCC's) finding, it is a matter of record."
> 
> "I was a proud member of the VPD and continue to serve this country in the military."



Classic.


----------



## Weinie

Jarnhamar said:


> *Classic.*


And deflecting. Even though I was a POS, you can trust me now, as I serve an ever higher purpose.


----------



## trigger324

X


----------



## coolintheshade

SeaKingTacco said:


> So, two soldiers get into a fight. Discipline or Crime?
> 
> Theft from the QM. Discipline or Crime?
> 
> Falsifying a claim. Discipline or Crime?
> 
> Point being: Who decides where discipline ends and crime begins. The CO of a unit? A random MP Cpl?
> 
> BTW, if somebody gets sent downtown to see the provincial judge, guess who pays for the lawyer (hint- not the CAF). So be careful what you wish for.


Theft from the QM - resolve at the lowest level e.g. confine to barracks / extra duties.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

OldSolduer said:


> One of his miracle babies was charged with possession of marijuana - JT went on about this at length - and daddy PET made the charges go away. SO there we have obstruction of justice to add to it. FJAG may need to weigh in on this particular circumstance.
> 
> Anyways I've steered this conversation off its original intent. My apologies for the Trudeau rant but honestly I dislike this family.


I genuinely don't understand how any average Canadian could find PET appealing?  He opted out of the seminal event of the 20th century, spent his entire early life living off the money his Father had given him and didn't actually hold a real job until he entered politics.  

He literally represents everything Canadians seemingly lament about, yet the people of his time loved him.


----------



## ModlrMike

Humphrey Bogart said:


> ... a real job until he entered politics.



Isn`t that an oxymoron?


----------



## OldSolduer

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I genuinely don't understand how any average Canadian could find PET appealing?  He opted out of the seminal event of the 20th century, spent his entire early life living off the money his Father had given him and didn't actually hold a real job until he entered politics.
> 
> He literally represents everything Canadians seemingly lament about, yet the people of his time loved him.


Trudeaumania in 1967 was rampant even in Saskatchewan. After he took the reigns we (I was 11) in the west discovered he really didn’t give a shit about us. He lusted for Alberta oil and catered to everyone east of Toronto.
I have nothing- nothing - good to say about him or his empty headed offspring.


----------



## FJAG

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I genuinely don't understand how any average Canadian could find PET appealing?  He opted out of the seminal event of the 20th century, spent his entire early life living off the money his Father had given him and didn't actually hold a real job until he entered politics.
> 
> He literally represents everything Canadians seemingly lament about, yet the people of his time loved him.



I actually voted for the guy in 1968 (my very first election ever). This sets some of the mood at the time.



> Trudeau soon called an election, for June 25. His election campaign benefited from an unprecedented wave of personal popularity called "Trudeaumania",[1][56][57] which saw Trudeau mobbed by throngs of youths. Trudeau's main national opponents were PC leader Robert Stanfield and NDP leader Tommy Douglas, both popular figures who had been Premiers, respectively, of Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan (albeit in Trudeau's native Quebec, the main competition to the Liberals was from the Ralliement créditiste, led by Réal Caouette). As a candidate Trudeau espoused participatory democracy as a means of making Canada a "Just Society". He defended vigorously the newly implemented universal health care and regional development programmes, as well as the recent reforms found in the Omnibus bill.
> 
> On the eve of the election, during the annual Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day parade in Montreal, rioting Quebec sovereignists threw rocks and bottles at the grandstand where Trudeau was seated, chanting "Trudeau au poteau!" (Trudeau – to the stake!). Rejecting the pleas of his aides that he take cover, Trudeau stayed in his seat, facing the rioters, without any sign of fear. The image of the defiant Prime Minister impressed the public, and he handily won the 1968 election the next day.[58][59]



Actually it wasn't a "without a sign of fear" it was a showed open contempt and defiance to the protestors which again went a long way to showing the nation that he had a spine. Statements like:


> 'There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation'"


especially endeared him to the young hippieish youth of the day. His Second World War views and generally non-militaristic positions did not do him any harm in Quebec and barely made a splash elsewhere at the time which was already well into the anti-Vietnam War movement. 

The "just watch me" and "bleeding hearts" comments during the Octoberfest did win him some brownie points with the military for the short term but by the time of the next election in 1972 we'd almost unanimously turned against him (together with a large part of the country). Haven't voted Liberal since 1968.

🍻


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

OldSolduer said:


> Trudeaumania in 1967 was rampant even in Saskatchewan. After he took the reigns we (I was 11) in the west discovered he really didn’t give a shit about us. He lusted for Alberta oil and catered to everyone east of Toronto.
> I have nothing- nothing - good to say about him or his empty headed offspring.


I just find it ironic that the average Canadian, who seem to genuinely hate wealthy people and wants to tax them endlessly and see them fail, would vote for a Champagne Elitist like PET who spent the vast majority of his early life simply screwing around and going on backpacking trips to "discover himself".  He willingly chose to exempt himself from a seminal moment of this Nation when we needed men like him the most.  Yet many people adored him? 

I have relatives and people that are my Parents age who are still absolutely infatuated with the Trudeau family, like they are Canada's very own version of the Kennedy's.  They have done nothing to merit any sort of comparison like that.

Perhaps he was merely a reflection of what the average person wanted at the time just like our current PM is a reflection of what some want now?

It just goes to show that politics in Canada is all flash, no substance.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Humphrey Bogart said:


> It just goes to show that politics in Canada is all flash, no substance.



Dude, you just described 90% of the politicians everywhere


----------



## FSTO

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I just find it ironic that the average Canadian, who seem to genuinely hate wealthy people and wants to tax them endlessly and see them fail, would vote for a Champagne Elitist like PET who spent the vast majority of his early life simply screwing around and going on backpacking trips to "discover himself".  He willingly chose to exempt himself from a seminal moment of this Nation when we needed men like him the most.  Yet many people adored him?
> 
> I have relatives and people that are my Parents age who are still absolutely infatuated with the Trudeau family, like they are Canada's very own version of the Kennedy's.  They have done nothing to merit any sort of comparison like that.
> 
> Perhaps he was merely a reflection of what the average person wanted at the time just like our current PM is a reflection of what some want now?
> 
> It just goes to show that politics in Canada is all flash, no substance.


This infatuation with the Trudeaus is just one aspect of our love/hate relationship with the USA. There is a large segment of our population who lust for the celebrity and panache of the American political/entertainment machine and when Trudeaus 1 and 2 popped onto the scene those Canadians would sell their mothers souls to see those 2 in high office. I always cringe when I hear the refrain "Its Canada's version of (insert US celebrity)" because heaven forbid we stand on our own two feet and celebrate our people and our institutions and our way of conducting ourselves instead of always looking over the fence and pining to become just like the neighbours. I find this attitude especially prevalent in the lower mainland of BC and of course in Toronto. Our national media does nothing to stem the tide of this desire with CBC and CTV being especially overt in their bootlicking of everything US celebrity/political.


----------



## The Bread Guy

daftandbarmy said:


> ... Media reports last year say McCullough was given a 15-day suspension in 2018 following an external investigation that found he failed to disclose a relationship with Const. Nicole Chan, and entered into the relationship despite knowing she was in *a vulnerable state*.
> 
> The 2018-19 OPCC annual report does not name McCullough, but did call for a five-day suspension for a police officer who "was in a personal, intimate relationship with a police officer who was under his direct supervision" and "failed to disclose this relationship with his supervisor."
> 
> The OPCC also called for 10-day suspension for the same officer for having "entered into the relationship with another police officer with the knowledge that the police officer *was in a vulnerable state, mentally and emotionally*."
> 
> (...)
> 
> McCullough said ... "I do not dispute the (OPCC's) finding, it is a matter of record." ...


More on just how vulnerable this officer was - and what happened to another officer of lower rank in the same situation .


----------



## kev994

coolintheshade said:


> Theft from the QM - resolve at the lowest level e.g. confine to barracks / extra duties.


Really? At Air Canada, for example, if you get caught stealing from the company you’re fired, regardless of how small the theft is. CB for theft seems pretty weak to me. What if they’re selling it downtown?


----------



## MilEME09

kev994 said:


> Really? At Air Canada, for example, if you get caught stealing from the company you’re fired, regardless of how small the theft is. CB for theft seems pretty weak to me. What if they’re selling it downtown?


Depends on the item I guess, batteries or other small items like that? CB or a fine, anything major then yeah sure release, situation will dictate


----------



## coolintheshade

MilEME09 said:


> Depends on the item I guess, batteries or other small items like that? CB or a fine, anything major then yeah sure release, situation will dictate


Exactly...you beat me to the response...Sir! The poster said 'theft', and while theft is frowned upon in every country, stealing a Yorkie bar ' chewing gum, isn't the same as say dipping hands in the till and helping yourself to some $$$$


----------



## Remius

If we fired everyone that took batteries from a QM, we’d have no one staffing QMs.


----------



## daftandbarmy

MilEME09 said:


> Depends on the item I guess, batteries or other small items like that? CB or a fine, anything major then yeah sure release, situation will dictate



Corporal Pedro Collier was kicked out of JTF2, about this time last year, for stealing stuff and selling it on eBay. He referred to a 'culture of stealing' apparently prevalent in the unit.

I'd say the 'broken window' theory might apply in this case.


----------



## QV

lenaitch said:


> But what if the alleged criminal offence occurs OUTCAN?  I suppose if it occurred 'off property' the matter could be considered a problem for local law enforcement (if there is one), but what if it happens inside the bounds of a military establishment, even temporary?  It might be an easier answer if the country we are in is friendly.


It would be this circumstance where S. 130 should be applied, that is to say a Canadian Criminal Code offence be pulled into the Military Justice System.  It shouldn't be routinely done in Canada, but definitely utilized OUTCAN.


----------



## FJAG

Remius said:


> If we fired everyone that took batteries from a QM, we’d have no one staffing QMs.


Or if you fired a few publicly then maybe stealing from the QM would stop???


----------



## kev994

coolintheshade said:


> Exactly...you beat me to the response...Sir! The poster said 'theft', and while theft is frowned upon in every country, stealing a Yorkie bar ' chewing gum, isn't the same as say dipping hands in the till and helping yourself to some $$$$


It’s exactly the same, start with a warning that Court Marshall will ensue then follow through, it might discourage the practice . I say the problem is that ‘small’ theft is tolerated in some places. Though this explains why at one unit I was posted to they wouldn’t hand out more than 1 headset battery at a time.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

daftandbarmy said:


> Corporal Pedro Collier was kicked out of JTF2, about this time last year, for stealing stuff and selling it on eBay. He referred to a 'culture of stealing' apparently prevalent in the unit.
> 
> I'd say the 'broken window' theory might apply in this case.


Stealing from one part of the army for the benefit of another part was the "reallocation of resources". Stealing from the army to sell or take home was another matter.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Never a dull moment









						Sajjan military assistant had inappropriate relationship while with Vancouver police
					

OTTAWA — An army reservist who was ordered suspended from the Vancouver Police Department for having an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate has been working as a military assistant to Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan.




					www.nsnews.com


----------



## mariomike

coolintheshade said:


> Theft from the QM - resolve at the lowest level e.g. confine to barracks / extra duties.


Sounds like an after school detention with extra homework.



> At Air Canada, for example, if you get caught stealing from the company you’re fired, regardless of how small the theft is.



Where I worked they were pretty tolerant, unless it became public.


----------



## Mills Bomb

Colin Parkinson said:


> Never a dull moment
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sajjan military assistant had inappropriate relationship while with Vancouver police
> 
> 
> OTTAWA — An army reservist who was ordered suspended from the Vancouver Police Department for having an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate has been working as a military assistant to Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nsnews.com



Well, if anything is for sure it's that Sajjan is too well protected by our PM from going anywhere or having to face any accountability, so it really doesn't matter what he knew or covered up so pursuing it any further is likely a lost cause. I am going to guess once again he will just say he didn't know or that it wasn't his place to do anything and there was no need to vet the assistant.

I'm not really sure anyone can say they know how this ends but it's definitely the worst state of the CAF I've seen so far. It's getting to the point the organization is such a political mess any senior figure could be fired at any moment, whether they deserve it or not, with training constantly being cut and few signs of new equipment, it's hard to even imagine joining now as it's becomes more unrecognizable.

I honestly feel for the senior officers. After decades of service in some cases, it must be frustrating and depressing to know at any moment you could be shamed in front of the nation, whether you deserve it not and perhaps solely for political reasons. Meanwhile the MND gets a completely different treatment and gets to keep his position and prestige through all of it.


----------



## OldSolduer

Mills Bomb said:


> I honestly feel for the senior officers. After decades of service in some cases, it must be frustrating and depressing to know at any moment you could be shamed in front of the nation, whether you deserve it not and *perhaps solely for political reasons*. Meanwhile the MND gets a completely different treatment and gets to keep his position and prestige through all of it.


Admiral Norman comes to mind.


----------



## CBH99

Just reading this real quick while passing, haven't had a chance to read up on many posts the last few days.

If this member was suspended from VPD for an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate a while back, and this incident didn't have to do with military service - it puts the MND in a precarious position.  On the one hand, it isn't CAF related, and their CAF service is what should count when it comes to CAF related employment.  On the other hand, given the bigger picture of what's been happening, this seems like yet something else he overlooked & let slide by.  


Like someone said above - damn shame if you served honourably all these years, only to see the establishment around you start to crumble because of these silly/stupid situations.


----------



## Loachman

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I just find it ironic that the average Canadian, who seem to genuinely hate wealthy people and wants to tax them endlessly and see them fail, would vote for a Champagne Elitist like PET who spent the vast majority of his early life simply screwing around and going on backpacking trips to "discover himself".  He willingly chose to exempt himself from a seminal moment of this Nation when we needed men like him the most.  Yet many people adored him?



Bernie Sanders.

"Bread lines are a good thing, because they mean that there is bread."

Never held a real job.

Ranted about evil millionaires. Currently owns three houses and is "worth" $10M US (but bugger all in real terms) so is now forced to rant about evil billionaires instead.

He seems to have fallen out of favour lately, though, for a variety of reasons - including being overtaken by worse nutbars.


----------



## hattrick72

CBH99 said:


> Just reading this real quick while passing, haven't had a chance to read up on many posts the last few days.
> 
> If this member was suspended from VPD for an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate a while back, and this incident didn't have to do with military service - it puts the MND in a precarious position.  On the one hand, it isn't CAF related, and their CAF service is what should count when it comes to CAF related employment.  On the other hand, given the bigger picture of what's been happening, this seems like yet something else he overlooked & let slide by.
> 
> 
> Like someone said above - damn shame if you served honourably all these years, only to see the establishment around you start to crumble because of these silly/stupid situations.


I think the big tell in all of this is the following; this is the first instance where an Assistant has worked in the MP's home riding. From what I read, all Assistants have worked in Ottawa only.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Why is it a big tell?


----------



## OldSolduer

SupersonicMax said:


> Why is it a big tell?


The VPD officer who he had an inappropriate relationship completed suicide.


----------



## OldSolduer

SupersonicMax said:


> Why is it a big tell?


The VPD officer who he had an inappropriate relationship completed suicide


----------



## SupersonicMax

OldSolduer said:


> The VPD officer who he had an inappropriate relationship completed suicide.


My reply was to the previous one, stating that the big tell is that it is the first time an assistant worked in an MP’s home riding.  Not sure why that is a big tell...


----------



## OldSolduer

SupersonicMax said:


> My reply was to the previous one, stating that the big tell is that it is the first time an assistant worked in an MP’s home riding.  Not sure why that is a big tell...


It looks really bad - seriously bad. Mind you the PM will shrug this one off too.


----------



## ModlrMike

Wait... wasn't the Minister also VPD?


----------



## Good2Golf

ModlrMike said:


> Wait... wasn't the Minister also VPD?


…both SGTs in VPD, yes. 🤔

Interesting wording by the VPD spokesperson: 


> Asked about the relationship between the two, Minden said: "The minister did not work together with Maj. McCullough at the Vancouver Police Department. They had met each other while serving as reservists in the British Columbia Regiment."


Both could be true, but no one ever asked if the two ‘knew’ each other (vice “worked with”).  Different things. Someone should have asked Sajjan “Did you know of McCullough as a fellow NCO in VPD?”  or  “In the BCR, did you know that McCullough’s day job was working for the same police department as you?”

Some thing is fishy here…it’s like there’s some “Old Boys” network of VPD officers having part-time employment in the BCR… 🤔


----------



## SupersonicMax

OldSolduer said:


> It looks really bad - seriously bad. Mind you the PM will shrug this one off too.


I don’t find the fact that his assistant works from
Victoria looks bad…


----------



## OldSolduer

SupersonicMax said:


> I don’t find the fact that his assistant works from
> Victoria looks bad…


It’s not that. The assistant was tossed out of the police service - that’s not a good sign


----------



## trigger324

OldSolduer said:


> It’s not that. The assistant was tossed out of the police service - that’s not a good sign


Time to call in the heavies, Randy


----------



## Loachman

Mills Bomb said:


> Well, if anything is for sure it's that Sajjan is too well protected by our PM from going anywhere or having to face any accountability, so it really doesn't matter what he knew or covered up so pursuing it any further is likely a lost cause. I am going to guess once again he will just say he didn't know or that it wasn't his place to do anything and there was no need to vet the assistant.
> 
> I'm not really sure anyone can say they know how this ends but it's definitely the worst state of the CAF I've seen so far. It's getting to the point the organization is such a political mess any senior figure could be fired at any moment, whether they deserve it or not, with training constantly being cut and few signs of new equipment, it's hard to even imagine joining now as it's becomes more unrecognizable.
> 
> I honestly feel for the senior officers. After decades of service in some cases, it must be frustrating and depressing to know at any moment you could be shamed in front of the nation, whether you deserve it not and perhaps solely for political reasons. Meanwhile the MND gets a completely different treatment and gets to keep his position and prestige through all of it.



That was a hard story to read.


----------



## hattrick72

SupersonicMax said:


> Why is it a big tell?


The only assistant hired to work for the MND in their home riding is a person that worked for the MND as a reservist and worked within the same police orginization. Given a job after retiring early due to an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate. 

If this was 12 months ago, I would be with you.


----------



## McG

CBH99 said:


> On the one hand, it isn't CAF related, and their CAF service is what should count when it comes to CAF related employment.


If someone is fired for misconduct or sanctioned by a professional body for misconduct, I think that should be relevant to the CAF regardless of it happening outside. It's not the only example I have seen of full-time employment being handed to a reservist who had lost a police job for conduct. It kinda creates the image that we are okay with that sort of behaviour.


----------



## OldSolduer

trigger324 said:


> Time to call in the heavies, Randy


Well that won’t include the PM


----------



## Good2Golf

McG said:


> It kinda creates the image that we are okay with that sort of behaviour.


Like….an “Old Boys Club.”

Depsite the PM’s protestations, it’s clear that Sajjan is a member of the Old Boys Club.


----------



## SupersonicMax

hattrick72 said:


> The only assistant hired to work for the MND in their home riding is a person that worked for the MND as a reservist and worked within the same police orginization. Given a job after retiring early due to an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate.
> 
> If this was 12 months ago, I would be with you.


Sure, the fact that this individual works with the MND is problematic. But the fact he works from
Victoria is irrelevant.


----------



## trigger324

T


----------



## trigger324

OldSolduer said:


> Well that won’t include the PM


That’s Mr Prime Minister to you


----------



## Ostrozac

SupersonicMax said:


> Sure, the fact that this individual works with the MND is problematic. But the fact he works from
> Victoria is irrelevant.


Well, that would be an extremely relevant point, since the MND's riding is not in Victoria.

But doesn't the member in question work in Vancouver?


----------



## hattrick72

SupersonicMax said:


> Sure, the fact that this individual works with the MND is problematic. But the fact he works from
> Victoria is irrelevant.


Asked how often military assistants are hired outside Ottawa, Le Bouthillier said: "We have no formal record of such a situation."


----------



## Good2Golf

SupersonicMax said:


> Sure, the fact that this individual works with the MND is problematic. But the fact he works from
> Victoria is irrelevant.


Indeed, because he doesn’t work from Victoria. He works from Vancouver. 

I know they both start with V, but they are different cities…separated by a reasonably large body of water, the Strait of Georgia.  Kind of like how Québec and Quyon are both cities/towns in Quebec whose names happen to both start with Qu and there’s a long stretch of Fleuve Saint Laurent between them but they’re not the same city.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Good2Golf said:


> Indeed, because he doesn’t work from Victoria. He works from Vancouver.
> 
> I know they both start with V, but they are different cities…separated by a reasonably large body of water, the Strait of Georgia.  Kind of like how Québec and Quyon are both cities/towns in Quebec whose names happen to both start with Qu and there’s a long stretch of Fleuve Saint Laurent between them but they’re not the same city.



And Victoria is much more 'refined'


----------



## OldSolduer

trigger324 said:


> That’s Mr Prime Minister to you


Apologies-  eff your hat Mr PM


----------



## Jarnhamar

REO's are super impartial and never made just to satisfy all that legal BS while giving a hand-picked member the job anyways.


----------



## Kilted

Good2Golf said:


> Some thing is fishy here…it’s like there’s some “Old Boys” network of VPD officers having part-time employment in the BCR… 🤔


That in its self isn't out of the ordinary.  Many reserve units have multiple members/ former members that serve in the same police force.  I think for my unit it's around 12-15, other units probably have more.  Depending on the size of the force, it is completely possible for them never to work with each other.  They would of course now that they both in the same police service.  As far as him not knowing about the discipline issue is unlikely, everyone knows how fast word about such things can spread around units.  Plus there is the added fact that two individuals might both be police constables, but on the reserve side, one is a Major and the other is a Corporal.


----------



## Good2Golf

Kilted said:


> That in its self isn't out of the ordinary.  Many reserve units have multiple members/ former members that serve in the same police force.  I think for my unit it's around 12-15, other units probably have more.  Depending on the size of the force, it is completely possible for them never to work with each other.


Roger, tracking that side of things, Kilted, no issue with that…then there’s this…



Kilted said:


> They would of course now that they both in the same police service.  As far as him not knowing about the discipline issue is unlikely, everyone knows how fast word about such things can spread around units.



 Yeah, given that Sgt McCullough was having an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate Constable, then later the PC committed suicide, I find it very hard to believe that Sajjan would have no clue that a fellow-ranked VPD officer had been involved as such.  Heck, wasn’t Sajjan  Detective Sgt., even?



Kilted said:


> Plus there is the added fact that two individuals might both be police constables, but on the reserve side, one is a Major and the other is a Corporal.


Both Sajjan and McCullough were officers in the BC Regiment, and there are only so many officers in a PRes unit, so again, the “Oh, I had no idea!” 😇 routine is not very believable…


----------



## SupersonicMax

Ostrozac said:


> Well, that would be an extremely relevant point, since the MND's riding is not in Victoria.
> 
> But doesn't the member in question work in Vancouver?


Vancouver, my bad.  Still, where the person works is irrelevant.


----------



## mariomike

Kilted said:


> Many reserve units have multiple members/ former members that serve in the same police force.


This may be of interest as a statistical reference.

Says 2021, but I think it was from 2012.  

"approximately 2200 civilian and 5250 uniform members of the Toronto Police Service."
"The Service currently has 42 active reservists"





						Toronto Police Service
					






					www.torontopolice.on.ca
				




That would include uniform and civilian TPS members.


----------



## Good2Golf

SupersonicMax said:


> Vancouver, my bad.  Still, where the person works is irrelevant.


Very relevant. Prior to McCullough, MAs worked uniquely in Ottawa, as assistance was directly related to the MND’s duties operating in their office in Ottawa/NDHQ.  Why suddenly have an MA working remotely on the other side of the country?  How do you just ‘pop down to PCO, or TB, or other agency to support the MND?  

It was also a shady way to answer “when has this been done before?”  (Spokesperson saying there are no formal records of such…what’s that supposed to mean?  That possibly it’s been done before, but in the sly…etc.)  Sounds greasy…


----------



## SupersonicMax

In the context of sexual misconduct?  Zero relevance.  Take any other individual working from Vancouver (without sexual misconduct history) and it is not even talked about.


----------



## FJAG

As of 2018 the Vancouver PD had 1,327 sworn officers.

🍻


----------



## daftandbarmy

FJAG said:


> As of 2018 the Vancouver PD had 1,327 sworn officers.
> 
> 🍻



How many architects on staff?


----------



## MilEME09

Defence minister has lost all credibility on military misconduct: experts
					

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan has lost all credibility in the fight against military sexual misconduct, some experts say following revelations one of his military assistants was ordered suspended from the Vancouver police three years ago for an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate.



					www.ctvnews.ca
				




And will this be the last straw? Summer cabinet shuffle before the election?


----------



## Weinie

Good2Golf said:


> Roger, tracking that side of things, Kilted, no issue with that…then there’s this…
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, given that Sgt McCullough was having an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate Constable, then later the PC committed suicide, I find it very hard to believe that Sajjan would have no clue that a fellow-ranked VPD officer had been involved as such.  Heck, wasn’t Sajjan  Detective Sgt., even?
> 
> 
> Both Sajjan and McCullough were officers in the BC Regiment, and there are only so many officers in a PRes unit, so again, the “Oh, I had no idea!” 😇 routine is not very believable…


Based on the preponderance of evidence/timings, I can give the MND a pass on the fact that he was not aware of his MA's involvement in the VPD fuck-up. He was long gone from that org when the actions occurred that painted his current regional MA as a POS.

I have less tolerance for a REO process that does not vet candidates. A simple set of phone calls would have likely turned up some concerns.


----------



## Haggis

MilEME09 said:


> And will this be the last straw? Summer cabinet shuffle before the election?


My guess is that the writ will drop first, thus protecting Sajjan's prestige within his riding as MND going into the campaign.


----------



## Haggis

Weinie said:


> I have less tolerance for a REO process that does not vet candidates. A simple set of phone calls would have likely turned up some concerns.


This is not the first REO process that was conducted in an open and transparent fashion that hired a targeted candidate, nor will it be the last.

Phone calls may have been made and concerns brought to light which were overruled by the hiring authority.


----------



## Weinie

Haggis said:


> This is not the first REO process that was conducted in an open and transparent fashion that hired a targeted candidate, nor will it be the last.
> 
> *Phone calls may have been made and concerns brought to light which were overruled by the hiring authority.*


Yeah, I get that, and have seen it, but.................if they were, there should be a record somewhere.

I'm watching the Habs/Vegas game right now, so my attention is somewhat distracted.


----------



## McG

Haggis said:


> This is not the first REO process that was conducted in an open and transparent fashion that hired a targeted candidate, nor will it be the last.


I mean, a former CDS might have used this technique to drag a PRes mistress around the country so it must be un-gameable.


----------



## Weinie

McG said:


> I mean, a former CDS might have used this technique to drag a PRes mistress around the country so it must be un-gameable.


I would suggest that a former CDS is perhaps regretting, if it indeed is what he did, gaming the REO system.


----------



## daftandbarmy

McG said:


> I mean, a former CDS might have used this technique to drag a PRes mistress around the country so it must be un-gameable.



Which, coincidentally, is a pretty good metaphor for the Reg F - PRes relationship writ large


----------



## Weinie

daftandbarmy said:


> Which, coincidentally, is a pretty good metaphor for the Reg F - PRes relationship writ large


Gaming or mistress? 

I'll wait. 🍿


----------



## CBH99

McG said:


> If someone is fired for misconduct or sanctioned by a professional body for misconduct, I think that should be relevant to the CAF regardless of it happening outside. It's not the only example I have seen of full-time employment being handed to a reservist who had lost a police job for conduct. It kinda creates the image that we are okay with that sort of behaviour.


Absolutely.  

I’ve had some time now to sit and read up on things.  Totally agree.  

Full time employment shouldn’t be given to someone as a ‘safety favour’ if they are suspended or dismissed from other employment - especially if due to the same behaviour we so strongly are supposed to be against.  


Reading up on the details and posts now about this.  Was a busy day at work earlier, had just skimmed.   Totally agree with your point.


----------



## Jarnhamar

The MND office gave the assistant the ol GG level of vetting.

Speaking of which, interesting charge in 2006.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> it’s like there’s some “Old Boys” network of VPD officers having part-time employment in the BCR



Amusing.  One of the thousand and one useless bits of trivia in Mil Area Pacific/11 Brigade/39 CBG was the "connection" between VPD and BCR.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Brad Sallows said:


> Amusing.  One of the thousand and one useless bits of trivia in Mil Area Pacific/11 Brigade/39 CBG was the "connection" between* VPD and BCR.*



The Seaforths are similar.


----------



## Mills Bomb

So if I'm too understand this correctly, one of Sajjan's assistants who was previously in the same reserve unit and police department as him, entered a relationship with a female subordinate, who was mentally struggling, and she ultimately ended up tragically committing suicide, the officer was released from the force, and Sajjan had no idea any of this happened and it's all just a huge coincidence?


----------



## Brad Sallows

Of course.  No-one in the Res F gossips about people they know, so how could anyone be aware of such things?


----------



## MilEME09

Brad Sallows said:


> Of course.  No-one in the Res F gossips about people they know, so how could anyone be aware of such things?


In a platoon sized unit called a Regiment, no way you wouldn't know what's going on, especially the officers, they are usually pretty close. I don't guy this for a second


----------



## Brad Sallows

Some regiments actually can put enough bodies on the ground to look like 2 companies on parade.  But, yes, the officers and NCOs messes are still pretty small.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Maybe some review of a timeline might be in order

From the article previously linked.


> Media *reports last year* say McCullough was given a *15-day suspension in 2018* following an external investigation that found he failed to disclose a relationship with Const. Nicole Chan, and entered into the relationship despite knowing she was in a vulnerable state.
> 
> The 2018-19 OPCC *annual report does not name McCullough*, but did call for a five-day suspension for a police officer who "was in a personal, intimate relationship with a police officer who was under his direct supervision" and "failed to disclose this relationship with his supervisor."
> 
> The OPCC also called for 10-day suspension for the same officer for having "entered into the relationship with another police officer with the knowledge that the police officer was in a vulnerable state, mentally and emotionally."
> 
> The commission said the suspensions could be served concurrently.
> 
> It went on to note the* first officer had since retired *and "co-operated fully in the investigation and participated in all relevant processes. The police officer sought professional help in understanding his actions and wrote an apology to the other police officer."
> 
> McCullough *retired from the Vancouver police in 2018*, according to media reports.



Detective Sajjan resigns from the Vancouver Police after 11 years service in 2010
LCol Sajjan assumes command of the BCR in 2011
Mr Sajjan is elected to Parliament in 2015
LCol Sajjan retires from the CAF in conjunction with his appointment as MND in 2015
Police Sergeant McCullough receives a 15 day suspension from the Vancouver Police in 2018
Sergeant McCullough retires from the Vancouver Police 2018
Major McCullough gets two year Class B contract as MA in 2020

So, three years after then LCol Sajjan ceases to be the (part time) CO of Maj McCullough (that is if he was employed in the regt and not ERE) and eight years after they were both employed at the same time by the Vancouver Police disciplinary action was taken against McCullough for being a piece of shit.  The disciplinary action was not publicized and unlike legal action (e.g. arrests and criminal court appearances) Maj McCullough was not obligated to inform his military superiors of the suspension imposed on him by his civilian employer or of the reasons why he decided to retire (with pension presumably) from the police at that time.  It is possible that police department gossip mongers considered Sergeant McCullough a piece of shit before his inappropriate involvement with one of his constables.  It's possible that there was gossip monger overlap in the BCR.  It's also possible that McCullough also had an acceptable reputation in the VPD and a similar reputation in the military.  It's also possible that Maj McCullough had the benefit of "old boys clubs" (both military and police) who accepted that his behaviour that led to his police suspension was nothing to get worked up about.  However, Minister Sajjan wasn't in the POS's immediate chain of chain at the time and hadn't been for three years.


----------



## Loachman

That's so boooooooring compared to wild speculation and assumption.


----------



## Good2Golf

Blackadder1916 said:


> Maybe some review of a timeline might be in order
> 
> From the article previously linked.
> 
> 
> Detective Sajjan resigns from the Vancouver Police after 11 years service in 2010
> LCol Sajjan assumes command of the BCR in 2011
> Mr Sajjan is elected to Parliament in 2015
> LCol Sajjan retires from the CAF in conjunction with his appointment as MND in 2015
> Police Sergeant McCullough receives a 15 day suspension from the Vancouver Police in 2018
> Sergeant McCullough retires from the Vancouver Police 2018
> Major McCullough gets two year Class B contract as MA in 2020


No dispute about these items of the timeline.

However, do we have enough intellectual curiosity to look at the BCR timeline a bit earlier?

Sajjan didn’t go from OCdt to LCol overnight in 2011…and McCullogh didn’t go from OCdt to Maj overnight in 2020.

Is no one going to ask the question “Were Sajjan and McCullough ever members of the BCR at the same time?”


----------



## OldSolduer

Good2Golf said:


> Is no one going to ask the question “We’re Sajjan and McCullough ever members of the BCR at the same time?”


I would hazard a guess they knew each other. The BCR like most PRes regiments are small organizations.


----------



## daftandbarmy

OldSolduer said:


> I would hazard a guess they knew each other. The BCR like most PRes regiments are small   inbred - in a Deliverance kind of way - organizations.



There, FTFY


----------



## MilEME09

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sajjan-mccullough-misconduct-dnd-1.6080963?fbclid=IwAR1JFuVF6fBQokPgrMMuvfwZ5YiPpNOJKXbT3WgxRYw9Mo0Hd90PGU1AuCo
		


one less class B contract, and one less ministerial aide


----------



## Haggis

MilEME09 said:


> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sajjan-mccullough-misconduct-dnd-1.6080963?fbclid=IwAR1JFuVF6fBQokPgrMMuvfwZ5YiPpNOJKXbT3WgxRYw9Mo0Hd90PGU1AuCo
> 
> 
> 
> one less class B contract, and one less ministerial aide


While I understand that a Class B contract can be cancelled at any time, this must've been an awkward conversation:

"Major, we are terminating your contract effective immediately as you are a political liability to the Minister, despite your outstanding performance in this position."

I wonder if they will re-compete the position....


----------



## Good2Golf

Haggis said:


> While I understand that a Class B contract can be cancelled at any time, this must've been an awkward conversation:
> 
> "Major, we are terminating your contract effective immediately as you are a political liability to the Minister, despite your outstanding performance in this position."
> 
> I wonder if they will re-compete the position....



Ah…so not good enough for the Minister, but good enough to retain in the CAF.  Got it.

Teflon Harj gets on with his ministerial life and fundraising….nothing to see here, move on.


Canadians deserve better than this.


----------



## Haggis

Good2Golf said:


> Ah…so not good enough for the Minister, but good enough to retain in the CAF.  Got it.


Based on the media reports I've seen, the Major is not accused of wrongdoing in his Class B position, so why not retain him in the CAF on Class A TOS?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Haggis said:


> Based on the media reports I've seen, the Major is not accused of wrongdoing in his Class B position, so why not retain him in the CAF on Class A TOS?



So if you commit a crime in civvie street you're good to go in the CAF?

That would be kind of like the French Foreign Legion, about 70 years ago, right?


----------



## Haggis

daftandbarmy said:


> So if you commit a crime in civvie street you're good to go in the CAF?


What *crime* did he commit?  Having an inappropriate sexual relationship with a subordinate is not a crime. Morally reprehensible, yes, but not a crime.


----------



## Good2Golf

Haggis said:


> What *crime* did he commit?  Having an inappropriate sexual relationship with a subordinate is not a crime. Morally reprehensible, yes, but not a crime.


Because the CAF/DND doesn’t take action against CAF members who just perform morally reprehensible acts?

That’s some interesting logic there.  He was Class A and he wasn’t on duty as a CAF member when he performed said reprehensible act.

So you would recommend a correction to D&B’s post:


> So if you commit a crime conduct a morally reprehensible act in civvie street you're still good to go in the CAF?



Check.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Haggis said:


> While I understand that a Class B contract can be cancelled at any time, this must've been an awkward conversation:
> 
> "Major, we are terminating your contract effective immediately as you are a political liability to the Minister, despite your outstanding performance in this position."




I bet it sounded more like this:


----------



## MilEME09

The only crime he is guilty of is embarrassing a minister who wants to get reelected.


----------



## daftandbarmy

MilEME09 said:


> The only crime he is guilty of is embarrassing a minister who wants to get reelected.


Like all those GOFOs, and a retired CDS, who have been convicted in the court of public opinion for allegations as yet untested in front of a judge and jury?

We’ve gone through the looking glass into new ethically charged territory, and it’s important to realize that.


----------



## Jarnhamar

MilEME09 said:


> The only crime he is guilty of is embarrassing a minister who wants to get reelected.


Years ago he also detained a young man, put him in the back of a police wagon, got spit on by the guy then went into the back of the wagon and assaulted him. Charged with assault, doesn't say if he was found guilty or not. MND might have finally figured out how to use google and got buyers remorse.


----------



## OldSolduer

daftandbarmy said:


> Like all those GOFOs, and a retired CDS, who have been convicted in the court of public opinion for allegations as yet untested in front of a judge and jury?
> 
> We’ve gone through the looking glass into new ethically charged territory, and it’s important to realize that.


This seems to be the calling card of the Liberal Party of Canada.


----------



## Kilted

Good2Golf said:


> Because the CAF/DND doesn’t take action against CAF members who just perform morally reprehensible acts?
> 
> That’s some interesting logic there.  He was Class A and he wasn’t on duty as a CAF member when he performed said reprehensible act.
> 
> So you would recommend a correction to D&B’s post:
> 
> 
> Check.


I hope he files a grievance.


----------



## Kilted

Although to translate this into military terms, he was a Sgt and she was a constable, which I would say is roughly comparable to Cpl.  How many relationships are there between Cpl's and Sgt's in the forces? Hundreds?  How many of those involve people in the same direct chain of command?  I know that the police have different policies, but I don't think that the military would do anything about this if it happened internally unless of course, the media found out.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Kilted said:


> Although to translate this into military terms, he was a Sgt and she was a constable, which I would say is roughly comparable to Cpl.  How many relationships are there between Cpl's and Sgt's in the forces? Hundreds?  How many of those involve people in the same direct chain of command?  I know that the police have different policies, but I don't think that the military would do anything about this if it happened internally unless of course, the media found out.



Actually, not much of a difference in policy.



			https://vpd.ca/police/assets/pdf/manuals/vpd-manual-regulations-procedures.pdf
		



> Personal Relationships
> Employees of the Vancouver Police Department shall maintain a high standard of conduct in professional
> relationships with all fellow employees and colleagues. It is inappropriate for a person in a position of
> authority to enter into a personal relationship with a subordinate where there may be a conflict of interest.
> In the event a relationship does occur as defined by this policy, the intention of this policy is that one or both
> parties involved to be transferred and/or reassigned.
> 
> . . .
> 2. If a supervisor/person in authority commences a romantic and/or intimate relationship with a subordinate under their supervision, as defined by this policy, or as a result of a transfer is placed in a position whereby they are supervising a family member, the employee shall disclose in confidence the relationship to their immediate manager. If the personal relationship is found to be a conflict of interest, the manager shall seek advice from the Inspector i/c Human Resources regarding the need to transfer and/or reassign one or both employees.
> 
> . . .
> 7. Employees should be mindful that initiating or pursuing a personal relationship that may be defined
> as romantic and/or intimate while on duty (which may include official functions, such as dinners and
> conferences) may, depending on the circumstances, be sexual harassment or otherwise unethical,
> especially when one is in a position of supervision or authority over another.



From the media reports, the ex-Sgt (Maj) shit the bed in violation of para 2 above on at least two occasions (for which he received suspensions).


----------



## Takeniteasy

Here is an example of why it is very hard for a subordinate to come forward with an allegation. The CAF is endorsing this person by employing them in a leadership position and many are justifying it. Hard to profess a core ethos this way.  You make your bed you lie in it...


----------



## Haggis

Good2Golf said:


> Because the CAF/DND doesn’t take action against CAF members who just perform morally reprehensible acts?


The CAF does take action in those circumstances _sometimes_.


Good2Golf said:


> That’s some interesting logic there.  He was Class A and he wasn’t on duty as a CAF member when he performed said reprehensible act.


Thanks.

At question is how the reprehensible act came to the attention of the CAF and _*Blackadder1916*_ has speculated on that back at reply 2576. (The "old boy net" doesn't always work in your favour).  Would there be a regulatory requirement for him to report his charges or conviction under the BC Police Act to the CAF?  Is a Police Act tribunal considered a 'civil court' for the purposes of QR&O 19.57?

That being said, this wasn't his first brush with the law.  He was criminally charged with assault in 2006 but I cannot find any information on the disposition of that charge.  He would have had to report that to his CO IAW QR&O 19.56, had he been a member of the CAF at that time.


Good2Golf said:


> So you would recommend a correction to D&B’s post:


D&B post stated "crime", specifically.  This second event was _not a crime_ and I don't know if he was found guilty in the first event.


----------



## Haggis

Blackadder1916 said:


> From the media reports, the ex-Sgt (Maj) shit the bed in violation of para 2 above on at least two occasions (for which he received suspensions).


To be fair, two different VPD Sgts violated para 2 with the same victim on different occasions.  One was suspended (McCullough) and one was fired.


----------



## McG

MilEME09 said:


> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sajjan-mccullough-misconduct-dnd-1.6080963?fbclid=IwAR1JFuVF6fBQokPgrMMuvfwZ5YiPpNOJKXbT3WgxRYw9Mo0Hd90PGU1AuCo
> 
> 
> 
> one less class B contract, and one less ministerial aide


I got the impression from the article that his Class B employment was protected and that he was just shuffled to complete the 2 year period working for someone else (likely the local CBG HQ).


----------



## Blackadder1916

To add to the poor optics pile-on



			https://www.bcregiment.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/The-Duke-April-2019.pdf
		



> ST. JULIEN MESS DINNER
> THE DRILL HALL
> 6 April 2019
> 
> The well attended mess dinner was highlighted by the attendance of the Minister of National Defence, former Commanding Officer of the Regiment, the Honourable Harjit Sajjan, PC, OMM, MSM, CD, MP.   . . .  *The Minister also presented his MND Coin to Major McCullough in recognition of his operational service.*


----------



## Haggis

McG said:


> I got the impression from the article that his Class B employment was protected and that he was just shuffled to complete the 2 year period working for someone else (likely the local CBG HQ).


From the article "He was let go on Thursday and returned to his unit for further assignment."

My guess is that this position was funded by the Minister's office, not the local CBG, so I doubt he would've continued in Class B employment under that cost centre but not supporting the MND. 

That being said (and it's been a few years since I poked my nose into CF Mil Pers Instr 20-04), because he was not let go due to misconduct, he should be entitled to 30 days notice of termination or lesser notice, if mutually agreed upon.  So, he could be employed somewhere else in 39 CBG for those 30 days (minus earned leave).


----------



## Blackadder1916

According to the BCR's webpage he is currently the DCO and seems to have been in that position concurrently with the military assistant job.






						BC Regiment | Command Group
					






					www.bcregiment.com
				



Command Group is made up of the following:
Commanding Officer: LCol Vincent Virk, CD
Regimental Sergeant-Major: CWO Tony Harris, CD
2IC: Major Greg McCullough, CD


I wonder how long before that is changed.


----------



## Haggis

Blackadder1916 said:


> According to the BCR's webpage he is currently the DCO and seems to have been in that position concurrently with the military assistant job.


A Class B DCO/2IC would be a godsend to any unit.


----------



## Good2Golf

Blackadder1916 said:


> I wonder how long before that is changed.


Why would it change?

Consensus by most appear that his conduct in another organization isn’t applicable to his CAF service…so long as it doesn’t come to light that he streaked through the barracks during his BMOQ, he should be secure to stay as the BCR’s DCO.

[/s]


----------



## brihard

Haggis said:


> A Class B DCO/2IC would be a godsend to any unit.


Frig, no kidding.


----------



## MikeSigs

Gen. Vance has not found guilty. Come on Guys! Open your eyes! don't you see what the federal government is doing to our top brass. They are discrediting them and removing from position all who oppose their political and social agenda. I believe Gen. Vance is innocent and is a good Soldier! I stand with Gen. Vance 100% and will fight alongside him against Trudeau and protect my sworn duty to protect all residents of Canada against Tyranny. I am a Canadian Soldier and will die for this mission. God Bless all Troops.


----------



## SupersonicMax

MikeSigs said:


> Gen. Vance has not found guilty. Come on Guys! Open your eyes! don't you see what the federal government is doing to our top brass. They are discrediting them and removing from position all who oppose their political and social agenda. I believe Gen. Vance is innocent and is a good Soldier! I stand with Gen. Vance 100% and will fight alongside him against Trudeau and protect my sworn duty to protect all residents of Canada against Tyranny. I am a Canadian Soldier and will die for this mission. God Bless all Troops.


Really?  You believe the victims were coerced/convinced by the LPC to accuse Vance??


----------



## Haggis

MikeSigs said:


> Gen. Vance has not found guilty. Come on Guys! Open your eyes! don't you see what the federal government is doing to our top brass. They are discrediting them and removing from position all who oppose their political and social agenda. I believe Gen. Vance is innocent and is a good Soldier! I stand with Gen. Vance 100% and will fight alongside him against Trudeau and protect my sworn duty to protect all residents of Canada against Tyranny. I am a Canadian Soldier and will die for this mission. God Bless all Troops.


Wow....

That came out of nowhere!


----------



## Remius

SupersonicMax said:


> Really?  You believe the victims were coerced/convinced by the LPC to accuse Vance??


I’m more concerned about his willingness to die for some sort of mission against Trudeau.


----------



## cavalryman

MikeSigs said:


> Gen. Vance has not found guilty. Come on Guys! Open your eyes! don't you see what the federal government is doing to our top brass. They are discrediting them and removing from position all who oppose their political and social agenda. I believe Gen. Vance is innocent and is a good Soldier! I stand with Gen. Vance 100% and will fight alongside him against Trudeau and protect my sworn duty to protect all residents of Canada against Tyranny. I am a Canadian Soldier and will die for this mission. God Bless all Troops.


Agent provocateur? If so, it's not well done. I'm sure the actual security services can do better.


----------



## MJP

Haggis said:


> Wow....
> 
> That came out of nowhere!


I was looking for the Beaverton link.....


----------



## MikeSigs

Look deep guys. Do your research. Don't look only at the present but history. Keeping the blinders on and tunnel vision will ultimately destroy hope for protecting Canada. Remember why you joined and set aside the status quo. Hopefully you will find the answers. DO YOUR RESEARCH gentlemen you know how! not relying on fact Checkers. Do your work as soldiers for Canada not sheep for a politicians! Hate me if you will it is your choice, doing my duty is my choice.


----------



## Sf2

MikeSigs said:


> Look deep guys. Do your research. Don't look only at the present but history. Keeping the blinders on and tunnel vision will ultimately destroy hope for protecting Canada. Remember why you joined and set aside the status quo. Hopefully you will find the answers. DO YOUR RESEARCH gentlemen you know how! not relying on fact Checkers. Do your work as soldiers for Canada not sheep for a politicians! Hate me if you will it is your choice, doing my duty is my choice.


OCdt Kenderesi has entered the chat.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Well please substantiate your claims.  Just telling us to do our research won’t cut it.  
Do you also believe COVID is a hoax?


----------



## OldSolduer

SupersonicMax said:


> Well please substantiate your claims.  Just telling us to do our research won’t cut it.
> Do you also believe COVID is a hoax?


Russian trawler . Or maybe Chinese?


----------



## Weinie

MikeSigs said:


> Look deep guys. Do your research. Don't look only at the present but history. Keeping the blinders on and tunnel vision will ultimately destroy hope for protecting Canada. Remember why you joined and set aside the status quo. Hopefully you will find the answers. DO YOUR RESEARCH gentlemen you know how! not relying on fact Checkers. Do your work as soldiers for Canada not sheep for a politicians! Hate me if you will it is your choice, doing my duty is my choice.


Well at least the second Russian or Chinese troll was better at English than the first. And based on the language used, I'm betting farther East


----------



## mariomike

MikeSigs said:


> Remember why you joined and set aside the status quo.



I don't remember.  But, I don't think it was for that.


----------



## AmmoTech90

OldSolduer said:


> Russian trawler . Or maybe Chinese?


Sadly we have enough locally raised nutbars, having been in the military doesn't excuse from being one.  There are several people I considered to be calm, rational friends when we were in the military.  Once they were released they displayed some very strange ideas and beliefs I had no idea were present when they were serving.


----------



## Weinie

mariomike said:


> I don't remember.  But, I don't think it was for that.


Ok. Shift change happened at the troll factory, new guy or gal got on, was briefed on and  weighed the response, and then fired back.. Lose/lose to continue to engage.


----------



## brihard

Based on the kid’s posting history he joined a PRes sigs unit March 2019. So he’s got about a week and a half in. I guess we’re starting to narrow down the low cutoff for how much time in CAF it takes to have heard what most have heard about Vance.

My experience has generally been that whose who shrilly tell us to “do your own research!!!1!!one!!” On this internet probably don’t have a clue what ‘research’ actually is, nor have likely done it.

If someone could figure out who joined 32 Sigs on March 15, 2019, did BMQ in October of that year, and then likely moved to Kingston, I’m sure there’s a unit that would like to know that one of their new guys promises on the internet to fight against our Prime Minister.


----------



## Weinie

brihard said:


> Based on the kid’s posting history he joined a PRes sigs unit March 2019. So he’s got about a week and a half in. I guess we’re starting to narrow down the low cutoff for how much time in CAF it takes to have heard what most have heard about Vance.
> 
> My experience has generally been that whose who shrilly tell us to “do your own research!!!1!!one!!” On this internet probably don’t have a clue what ‘research’ actually is, nor have likely done it.
> 
> If someone could figure out who joined 32 Sigs on March 15, 2019, did BMQ in October of that year, and then likely moved to Kingston, I’m sure there’s a unit that would like to know that one of their new guys promises on the internet to fight against our Prime Minister.


Yup. I looked at that. His grammar and syntax were fine in his first two posts, not so good in his last two. He may be urging sedition, or his account may have been hacked. And he hasn't posted for 18 months


----------



## OldSolduer

Weinie said:


> Yup. I looked at that. His grammar and syntax were fine in his first two posts, not so good in his last two. He may be urging sedition, or his account may have been hacked. And he hasn't posted for 18 months


His or her meds need adjustment


----------



## Weinie

OldSolduer said:


> His or her meds  ideology need adjustment


FTFY.


----------



## Weinie

I am sure it is a coincidence, but my USB lit up and my anti-virus software gave me messages after I posted here recently.


----------



## brihard

OldSolduer said:


> His or her meds employment needs adjustment


FTFY better.


----------



## Weinie

His or her meds employment needs adjustment



brihard said:


> FTFY better. Not


Understanding what you are trying to get at here, but Ideology will trump employment any time, Employment is just a means to an end. Ideology is an end. And we have drifted off topic.


----------



## brihard

Weinie said:


> His or her meds employment needs adjustment
> 
> 
> Understanding what you are trying to get at here, but Ideology will trump employment any time, Employment is just a means to an end. Ideology is an end. And we have drifted off topic.


Oh, I’m well aware. Just saying that assuming this is not an account hack, this individual’s transition to civilian status needs to be facilitated post haste.


----------



## Kilted

Remius said:


> I’m more concerned about his willingness to die for some sort of mission against Trudeau.


As much as I believe that he does not have the best interest of the CAF in mind and would probably send us up a river without a paddle if it suited him, it's not a hill that I would die on, nor would it be my place while he forms HM government.

That being said, I can still vote Conservative in the next election like I always have.


----------



## Kilted

brihard said:


> Oh, I’m well aware. Just saying that assuming this is not an account hack, this individual’s transition to civilian status needs to be facilitated post haste.


Could he not receive the same charge as the OCdt?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Sf2 said:


> OCdt Kenderesi has entered the chat.


----------



## Haggis

Kilted said:


> Could he not receive the same charge as the OCdt?


If the poster used a DND computer to make his posts, then there is a responsibility to properly secure your account/device against unauthorized use and not doing so would be a service offence. If they used a private device, there is no such requirement and it's harder to prove responsibility for authorship without a confession or a witness that saw "hands on the keyboard".


----------



## The Bread Guy

Don't know much about the poster (says she's former CBC reporter who's posted to HuffPo, with less-than-fully-robust sources saying she's a relative of the PM's wife) giving some very granular details taking apart the whole golf game narrative via a 26 June Twitter thread here (alternate format here). Appears to be no fan of the DND DM, so those glasses likely paint the picture she sees/hears.

Also alleges one reporter's been taken off the air, so caveat lector until confirmed.

More grist for the backstory mill?

#NothingHasEverythingButEverythingHasSomething? 🍿


----------



## Jarnhamar

OldSolduer said:


> Russian trawler . Or maybe Chinese?


Holding on to vehicle antennas when someone sends a message.


----------



## OldSolduer

The Bread Guy said:


> caveat lector until confirmed.


OK what's that mean? In infantry so simple explanations are the best


----------



## mariomike

OldSolduer said:


> OK what's that mean? In infantry so simple explanations are the best











						Definition of CAVEAT LECTOR
					

let the reader beware… See the full definition




					www.merriam-webster.com


----------



## OldSolduer

mariomike said:


> Definition of CAVEAT LECTOR
> 
> 
> let the reader beware… See the full definition
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.merriam-webster.com


Roger that!!


----------



## mariomike

OldSolduer said:


> Roger that!!


Had to look it up myself. I learn a new word on here almost every day.


----------



## The Bread Guy

OldSolduer said:


> OK what's that mean? In infantry so simple explanations are the best


A.K.A. careful whatcha read


----------



## Loachman

The Bread Guy said:


> Don't know much about the poster (says she's former CBC reporter who's posted to HuffPo, with less-than-fully-robust sources saying she's a relative of the PM's wife) giving some very granular details taking apart the whole golf game narrative via a 26 June Twitter thread here (alternate format here). Appears to be no fan of the DND DM, so those glasses likely paint the picture she sees/hears.
> 
> Also alleges one reporter's been taken off the air, so caveat lector until confirmed.
> 
> More grist for the backstory mill?
> 
> #NothingHasEverythingButEverythingHasSomething? 🍿



Fascinating.


----------



## Scott

Kilted said:


> I hope he files a grievance.





The Bread Guy said:


> Don't know much about the poster (says she's former CBC reporter who's posted to HuffPo, with less-than-fully-robust sources saying she's a relative of the PM's wife) giving some very granular details taking apart the whole golf game narrative via a 26 June Twitter thread here (alternate format here). Appears to be no fan of the DND DM, so those glasses likely paint the picture she sees/hears.
> 
> Also alleges one reporter's been taken off the air, so caveat lector until confirmed.
> 
> More grist for the backstory mill?
> 
> #NothingHasEverythingButEverythingHasSomething? 🍿



I'd like to see some more traction with her claims, because a couple are pretty frigging interesting to me. Aside from the Mercedes one.

Not so sure how I feel about the General's confidentiality of a workplace process being violated - I felt the same with the Julie Payette situation.

If the investigation is carried out how I've experienced them, and expect this one to be, this would be noted as a part of the introduction - not to be excused.

Depending on the process(es) employed - yeah, payouts could be huge for the privilege of fucking with people's lives to advance your own.


----------



## daftandbarmy

BLG leads the way....


Independent External Comprehensive Review into harassment and sexual misconduct in the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces​
*Toronto, ON – June, 29, 2021* – Hon. Louise Arbour invites any person who wishes to share any information or opinion, or participate in, her Independent External Comprehensive Review, to contact her at CAFReview@blg.com.
National Defence Minister Harjit S. Sajjan appointed the Honourable Louise Arbour (C.C., G.O.Q.), a former justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, and now Senior Counsel with Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, to conduct an Independent External Comprehensive Review into Sexual Misconduct and Sexual Harassment in the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces (Review).
According to its Terms of Reference, the aim of the Review is to, among other things:

shed light on the causes for the continued presence of harassment and sexual misconduct despite efforts to eradicate it;
identify barriers to reporting inappropriate behaviour and to assess the adequacy of the response when reports are made;
make recommendations on preventing and eradicating harassment and sexual misconduct; and,
assess the recruitment, training, performance evaluation, posting, and promotion systems in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), as well as the military justice system’s policies, procedures, and practice to respond to such allegations.
The Review will include the views and Defence workplace experiences of: current and former Department of National Defence (DND) employees; CAF members; Staff of the Non-Public Funds, Canadian Forces employees; and contractors. It will also include the perspectives of those employees, members and contractors who identify as part of historically disadvantaged groups, with specific focus on women, and the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Two-Spirit (LGBTQ2) community, to assist the DND and the CAF in furthering understanding of the perspective of these groups. In addition, it will consider all relevant independent reviews concerning the DND/CAF, along with their findings and recommendations.

The Reviewer is in the process of organizing interviews and consultations. The reviewer invites any person who wishes to share any information or opinion to contact the Review Team at CAFReview@blg.com, or by mail addressed to Nadia Effendi at Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, Bay Adelaide Centre, East Tower, 22 Adelaide St. W, Toronto, ON M5H 4E3. Anyone without ready access to email may contact Nadia Effendi at 416-367-6728.

The Reviewer and her team are independent of DND and CAF. For more information about the Review, please visit: BLG.com/CAFReview

*Information communicated to the Reviewer and her team in the course of the Review will be received in confidence unless otherwise agreed to by the Reviewer and the person providing the information.*

For further information: Nadia Effendi, Legal Counsel to Madame Louise Arbour, neffendi@blg.com.
Related Links
Newswire.ca









						Independent External Comprehensive Review into harassment and sexual misconduct in the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces
					

Independent External Comprehensive Review into harassment and sexual misconduct in the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces




					www.blg.com


----------



## Good2Golf

> The Reviewer and her team are *independent of DND *and CAF. For more information about the Review, please visit: BLG.com/CAFReview


…but…


> *National Defence Minister Harjit S. Sajjan appointed* the Honourable Louise Arbour (C.C., G.O.Q.), a former justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, and now Senior Counsel with Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, to conduct an Independent External Comprehensive Review.


Shouldn’t it be the PM or D/PM who should appoint Hon. Arbour, not the very Minister with direct responsibility and oversight for the entire duration of the Government’s tenure who failed to ensure that the 2015 Deschamps Report recommendations were implemented?


----------



## The Bread Guy

Good2Golf said:


> Shouldn’t it be the PM or D/PM who should appoint Hon. Arbour, not the very Minister with direct responsibility and oversight for the entire duration of the Government’s tenure who failed to ensure that the 2015 Deschamps Report recommendations were implemented?


I don't think any politician at any level would be trusted in such an appointment, given the track record and optics.  

Deschamps was apparently appointed by the CDS (yeah, I know, not a perfect analogy here), so maybe someone in that neighbourhood (moving target as it may be these days) might have made better optical sense.

Then again, current management doesn't seem to be too worried about optics here ...


----------



## brihard

Good analogue might be the Bastarache inquiry into similar shenanigans at the RCMP.


----------



## dapaterson

Wasn't the Bastarche report part of his responsibility as the adjudicator for Merlo Davidson?


----------



## brihard

dapaterson said:


> Wasn't the Bastarche report part of his responsibility as the adjudicator for Merlo Davidson?


I believe so now that you mention it. Maybe not as great an analogue for process, but probably a decent forecast of what will come out.


----------



## Haggis

brihard said:


> .... but probably a decent forecast of what will come out.


A promise to "do better"? Another harassment prevention program?  More DLN courses?


----------



## Kilted

daftandbarmy said:


> BLG leads the way....
> 
> 
> Independent External Comprehensive Review into harassment and sexual misconduct in the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces​
> *Toronto, ON – June, 29, 2021* – Hon. Louise Arbour invites any person who wishes to share any information or opinion, or participate in, her Independent External Comprehensive Review, to contact her at CAFReview@blg.com.
> National Defence Minister Harjit S. Sajjan appointed the Honourable Louise Arbour (C.C., G.O.Q.), a former justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, and now Senior Counsel with Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, to conduct an Independent External Comprehensive Review into Sexual Misconduct and Sexual Harassment in the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces (Review).
> According to its Terms of Reference, the aim of the Review is to, among other things:
> 
> shed light on the causes for the continued presence of harassment and sexual misconduct despite efforts to eradicate it;
> identify barriers to reporting inappropriate behaviour and to assess the adequacy of the response when reports are made;
> make recommendations on preventing and eradicating harassment and sexual misconduct; and,
> assess the recruitment, training, performance evaluation, posting, and promotion systems in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), as well as the military justice system’s policies, procedures, and practice to respond to such allegations.
> The Review will include the views and Defence workplace experiences of: current and former Department of National Defence (DND) employees; CAF members; Staff of the Non-Public Funds, Canadian Forces employees; and contractors. It will also include the perspectives of those employees, members and contractors who identify as part of historically disadvantaged groups, with specific focus on women, and the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Two-Spirit (LGBTQ2) community, to assist the DND and the CAF in furthering understanding of the perspective of these groups. In addition, it will consider all relevant independent reviews concerning the DND/CAF, along with their findings and recommendations.
> 
> The Reviewer is in the process of organizing interviews and consultations. The reviewer invites any person who wishes to share any information or opinion to contact the Review Team at CAFReview@blg.com, or by mail addressed to Nadia Effendi at Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, Bay Adelaide Centre, East Tower, 22 Adelaide St. W, Toronto, ON M5H 4E3. Anyone without ready access to email may contact Nadia Effendi at 416-367-6728.
> 
> The Reviewer and her team are independent of DND and CAF. For more information about the Review, please visit: BLG.com/CAFReview
> 
> *Information communicated to the Reviewer and her team in the course of the Review will be received in confidence unless otherwise agreed to by the Reviewer and the person providing the information.*
> 
> For further information: Nadia Effendi, Legal Counsel to Madame Louise Arbour, neffendi@blg.com.
> Related Links
> Newswire.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Independent External Comprehensive Review into harassment and sexual misconduct in the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces
> 
> 
> Independent External Comprehensive Review into harassment and sexual misconduct in the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.blg.com


Didn't we just do that like five years ago?


----------



## Weinie

Kilted said:


> Didn't we just do that like five years ago?


Yes, yes we did.   Sigh.............On behalf of the leadership of the CAF,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,sorry.


----------



## OldSolduer

Weinie said:


> Yes, yes we did.   Sigh.............On behalf of the leadership of the CAF,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,sorry.


Yes I remember that - the Deschamps report IIRC. It did not flatter us.


----------



## MilEME09

So how many reviews before action occurs?


----------



## OldSolduer

MilEME09 said:


> So how many reviews before action occurs?


It depends on how you experience it according to a high placed individual.


----------



## MilEME09

OldSolduer said:


> It depends on how you experience it according to a high placed individual.


Maybe that's the plan? Keep ordering reviews until a more pleasant one comes around


----------



## Kilted

Weinie said:


> Yes, yes we did.   Sigh.............On behalf of the leadership of the CAF,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,sorry.


This is like doing an AAR, on an AAR.


----------



## Brad Sallows

A commission, inquiry, whatever has three purposes:
1. Stall for time.
2. Present the appearance of action.
3. Dissipate responsibility.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Brad Sallows said:


> A commission, inquiry, whatever has three purposes:
> 1. Stall for time.
> 2. Present the appearance of action.
> 3. Dissipate responsibility.


In a related vein, another good one from "Yes, Minister" ....


----------



## trigger324

Brad Sallows said:


> A commission, inquiry, whatever has three purposes:
> 1. Stall for time.
> 2. Present the appearance of action.
> 3. Dissipate responsibility.


That also sounds like the CoC when it comes to sending grievances up to the Final Authority, often the CDS


----------



## Takeniteasy

Brad Sallows said:


> A commission, inquiry, whatever has three purposes:
> 1. Stall for time.
> 2. Present the appearance of action.
> 3. Dissipate responsibility.



I would go further and define your COA steps as duress for those trying to come forward...


----------



## MilEME09

The war inside the Canadian Armed Forces
					

In the wake of multiple exits by senior leaders after untested allegations of misconduct, fixing its badly broken justice system is now the most important mission facing the beleaguered military




					www.macleans.ca
				




Well we managed to go a few days.....


----------



## daftandbarmy

MilEME09 said:


> The war inside the Canadian Armed Forces
> 
> 
> In the wake of multiple exits by senior leaders after untested allegations of misconduct, fixing its badly broken justice system is now the most important mission facing the beleaguered military
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.macleans.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well we managed to go a few days.....



And here's the thing, revealing itself, summed up nicely in a paragraph:

"After the apology, she says he asked her if she thought the harassment she experienced was part of a systemic problem. She said yes, and started to cry. Then, she says, he seemed to argue the point, and spoke of his high regard for his own officers. “It was the old, ‘Are you sure? It’s not our guys,’ ” she says. “By the time I was done, it was like, ‘Did you just try to convince me I was wrong? Because I’m not wrong.’ ”


----------



## rmc_wannabe

daftandbarmy said:


> "After the apology, she says he asked her if she thought the harassment she experienced was part of a systemic problem. She said yes, and started to cry. Then, she says, he seemed to argue the point, and spoke of his high regard for his own officers. “It was the old, ‘Are you sure? It’s not our guys,’ ” she says. “By the time I was done, it was like, ‘Did you just try to convince me I was wrong? Because I’m not wrong.’ ”



Well it sure as hell wasn't the Easter bunny.....


----------



## Capt Chaos

daftandbarmy said:


> And here's the thing, revealing itself, summed up nicely in a paragraph:
> 
> "After the apology, she says he asked her if she thought the harassment she experienced was part of a systemic problem. She said yes, and started to cry. Then, she says, he seemed to argue the point, and spoke of his high regard for his own officers. “It was the old, ‘Are you sure? It’s not our guys,’ ” she says. “By the time I was done, it was like, ‘Did you just try to convince me I was wrong? Because I’m not wrong.’ ”


Classic Rouleau. Gaslight, bully or ignore those that threatened his ego and advancement.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Capt Chaos said:


> Classic Rouleau. Gaslight, bully or ignore those that threatened his ego and advancement.



Based on what I've seen over the past couple of decades or so I honestly think he's not unique, and this is just an example of the corporate culture in action.

Although this can be read as a 'he said, she said' thing, if true, his actions can't be excused but are a good example of what we tolerate in (some of) our senior leaders.


----------



## MilEME09

daftandbarmy said:


> Based on what I've seen over the past couple of decades or so I honestly think he's not unique, and this is just an example of the corporate culture in action.
> 
> Although this can be read as a 'he said, she said' thing, if true, his actions can't be excused but are a good example of what we tolerate in (some of) our senior leaders.


It's also likely DND got word of this before it was published which is why he was on indefinite leave after a golf game.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

daftandbarmy said:


> Based on what I've seen over the past couple of decades or so I honestly think he's not unique, and this is just an example of the corporate culture in action.
> 
> Although this can be read as a 'he said, she said' thing, if true, his actions can't be excused but are a good example of what we tolerate in (some of) our senior leaders.



I noticed a shift really around the time we were winding down combat operations in Afghanistan. No longer were the best and brightest being called to lead their personnel in an effective manner to save lives and act like a decent human being; it all became about getting your ticket punched and moving along.  

I was part of the close out in 2011 and saw a lot of Senior Leaders (both NCO and Officer) who were there to fill an operational role, who were purposefully overlooked on previous Rotos because they were incompetent and a liability. They sucked to work for, made the routine complex, and the complex an exercise in futility and inaction. 

But you bet your sweet ass that they had glowing PERs, got those points on their SCRITs and climbed the ladder anyway. They crafted it as such and were deliberate to ensure they walked out of theatre smelling like a daisy. And now this is the template for molding our CWOs and Senior Officers

I often say that we have become a meritocracy much to our own detriment. Doesn't matter if the Sgt or Captain involved is a toxic or incompetent leader; they have a degree, a language profile, and volunteer with Scout's Canada. Their individual achievements outshine their affect (or lack there of) on the institution.

Until we change how we define "effective leadership" we will still have the Rouleaus and Vances of the world sitting in the hot seat.


----------



## Kilted

Canadian military's new plan to fight misconduct includes culture officers, training
		


Culture Officers, sounds like something the Soviet Union would use.


----------



## dimsum

Kilted said:


> Canadian military's new plan to fight misconduct includes culture officers, training
> 
> 
> 
> Culture Officers, sounds like something the Soviet Union would use.


I'm assuming it's the CP (or PAO, or whoever) mis-translating Command Cultural Advisor.  This was announced in May and focused on the CCA onboard HMCS REGINA.






						Navy News | Culture becomes major focus in HMCS Regina
					

Culture becomes major focus in HMCS Regina




					www.navy-marine.forces.gc.ca


----------



## Weinie

dimsum said:


> I'm assuming it's the CP (*or PAO, or whoever*) mis-translating Command Cultural Advisor.  This was announced in May and focused on the CCA onboard HMCS REGINA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Navy News | Culture becomes major focus in HMCS Regina
> 
> 
> Culture becomes major focus in HMCS Regina
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.navy-marine.forces.gc.ca


Believe me, this is not a PA driven thing.


----------



## Kilted

What exactly are they going to do?  Walk around and listen in on peoples conversations and tell them that they shouldn't be saying specific things?  Are we going to start to see lists of forbidden media (movies, TV shows, music, etc) that are forbidden on ship/base?


----------



## CBH99

rmc_wannabe said:


> I noticed a shift really around the time we were winding down combat operations in Afghanistan. No longer were the best and brightest being called to lead their personnel in an effective manner to save lives and act like a decent human being; it all became about getting your ticket punched and moving along.
> 
> I was part of the close out in 2011 and saw a lot of Senior Leaders (both NCO and Officer) who were there to fill an operational role, who were purposefully overlooked on previous Rotos because they were incompetent and a liability. They sucked to work for, made the routine complex, and the complex an exercise in futility and inaction.
> 
> But you bet your sweet ass that they had glowing PERs, got those points on their SCRITs and climbed the ladder anyway. They crafted it as such and were deliberate to ensure they walked out of theatre smelling like a daisy. And now this is the template for molding our CWOs and Senior Officers
> 
> I often say that we have become a meritocracy much to our own detriment. Doesn't matter if the Sgt or Captain involved is a toxic or incompetent leader; they have a degree, a language profile, and volunteer with Scout's Canada. Their individual achievements outshine their affect (or lack there of) on the institution.
> 
> Until we change how we define "effective leadership" we will still have the Rouleaus and Vances of the world sitting in the hot seat.


While Rouleau may have put his foot in some muddy waters there, in all fairness I imagine he felt like he had to tap dance through the rain for a while.  While the optics of the golf course incident may have looked bad, I do believe him when he said he did want to chat and check on Vance.  It's difficult to be the guy in charge of CANSOF, which obviously has an incredibly close relationship to the CDS, MND, and PM posts - and all of a sudden not be able to really communicate with any of his colleagues that he really does NEED to be in contact with.

He owned it, apologized for it.  I still have high regards for him.  JTF2, CSOR, 427 Sqn, CJIRU - all seem to have done well under his leadership. 


0.02


----------



## daftandbarmy

Kilted said:


> Canadian military's new plan to fight misconduct includes culture officers, training
> 
> 
> 
> Culture Officers, sounds like something the Soviet Union would use.



I've seen similar initiatives in the provincial government ministries that - for example - have staff from various cultural backgrounds who (apart from their regular full time jobs) can advise leaders on the right way to reach certain groups in the organization. 

They also offer services to indigenous people, such as job application assistance, to help remove cultural barriers to accessing public sector jobs: Indigenous Applicant Advisory Service

At the other end of the spectrum there are the 'invigilators of mandatory training' too, I assume, which can backfire e.g., 

*Why Cultural Sensitivity Training Is Ineffective and Insensitive*

Blogger Susana Rinderle says leadership coaching, better accountability or process improvement may be the answer to your diversity problems, not training.

Cultural sensitivity rubs me wrong because it’s ineffective and even insensitive. 

There are three reasons. *First, it indirectly calls out a limiting belief that the solution is that “we” need to be more “sensitive” to “them.” *This belief is well-intended, but often has negative effects. Typically it carries an unspoken, even unconscious racial tone — a belief that white people need to be more sensitive to people of color, or to a particular racial or ethnic group. It reinforces a perceived or real power imbalance — a notion that the solution to a problem is that I be more sensitive to you. This implies that you are fragile and need to be handled gently so you don’t break. It also implies that the success of our relationship is entirely my responsibility — perhaps because you are incapable of being a full adult or equal partner. My colleague Simma Lieberman makes a strong case for how sensitivity training is patronizing and even damaging to the targets of the sensitivity.









						Workforce Management Software News, Blog, and Resources
					

The latest news and commentary on workplace and employment. Find free resources on labor insights, working conditions, and people management software labor efficiency and helping your teams achieve success.




					www.workforce.com


----------



## Jarnhamar

Kilted said:


> What exactly are they going to do?  Walk around and listen in on peoples conversations and tell them that they shouldn't be saying specific things?  Are we going to start to see lists of forbidden media (movies, TV shows, music, etc) that are forbidden on ship/base?


QR&O 19.14 is the new Heresy charge.

We could give the Culture Officers the power to hold a trial, pass judgement and issue punishment on the spot.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> advise leaders on the right way to reach certain groups in the organization.



That's easy.  No-one is special.  Everyone is treated equally.


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View

Jarnhamar said:


> QR&O 19.14 is the new Heresy charge.
> 
> We could give the Culture Officers the power to hold a trial, pass judgement and issue punishment on the spot.


----------



## McG

Kilted said:


> What exactly are they going to do?  Walk around and listen in on peoples conversations and tell them that they shouldn't be saying specific things?


Perhaps, as GENADS already do, they will have the job of helping Comds & staff ensure they have considered plans & problems from different perspectives as well as ensuring those same individuals have considered the messages (including unintended ones) that certain decisions/behaviours communicate about what is right.

There is a lot of discussion on organizational cultures where one value is elevated as being paramount to the organization, but reward systems (eg. promotions) reinforce behaviours that are antithetical to the espoused value. We say we put people first, but we often exploit our people to achieve success .. and not for combat but for even just the routine work of the institution. Maybe it would be good to have someone whose job is to inject “hey sir, is this idea really a match with the values the institution claims are important?”


----------



## rmc_wannabe

McG said:


> Maybe it would be good to have someone whose job is to inject “hey sir, is this idea really a match with the values the institution claims are important?”


Is that not the responsibility of the Officers and NCOs placed with the sacred duty of Command?

I'm still pretty newly minted as a Sgt, but I have to ask: When does it become the norm that you stop following the Military Ethos and start fucking people about for the hell of it? When does "Never pass a fault" become "meh, it'll do.."? I ask so I know when I'm about to reach that point, I hang up the uniform and find something else to do with my life.

If we need "Culture Officers" to chime in and say "this is a bad call, I don't recommend this COA" for our senior leaders to do the right thing, how in the hell are they still in command? Has no one spoke truth to power about it? If enough people say "This is wrong. We need to rethink this..." should that not suffice?


----------



## MilEME09

rmc_wannabe said:


> If we need "Culture Officers" to chime in and say "this is a bad call, I don't recommend this COA" for our senior leaders to do the right thing, how in the hell are they still in command? Has no one spoke truth to power about it? If enough people say "This is wrong. We need to rethink this..." should that not suffice?


Because no one seems to hold senior leaders to account unless it makes the news


----------



## OldSolduer

Kilted said:


> Canadian military's new plan to fight misconduct includes culture officers, training
> 
> 
> 
> Culture Political Correctness Officers, sounds like something the Soviet Union would use.


FTFY - you are welcome.


----------



## OldSolduer

Jarnhamar said:


> QR&O 19.14 is the new Heresy charge.
> 
> We could give the Culture Officers the power to hold a trial, pass judgement and issue punishment on the spot.


Can we call it the Canadian Inquisition, eh?


----------



## Weinie

OldSolduer said:


> Can we call it the Canadian Inquisition, eh?


*Everybody* expected the Canadian Inquisition.


----------



## McG

rmc_wannabe said:


> If we need "Culture Officers" to chime in and say "this is a bad call, I don't recommend this COA" for our senior leaders to do the right thing, how in the hell are they still in command?


I recommend you read Edgar Schein‘s work on organizational culture. We can decide we are magically better than other human organizations, or we can consider how to address weaknesses that are characteristics of human organizations. 

Organizations will bumble obliviously along paths that undermine their goals. It’s not necessarily just obvious egregious acts that are the problem. It can also be an aggregate of many behaviours more subtly incongruent with the CAF’s vision. Junior and senior leaders repeat the behaviours they’ve always seen; the things they think produce success. We don’t question some of the demands the institution makes of members, and we will demand people “suck it up” because we’ve been through the pain ourselves. There are all sorts of voices ready to defend “we’ve always done it that way” and many of those voices are in jobs advising commanders as staff officers or as sergeants major. What’s wrong with ensuring there is at least one voice challenging the status quo, advocating for other perspectives, and ensuring unintended consequences of an “obvious solution” are considered.


----------



## Brad Sallows

We should invent some kind of small council, then.  They'd be staff members, not command, and mostly commissioned and non-commissioned officers.  We could call them staff officers.


----------



## daftandbarmy

McG said:


> I recommend you read Edgar Schein‘s work on organizational culture. We can decide we are magically better than other human organizations, or we can consider how to address weaknesses that are characteristics of human organizations.
> 
> Organizations will bumble obliviously along paths that undermine their goals. It’s not necessarily just obvious egregious acts that are the problem. It can also be an aggregate of many behaviours more subtly incongruent with the CAF’s vision. Junior and senior leaders repeat the behaviours they’ve always seen; the things they think produce success. We don’t question some of the demands the institution makes of members, and we will demand people “suck it up” because we’ve been through the pain ourselves. There are all sorts of voices ready to defend “we’ve always done it that way” and many of those voices are in jobs advising commanders as staff officers or as sergeants major. What’s wrong with ensuring there is at least one voice challenging the status quo, advocating for other perspectives, and ensuring unintended consequences of an “obvious solution” are considered.



Schein is awesome....

“We must become better at asking and do less telling in a culture that overvalues telling.”

― Edgar H. Schein


----------



## ballz

Brad Sallows said:


> We should invent some kind of small council, then.  They'd be staff members, not command, and mostly commissioned and non-commissioned officers.  We could call them staff officers.



Funny, I was going to comment "I can't wait for the Culture Officers to be ignored just like the rest of us."


----------



## Kilted

What is the army going to call them?


----------



## dapaterson

So we're saying a commanding officer needs an adviser with their fingers on the pulse of unit culture, to advise them on what the impacts of what they're doing will be.

Congratulations.  We've just invented the RSM.


----------



## Halifax Tar

dapaterson said:


> So we're saying a commanding officer needs an adviser with their fingers on the pulse of unit culture, to advise them on what the impacts of what they're doing will be.
> 
> Congratulations.  We've just invented the RSM.


Have our RSM/Cox'n not been doing that ?  Are they being ignored ?


----------



## captloadie

In an organization that learns and grows, these advisors would only be required for a short period of time until the culture of the organization caught up with society. The same could be said for gender advisors. There should be a point in the future where at a minimum the senior members of an organization (both officers and NCMs) have been trained/acclimated/indoctrinated (choose your word) to a point that these consideration are automatically done, and informed decisions are made without the need for these specific specialist advisors.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Halifax Tar said:


> Have our RSM/Cox'n not been doing that ?  Are they being ignored ?



Yes. IMHO.

It's all part of the de-empowerment (is that a word?) of the SNCO.

You start by making Commissioning their best long-term career option...


----------



## YZT580

once the advisors are there they will make themselves indispensable and untouchable: simply another level of bureaucracy.  As dataperson stated, the position and role already exists.  Perhaps the solution is to peel back, ensure that they are suited for the position *as it is supposed to be* and let them get back to doing their job.


----------



## Good2Golf

As McG noted up thread, does the CAF (or GoC for that matter) truly understand what the culture it wants, is?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Good2Golf said:


> As McG noted up thread, does the CAF (or GoC for that matter) truly understand what the culture it wants, is?



'Keep the CAF out of the news' seems to be the only measurable KPI we can identify at this point.


----------



## OldSolduer

Good2Golf said:


> As McG noted up thread, does the CAF (or GoC for that matter) truly understand what the culture it wants, is?


Honestly I don’t think the CAF knows. Three different tribes with sub tribes, clans etc all wanting a piece of the pie.
Toss in a few “good idea fairies” and the distractions from the primary mission start to escalate….resulting in this mess.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> informed decisions are made without the need for these specific specialist advisors



What kinds of decisions require those specific specialist advisors?


----------



## Furniture

I was a bit reluctant about accepting the idea at first, but after reading the REG example I think I get it. 

It is useful to have someone not at 20+ years in that has a clear line of communication with the command team. With the examples brought in REG, the FWD Section Base, and dockyard access, the default answer from most supervisors would have been "that's how it is", "sleep in more clothing", "single people have to walk down, so can you". Not necessarily because the supervisor is a bad person, but because it's the easy answer, and the supervisor has 100 other things to get done today. They likely also "know" that when they take it up another level their supervisor will give the same answers, or assign the subordinate to "write a memo", the universal "I'll make this not worth your time with andministrivia/hassel". That means the Jr. sailor's issue never makes it to Command's attention, so Command isn't able to use their power to fix it. 

Even if the above scenario doesn't happen, and all leaders are as prefect as people pretend to be online, there is still multiple layers of CoC for a Jr member to get concerns through before it reaches the top.  After going through a MS-PO2-PO1-CPO2-CPO1-XO-CO, or alternatively MS-PO2-PO1-CPO2-HOD-XO-CO  the problem/solution may be so distorted by the telephone game, and personal interpretation/ideas that it bears little resemblance to what the Jr member brought up. 

With a culture officer the Jr sailor can speak directly to the person that will speak directly to the CO, and theoretically the culture officer will be Jr enough to not be completely institutionalized to the point they give the supervisor standard answers. Maybe I'm way off, but this is what it seems like from my perspective.



Halifax Tar said:


> Have our RSM/Cox'n not been doing that ?  Are they being ignored ?


What if the RSM/SWO/Cox'n also don't see the problem? I guarantee there are things we don't see as PO1/WOs that the Jr people do, let alone a CWO/CPO1 layers above us.


----------



## Brad Sallows

At least history reassures us that the idea of having special people with special access to the decision maker is something that always ends well.


----------



## McG

Halifax Tar said:


> Have our RSM/Cox'n not been doing that ?  Are they being ignored ?


Some times these are the people who are the problem and are most stuck in the “this is just how we always do it” mindset. There is also the unusual dichotomy of roles where we want sr NCOs to be both the enforcers of discipline and the voice of the non-commissioned ranks. You won’t find a union shop steward who is also the company’s HR disciplinarian outside the military, but that’s kind of how we try to run things.


----------



## Loachman

Furniture said:


> the culture officer will be Jr enough to not be completely institutionalized to the point they give the supervisor standard answers.



So the newly-minted 2Lt, then?


----------



## Furniture

Loachman said:


> So the newly-minted 2Lt, then?


It was a Lt(N) on REG, so I'd assume somewhere between 2Lt and Capt. It doesn't make much sense to have them at the unit level if they are just as senior as the people they are advising, and just as unapproachable as the Command Team. 

Then again, it is the CAF, so anything from LCols-BGens all around wouldn't surprise me overly much 🤷‍♂️


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Kilted said:


> What is the army going to call them?


Commissars?


----------



## Navy_Pete

daftandbarmy said:


> ....de-empowerment (is that a word?)...



It is now! Full score for innovation and communication! 😁


----------



## Navy_Pete

Furniture said:


> I was a bit reluctant about accepting the idea at first, but after reading the REG example I think I get it.
> 
> It is useful to have someone not at 20+ years in that has a clear line of communication with the command team. With the examples brought in REG, the FWD Section Base, and dockyard access, the default answer from most supervisors would have been "that's how it is", "sleep in more clothing", "single people have to walk down, so can you". Not necessarily because the supervisor is a bad person, but because it's the easy answer, and the supervisor has 100 other things to get done today. They likely also "know" that when they take it up another level their supervisor will give the same answers, or assign the subordinate to "write a memo", the universal "I'll make this not worth your time with andministrivia/hassel". That means the Jr. sailor's issue never makes it to Command's attention, so Command isn't able to use their power to fix it.
> 
> Even if the above scenario doesn't happen, and all leaders are as prefect as people pretend to be online, there is still multiple layers of CoC for a Jr member to get concerns through before it reaches the top.  After going through a MS-PO2-PO1-CPO2-CPO1-XO-CO, or alternatively MS-PO2-PO1-CPO2-HOD-XO-CO  the problem/solution may be so distorted by the telephone game, and personal interpretation/ideas that it bears little resemblance to what the Jr member brought up.
> 
> With a culture officer the Jr sailor can speak directly to the person that will speak directly to the CO, and theoretically the culture officer will be Jr enough to not be completely institutionalized to the point they give the supervisor standard answers. Maybe I'm way off, but this is what it seems like from my perspective.
> 
> 
> What if the RSM/SWO/Cox'n also don't see the problem? I guarantee there are things we don't see as PO1/WOs that the Jr people do, let alone a CWO/CPO1 layers above us.



The 2 mess issue isn't new, why do we keep reinventing the wheels to fix known problems that keep getting forgotten about? Your options are pretty limited to getting dressed in either 1 or 2 mess; there just isn't room up there. Glad they found an option other than trying to pack 30 people into a hallway until the mess is cleared out. (although if your ass is still hanging out in your mess when other people have already gotten dressed, transited the ship and started getting dressed, the problem isn't necessarily the lack of privacy).


----------



## Furniture

Navy_Pete said:


> The 2 mess issue isn't new, why do we keep reinventing the wheels to fix known problems that keep getting forgotten about? Your options are pretty limited to getting dressed in either 1 or 2 mess; there just isn't room up there. Glad they found an option other than trying to pack 30 people into a hallway until the mess is cleared out. (although if your ass is still hanging out in your mess when other people have already gotten dressed, transited the ship and started getting dressed, the problem isn't necessarily the lack of privacy).


Having spent some time in 2 Mess during WUPS, I found it was the people that were already up and on watch that were the issue. If on watch NESOP S3 Bloggins comes charging out of the OPS Room at Emergency Stations into 2 mess, on the way to dress in the FWD SB, there isn't a lot of time to be up and dressed.  

For me it wasn't an issue, but I can see where it could be an issue for some others. A curtain keeps curious eyes away, and helps keep the mess darker when sleeping normally... a win-win in my opinion.


----------



## Haggis

daftandbarmy said:


> It's all part of the de-empowerment (is that a word?)....


Where were you back when I was drafting post 689 and struggling to find the right word?


----------



## Jarnhamar

McG said:


> Maybe it would be good to have someone whose job is to inject “hey sir, is this idea really a match with the values the institution claims are important?”


Inject and promptly be ignored.

Also yes please, more officer positions.


----------



## McG

Jarnhamar said:


> Also yes please, more officer positions.


Why does it have to be an officer?


----------



## Navy_Pete

Furniture said:


> Having spent some time in 2 Mess during WUPS, I found it was the people that were already up and on watch that were the issue. If on watch NESOP S3 Bloggins comes charging out of the OPS Room at Emergency Stations into 2 mess, on the way to dress in the FWD SB, there isn't a lot of time to be up and dressed.
> 
> For me it wasn't an issue, but I can see where it could be an issue for some others. A curtain keeps curious eyes away, and helps keep the mess darker when sleeping normally... a win-win in my opinion.


For sure, things can definitely get awkward in the first 90 seconds or so, also glad they could find a reasonable solution. Same thing used to happen on the 280s in the quad cabins, which was where the AT hung out once they were dressed. Folks got lots of slack in the first two minutes or so, but after that, not so much, and remember a SLt getting basically chucked out with their remaining kit at the 5 minute mark.

The whole secondary duty sounds pretty reasonable (if done right), but hopefully there is some common sense if it's an equipment related issue and the HOD/CHODs responsible gets a heads up first so they can at least have the opportunity to figure out a plan. Getting blindsided by the CO/XO on something like that would get annoying quickly, and folks are already spread thin enough to be transparent that seems unfair.


----------



## Jarnhamar

McG said:


> Why does it have to be an officer?


My opinion - when push comes to shove a majority of COs in the CAF aren't going to listen to an NCM reminding them about optics and culture.

These guys and girls aren't listening now to ncms, officers, padres. They do what they want because rules are for other people.

Regular caveats of _ not all bad guys_ but for the people who ARE the problem, they're especially not going to listen.


----------



## GR66

Any reason that they have to be uniformed members?


----------



## daftandbarmy

GR66 said:


> Any reason that they have to be uniformed members?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Navy_Pete said:


> The 2 mess issue isn't new, why do we keep reinventing the wheels to fix known problems that keep getting forgotten about? Your options are pretty limited to getting dressed in either 1 or 2 mess; there just isn't room up there. Glad they found an option other than trying to pack 30 people into a hallway until the mess is cleared out. (although if your ass is still hanging out in your mess when other people have already gotten dressed, transited the ship and started getting dressed, the problem isn't necessarily the lack of privacy).


This is kind of stupid tbh and just goes to show that the CAF and Canadian society writ large is stuck in the age of 3rd Wave Feminism.

The issue is that some people are pigs and can't get their head out of the gutter and just do their bloody jobs without finding a reason to objectify the other sex or someone else's body.  

We need to aggressively purge this sort of thing from our Ships and work places.  My solution would be mixed messing for everyone, and then absolutely skewer the first group of people that can't act like professionals.  There should be no such thing as "all male messes" or "all female messes" etc. 

It's kind of funny because having segregated messes, etc. literally violates the principles espoused in GBA+ which is based on intersectionality.


----------



## MilEME09

Alright let's back the train up a station or two, under the system currently it would seem a lot of power has been stripped from the SNCO, so in the situation of say a CO making a questionable choice what powers does an RSM currently have if they know the call is wrong?


----------



## FJAG

MilEME09 said:


> Alright let's back the train up a station or two, under the system currently it would seem a lot of power has been stripped from the SNCO, so in the situation of say a CO making a questionable choice what powers does an RSM currently have if they know the call is wrong?


I'm not sure that any powers have been stripped from Snr NCOs. The military has evolved over the last seventy years which temper the way we do things, but essentially the fundamental roles remain the same.

In the case of a CO making a questionable call an RSM's "powers" are today what they've always been - to act as an advisor who uses moral suasion and failing that to implement the direction to the best of his ability. That is of course tempered by the long standing justification to disobey an order or direction that is "manifestly unlawful" and to, pursuant to QR&O 5.01e "report to the proper authority any infringement of the pertinent statutes, regulations, rules, orders and instructions governing the conduct of any person subject to the Code of Service Discipline"

🍻


----------



## Haggis

FJAG said:


> I'm not sure that any powers have been stripped from Snr NCOs. The military has evolved over the last seventy years which temper the way we do things, but essentially the fundamental roles remain the same.
> 
> In the case of a CO making a questionable call an RSM's "powers" are today what they've always been - to act as an advisor who uses moral suasion and failing that to implement the direction to the best of his ability. That is of course tempered by the long standing justification to disobey an order or direction that is "manifestly unlawful" and to, pursuant to QR&O 5.01e "report to the proper authority any infringement of the pertinent statutes, regulations, rules, orders and instructions governing the conduct of any person subject to the Code of Service Discipline"
> 
> 🍻


In theory, true. In practice, an RSMs "powers" are the same as any sr NCM, but their sphere of influence is greater. The bottom line is that these powers can be tempered by the openness of the CO (and other officers) to seek and/or accept the advice of the RSM and by the willingness of the RSM to offer said advice.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Humphrey Bogart said:


> This is kind of stupid tbh and just goes to show that the CAF and Canadian society writ large is stuck in the age of 3rd Wave Feminism.
> 
> The issue is that some people are pigs and can't get their head out of the gutter and just do their bloody jobs without finding a reason to objectify the other sex or someone else's body.
> 
> We need to aggressively purge this sort of thing from our Ships and work places.  My solution would be mixed messing for everyone, and then absolutely skewer the first group of people that can't act like professionals.  There should be no such thing as "all male messes" or "all female messes" etc.
> 
> It's kind of funny because having segregated messes, etc. literally violates the principles espoused in GBA+ which is based on intersectionality.



On FRE we discussed this.  And we found the older people got the more they wanted their segregated messes.  Basically the ladies in the C&POs mess didn't want to share a mess deck with 8 men burping and farting all night.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Halifax Tar said:


> On FRE we discussed this.  And we found the older people got the more they wanted their segregated messes.  Basically the ladies in the C&POs mess didn't want to share a mess deck with 8 men burping and farting all night.


Older people are generally less comfortable with being uncomfortable but they need to suck it up, especially if they are in a leadership position. We need to stop bending over backwards to accommodate every single person's personal preferences and treat everyone with the same standard regardless of rank or position.  

I think it's completely unreasonable to discuss changing facilities in an emergency situation, especially a real one. How about instead of worrying about people changing, people get out of their racks and put on firefighting gear or stop gazing at someone and do their job?  We have women that share a foxhole with men and vice-versa and are able to get the job done without issue so why is this any different?

In my mind, this is the Western puritanical equivalent of devout Muslims worrying about women exposing their arms or legs while clad in a Burqa.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Older people are generally less comfortable with being uncomfortable but they need to suck it up, especially if they are in a leadership position. We need to stop bending over backwards to accommodate every single person's personal preferences and treat everyone with the same standard regardless of rank or position.
> 
> I think it's completely unreasonable to discuss changing facilities in an emergency situation, especially a real one. How about instead of worrying about people changing, people get out of their racks and put on firefighting gear or stop gazing at someone and do their job?  We have women that share a foxhole with men and vice-versa and are able to get the job done without issue so why is this any different?
> 
> In my mind, this is the Western puritanical equivalent of devout Muslims worrying about women exposing their arms or legs while clad in a Burqa.


Fair enough man.  I grew up in change rooms playing sports.  It really means no never mind to me.  Just providing some anecdotal info.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Halifax Tar said:


> Fair enough man.  I grew up in change rooms playing sports.  It really means no never mind to me.  Just providing some anecdotal info.


I agree and  I wasn't trying to go at you specifically.  I am just frustrated at the amount of contradictory information and direction coming from the organization lately.


----------



## captloadie

So these last comments from HB highlight the largest issue we have as an organization. "In an emergency situation" "we do this in the Army" "liberal feminism" etc. etc. And I'm not calling HB out for his views, I'm just using his comments as examples of why there is a problem with the organization. Like it or not, we are no longer a homogenous organization who all think that the whole is more important than the individual. Did anyone ask that female whether she wanted to share a foxhole with a male? Or ask the male if he was comfortable with the setup? What if some of the females in those Messes have been assaulted or preyed upon previously and are genuinely concerned about their safety or just their modesty? Like it or not, we no longer want an organization that forces individuals to give up their personal beliefs (within reason) when they sign on the dotted line. 

As for who should fill the roles of these culture officers, I do think it should be a Jr NCM. And if COs and the Senior CoC can't find time to listen to what they have to say without having it filtered through multiple layers, new Command teams need to be put in place, because people aren't getting it. And if someone gets blindsided, too bad, that means someone in that CoC wasn't listening to their members or the members they serve.


----------



## dimsum

Humphrey Bogart said:


> It's kind of funny because having segregated messes, etc. literally violates the principles espoused in GBA+ which is based on intersectionality.


Sounds like a great paper for someone's JCSP


----------



## daftandbarmy

captloadie said:


> So these last comments from HB highlight the largest issue we have as an organization. "In an emergency situation" "we do this in the Army" "liberal feminism" etc. etc. And I'm not calling HB out for his views, I'm just using his comments as examples of why there is a problem with the organization. Like it or not, we are no longer a homogenous organization who all think that the whole is more important than the individual. Did anyone ask that female whether she wanted to share a foxhole with a male? Or ask the male if he was comfortable with the setup? What if some of the females in those Messes have been assaulted or preyed upon previously and are genuinely concerned about their safety or just their modesty? Like it or not, we no longer want an organization that forces individuals to give up their personal beliefs (within reason) when they sign on the dotted line.
> 
> As for who should fill the roles of these culture officers, I do think it should be a Jr NCM. And if COs and the Senior CoC can't find time to listen to what they have to say without having it filtered through multiple layers, new Command teams need to be put in place, because people aren't getting it. And if someone gets blindsided, too bad, that means someone in that CoC wasn't listening to their members or the members they serve.



There was a time when, if a Senior Officer was screwing up, the CSM/RSM network kicked in and the right people did something about it.

And you didn't even need someone with 'culture' in their title to sort it out.


----------



## dimsum

daftandbarmy said:


> There was a time when, if a Senior Officer was screwing up, the CSM/RSM network kicked in and the right people did something about it.
> 
> And you didn't even need someone with 'culture' in their title to sort it out.


To be fair, the article (and presumably initiative) really only talked about having those onboard ships.


----------



## daftandbarmy

dimsum said:


> To be fair, the article (and presumably initiative) really only talked about having those onboard ships.



I agree that the initiatives mentioned in the article were worthy efforts to address key issues in the organization. The 'same sex drop off' thing (still boggles my mind that this was an issue) is a good example.

I still don't see why these things can't be dealt with through the SNCO net (getting dressed below decks sounds like a 'sort that out for us PO' kind of thing), or via an Officer/SNCO as a secondary duty.

For example, in 45 CDO RM we had several females, WRNS, filling certain jobs in the Int, Med, Log or HQ sections. They were posted to the unit full time and worked with Royal Marines on a regular basis. Our Asst Adjt, a female RN SLt, was the go to person for all things related to the WRNS complement. She did a great job of sorting out a host of issues that emerged, whether it was on operational tours in Northern Ireland, on Norway NATO deployments, or back in mainland UK. As a secondary duty. (She also regularly kicked everyone's ass on the Squash courts, but that's beside the point). 

It was a greta opportunity for a Junior Officer to show leadership and engage with the CO, and others at higher levels, as required on behalf of the unit and its members.

Now that there are other considerations, LGBTQ2 etc, these can be added to the list of items for this person to sort out.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

daftandbarmy said:


> I agree that the initiatives mentioned in the article were worthy efforts to address key issues in the organization. The 'same sex drop off' thing (still boggles my mind that this was an issue) is a good example.
> 
> I still don't see why these things can't be dealt with through the SNCO net (getting dressed below decks sounds like a 'sort that out for us PO' kind of thing), or via an Officer/SNCO as a secondary duty.
> 
> For example, in 45 CDO RM we had several females, WRNS, filling certain jobs in the Int, Med, Log or HQ sections. They were posted to the unit full time and worked with Royal Marines on a regular basis. Our Asst Adjt, a female RN SLt, was the go to person for all things related to the WRNS complement. She did a great job of sorting out a host of issues that emerged, whether it was on operational tours in Northern Ireland, on Norway NATO deployments, or back in mainland UK. As a secondary duty. (She also regularly kicked everyone's ass on the Squash courts, but that's beside the point).
> 
> It was a greta opportunity for a Junior Officer to show leadership and engage with the CO, and others at higher levels, as required on behalf of the unit and its members.
> 
> Now that there are other considerations, LGBTQ2 etc, these can be added to the list of items for this person to sort out.



See and this is the problem I see with the CAF as a whole whenever something needs addressing. We use the typical Government of Canada fix of "create a committee" or "create a special advisor to the Departmental Executive  Commander" rather than actually using the people and power we have in position to address said issue.

I'm a Sentinel. I'm a LGBTQ2+ Positive Space Ambassador. I am a Workplace Huan Rights Advisor. 

I am also a Troop Warrant Officer. I feel that the three things up top should be the baseline for all leaders section level and up. Perhaps instead of beasting Senior Cpls and new MCpls around on PLQ or AJLC (or conversely a new 2Lt on BMOQ-A), we can actually roll some of this extremely valuable and relevant training into the courses. 

Being a good leader of good character and being able to confidently address the situation at hand instead of running to the GENAD or trying to find an advisor for "culture" should be the default. If we're going to put effort into fixing these issues, lets develop our leaders into better ones instead of adding another layer of bureaucracy.


----------



## daftandbarmy

rmc_wannabe said:


> I'm a Sentinel. I'm a LGBTQ2+ Positive Space Ambassador. I am a Workplace Huan Rights Advisor.
> 
> I am also a Troop Warrant Officer. I feel that the three things up top should be the baseline for all leaders section level and up. Perhaps instead of beasting Senior Cpls and new MCpls around on PLQ or AJLC (or conversely a new 2Lt on BMOQ-A), we can actually roll some of this extremely valuable and relevant training into the courses.
> 
> Being a good leader of good character and being able to confidently address the situation at hand instead of running to the GENAD or trying to find an advisor for "culture" should be the default. *If we're going to put effort into fixing these issues, lets develop our leaders into better ones instead of adding another layer of bureaucracy.*



This.


----------



## CBH99

Completely agreed, with every fibre of my being.  Well said.  

The CAF & government needed to be seeing to be doing something.  So this is ‘one of those things’.  Something they can be implemented quickly, so the parties involved can say “we are addressing this & making changes.”


But what you said is bang on rmc.  Good leadership, moulded from good character, that leads by example, holds themselves accountable, and addresses these types of issues immediately and appropriately IS ultimately the answer.  

I’ve said this a few times throughout this thread, mostly towards the beginning.  I was BOTH extremely lucky that while in the CAF, I honestly did not witness or experience any of this stuff.  I was also fortunate enough to only ever be in fairly small units where everybody was tight knit, and our CoC was actually really really good.  

I was also very naive.  I drank the kool-aid and genuinely have believed in leading by example since before I even joined.  And I had just naively assumed that the clean cut, professional looking leaders were the last people who would engage in stuff like that.   (Now with my current job, my preconceived assumptions are rapidly wearing off.)

Good leadership & good character.  Develop better leaders.  Most of our problems would go away with just that.


----------



## YZT580

CBH99 said:


> Completely agreed, with every fibre of my being.  Well said.
> 
> The CAF & government needed to be seeing to be doing something.  So this is ‘one of those things’.  Something they can be implemented quickly, so the parties involved can say “we are addressing this & making changes.”
> 
> 
> But what you said is bang on rmc.  Good leadership, moulded from good character, that leads by example, holds themselves accountable, and addresses these types of issues immediately and appropriately IS ultimately the answer.
> 
> I’ve said this a few times throughout this thread, mostly towards the beginning.  I was BOTH extremely lucky that while in the CAF, I honestly did not witness or experience any of this stuff.  I was also fortunate enough to only ever be in fairly small units where everybody was tight knit, and our CoC was actually really really good.
> 
> I was also very naive.  I drank the kool-aid and genuinely have believed in leading by example since before I even joined.  And I had just naively assumed that the clean cut, professional looking leaders were the last people who would engage in stuff like that.   (Now with my current job, my preconceived assumptions are rapidly wearing off.)
> 
> Good leadership & good character.  Develop better leaders.  Most of our problems would go away with just that.


leading by example is the only way.  Anything else and you will end up on the wrong side of a headline


----------



## Good2Golf

YZT580 said:


> leading by example is the only way.  Anything else and you will end up on the wrong side of a headline


Unless you’re on the controlling/influencing side of the media. #government


----------



## childs56

daftandbarmy said:


> There was a time when, if a Senior Officer was screwing up, the CSM/RSM network kicked in and the right people did something about it.
> 
> And you didn't even need someone with 'culture' in their title to sort it out.


This is how and why "coverups" of serious incidents happened and things were never dealt with properly.  You can also say for many incidents internal punishments were more harsh and appropriate then external. Except if the issue gets pushed around and never properly reported and it turns into what we have now. (I am sure similar issues with these Officers was dealt with internally as the years went by)


----------



## CBH99

Good2Golf said:


> Unless you’re on the controlling/influencing side of the media. #government


Eventually their attempts and ways of controlling the media comes back to bite them.  Hard.  Repeatedly.  

People can email, call, and communicate the truth about something fairly easily and anonymously these days.  As successful as it may be sometimes, eventually someone yanks the curtain & the government just ends up looking WORSE


----------



## childs56

rmc_wannabe said:


> I am also a Troop Warrant Officer. I feel that the three things up top should be the baseline for all leaders section level and up. Perhaps instead of beasting Senior Cpls and new MCpls around on PLQ or AJLC (or conversely a new 2Lt on BMOQ-A), we can actually roll some of this extremely valuable and relevant training into the courses.


There use to be a reason for this type of training. It was to make effective Leaders under high stress situations. Sleep deprived, food deprived, moral deprived, skills deprived.  Lets see what you can do under harsh conditions. This way you learn to overcome your deficiencies as a team. Lean on the each other for help to accomplish the mission.  Now it seems like it has turned into lets be a manager at "insert your favorite store"  and screw everyone else around me I am my own person and don't tell me how to do it. 

If people think the Military PLQ training is hard or unfair. You should check out big blue oilfield (Schlumberger) and see how they train their Engineers to run jobs, you would be crying in your boots.  
The reality is the Military trains people to fight. That means training people in harsh, unimaginable ways to adapt and overcome the situations they may encounter. 
 They need to hold people accountable for their actions. The Leadership needs to enforce the current and or past training and standards with how to deal with misappropriate conduct by its members. "SHARP" There has been lots of good training and seminars on this. But it fell to the wayside because the leadership did not feel this training was valuable or important. Worse was they enforced if for some of their Soldiers, Sailors and Aviators, but did not enforce it for all or themselves. Which eventually broke the system and made it worse.


----------



## Good2Golf

CBH99 said:


> Eventually their attempts and ways of controlling the media comes back to bite them.  Hard.  Repeatedly.


Waiting to see that happen with today’s federal government.

[/cynical]



CBH99 said:


> People can email, call, and communicate the truth about something fairly easily and anonymously these days.  As successful as it may be sometimes, eventually someone yanks the curtain & the government just ends up looking WORSE


By “WORSE” do you mean as in: ‘make a hollow, vapid sniffling “she experienced it differently than me” non-apology’? 🤔

[/super cynical]


----------



## CBH99

Good2Golf said:


> Waiting to see that happen with today’s federal government.
> 
> [/cynical]


So my own 2 cents on this, is that anytime PM Trudeau tries to stick-handle the media to avoid certain topics or cover up some nonsense with some cheery soundbites, it has come back to haunt him.  Sometimes instantly, sometimes it takes a while.  


Good2Golf said:


> By “WORSE” do you mean as in: ‘make a hollow, vapid sniffling “she experienced it differently than me” non-apology’? 🤔
> 
> [/super cynical]


Oh his slimey nonsense is all his.

By worse I mean "He made these statements to the press, knowing they weren't true, or misleading - because he was trying to cover something up.  Now he's in trouble for the thing he tried to cover up, AND it looks even worse because he tried to lead the media away from the truth."   (I'm thinking WE scandal, SNC Lavalin scandal, etc.)


Either way.  I used to find him somewhat charming, even though I would never vote for him.  His inclusion of women & minorities in his cabinet - at the numbers he did - was appreciated.  His photo-bombing of people, greeting refugees at the airport, yoga poses in parliament, etc etc - was good PR for him, and made him appealing to some folks who may not have paid him much attention before.  Now, he just makes my skin crawl.


----------



## Kilted

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Older people are generally less comfortable with being uncomfortable but they need to suck it up, especially if they are in a leadership position. We need to stop bending over backwards to accommodate every single person's personal preferences and treat everyone with the same standard regardless of rank or position.
> 
> I think it's completely unreasonable to discuss changing facilities in an emergency situation, especially a real one. How about instead of worrying about people changing, people get out of their racks and put on firefighting gear or stop gazing at someone and do their job?  We have women that share a foxhole with men and vice-versa and are able to get the job done without issue so why is this any different?
> 
> In my mind, this is the Western puritanical equivalent of devout Muslims worrying about women exposing their arms or legs while clad in a Burqa.


I hope I don't Op Honour myself by saying this, but I have changed my underwear next to a female Fireteam partner in the field, no one was uncomfortable with it, it had to be done. This was before Op Honour, but common sense should prevail in necessary circumstances.


----------



## captloadie

Are you sure? Or did they not say anything because they didn't want to stand out and be that person?


----------



## OldSolduer

Good2Golf said:


> Waiting to see that happen with today’s federal government.
> 
> [/cynical]
> 
> 
> By “WORSE” do you mean as in: ‘make a hollow, vapid sniffling “she experienced it differently than me” non-apology’? 🤔
> 
> [/super cynical]


For this he should have been brusquely clubbed with a rubber truncheon. If any one of us had said that we'd get a punch in the face. And jail time.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> it had to be done.



I can think of only one circumstance under which I regard an underwear change as "must do"...


----------



## Jarnhamar

MilEME09 said:


> Alright let's back the train up a station or two, under the system currently it would seem a lot of power has been stripped from the SNCO, so in the situation of say a CO making a questionable choice what powers does an RSM currently have if they know the call is wrong?


I think a lot of the trust has been stripped away from SNCOs and WOs.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Jarnhamar said:


> I think a lot of the trust has been stripped away from SNCOs and WOs.



So let's build it back in, and give them some extra powers and some good oversight, while we're at it so they can keep 'good order and discipline', as my commissioning scroll suggests


----------



## Navy_Pete

Halifax Tar said:


> On FRE we discussed this.  And we found the older people got the more they wanted their segregated messes.  Basically the ladies in the C&POs mess didn't want to share a mess deck with 8 men burping and farting all night.


I've got to say that's completely reasonable. Especially when a lot of people get on a heavy lifting kick and are really hitting the gym and loading up on protein powders, the guy's messes could get pretty eye watering (with a weirdly moist miasma). The mess decks are basically a semi-ventilated steel box with pockets of dead air, they can be pretty rank. The female messes universally smelled better, and there was a noticeable transition period whenever people were shifted around until a space smelled good or not great, depending who was living there.

In a semi-related note, whoever decided to co-locate the showers and toilets in the same compartment on the CPFs should be shot into the grey water tanks.


----------



## dimsum

Navy_Pete said:


> with a weirdly moist miasma


I could taste that comment.


----------



## Navy_Pete

dimsum said:


> I could taste that comment.


lol, I flashed back to tasting that protein fart fog while writing that comment. Can confirm it's as gross as it sounds.


----------



## brihard

rmc_wannabe said:


> Perhaps instead of beasting Senior Cpls and new MCpls around on PLQ or AJLC (or conversely a new 2Lt on BMOQ-A), we can actually roll some of this extremely valuable and relevant training into the courses.





childs56 said:


> There use to be a reason for this type of training. It was to make effective Leaders under high stress situations. Sleep deprived, food deprived, moral deprived, skills deprived.  Lets see what you can do under harsh conditions. This way you learn to overcome your deficiencies as a team. Lean on the each other for help to accomplish the mission.  Now it seems like it has turned into lets be a manager at "insert your favorite store"  and screw everyone else around me I am my own person and don't tell me how to do it.


I’m out, and no longer have a dog in this fight other than an ongoing concern for the welfare of my former colleagues and subordinates, and concern for the efficacy of our national defence. But, from the outside now, looking in... why not both?

On relatively rare occasion, just about anyone in the military can be called upon to be part of the infliction of great and savage violence. Whether filling a role in the combat centre on a ship, or dropping warheads from on high or letting rip with a door gun, or whether you’re the dude in the platoon weapons det putting an 84mm HE round into a building full of the other guy, or jamming a bayonet in someone whose leadership we have a political disagreement with. Sometimes the job is to kill the everliving shit out of people who are trying to do the same thing to you. This fight will be fought and won at the bayonet level by the NCOs who employ their sections and sets as their personal weapon. When that day comes, as the NCO, you have to be at your best, and you have to have a measure of just how much you can endure. That measure is extremely hard to properly gauge outside of very hard training that at times is calculated to present unreasonable challenges and to see how you hold up. It will be rare in a career to actually have to do this (if ever). It needs to be less rare to practice for it. And so, “beasting”.

But most of the time - the rest of the time - you are looking after those same soldiers you must throw into harm’s way. CAF has elected to recruit human beings with human dreams, ambitions, frailties, loves, hopes, and weaknesses. It is the proper care and nurturing of the total human package that is your troops, that will get them to stick around beyond VIE. Treating them decently, knowing them and promoting their welfare, is what will keep their skills and experience within the institution. It might even be what gets them out from behind cover and following you forward, when that hard day comes and it’s time to do the other stuff, and you hope someone is still there beside you when you finish the next bound.


----------



## Brad Sallows

You know your weightlifting and diet are going a bit far when your t-shirts smell like a cat box.


----------



## Weinie

The plot thickens:

Gen. Jonathan Vance charged with obstruction of justice after military investigation


----------



## trigger324

Weinie said:


> The plot thickens:
> 
> Gen. Jonathan Vance charged with obstruction of justice after military investigation


🍿🍿🍿


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Weinie said:


> The plot thickens:
> 
> Gen. Jonathan Vance charged with obstruction of justice after military investigation



Vance: "I own the NIS. They can't touch me"

CFNIS : "Anthony, hold my Maple Dip. We'll see about that..."


----------



## Weinie

trigger324 said:


> 🍿🍿🍿


Obstructing justice


*139*(1) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding,
(a) by indemnifying or agreeing to indemnify a surety, in any way and either in whole or in part, or
(b) where he is a surety, by accepting or agreeing to accept a fee or any form of indemnity whether in whole or in part from or in respect of a person who is released or is to be released from custody,
is guilty of
(c) *an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or*
(d) *an offence punishable on summary conviction.*


Idem
(2) Every person who intentionally attempts in any manner other than a manner described in subsection (1) to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of
(a) *an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 year*s; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Marginal note:Idem
(3)* Without restricting the generality of subsection (2), every one shall be deemed wilfully to attempt to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice who in a judicial proceeding, existing or proposed,*
*(a) dissuades or attempts to dissuade a person by threats, bribes or other corrupt means from giving evidence;*
(b) influences or attempts to influence by threats, bribes or other corrupt means a person in his conduct as a juror; or
(c) accepts or obtains, agrees to accept or attempts to obtain a bribe or other corrupt consideration to abstain from giving evidence, or to do or to refrain from doing anything as a juror.


----------



## dapaterson

And charge proceeding through the civilian justice system...


----------



## Weinie

dapaterson said:


> And charge proceeding through the civilian justice system...


Yup. This is going to get very ugly.


----------



## ModlrMike

Having the charges heard before a civilian court removes any arguments surrounding JAG autonomy. Smart move IMHO.


----------



## dapaterson

Per Mercedes Stephenson,


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1415751982774693888


----------



## QV

Anyone know what the crime is that he was under investigation for again?


----------



## Edward Campbell

QV said:


> Anyone know what the crime is that he was under investigation for again?


According to the news he us being charged under  §139 of the Criminal Code 0f Canada.

*139* (1) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding,
(a) by indemnifying or agreeing to indemnify a surety, in any way and either in whole or in part, or
(b) where he is a surety, by accepting or agreeing to accept a fee or any form of indemnity whether in whole or in part from or in respect of a person who is released or is to be released from custody,
is guilty of

(c) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or
(d) an offence punishable on summary conviction.


----------



## Remius

QV said:


> Anyone know what the crime is that he was under investigation for again?


He was under investigation for sexual misconduct.  I thought this was common knowledge.


----------



## OldSolduer

Remius said:


> He was under investigation for sexual misconduct.  I thought this was common knowledge.


Correct. Allegedly he obstructed NIS investigations, or at least that's how I see it.

This is a terrible situation for all involved.


----------



## daftandbarmy

dapaterson said:


> Per Mercedes Stephenson,
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1415751982774693888



Plea in mitigation?

He was just employing the greatest strengths of any successful denizen of higher echelon positions in Ottawa:

Lobbying.


----------



## trigger324

OldSolduer said:


> Correct. Allegedly he obstructed NIS investigations, or at least that's how I see it.
> 
> This is a terrible situation for all involved.


“All involved”. Who besides Vance? Just KB? Who else?


----------



## Kilted

ModlrMike said:


> Having the charges heard before a civilian court removes any arguments surrounding JAG autonomy. Smart move IMHO.


He's a civilian, he was also a civilian when the event that he was charged for occurred, it wouldn't be possible to charge him military side.


----------



## QV

Sorry, I asked what *crime *he was under investigation for, or perhaps which judicial proceeding was under way that which he then obstructed justice on.

Do we have an allegation of a crime other than the obstruct? Or is this a DAOD 5019 personal relationship deemed adverse thing?


----------



## OldSolduer

trigger324 said:


> “All involved”. Who besides Vance? Just KB? Who else?


Everyone in the CAF including you. This paints all of you in a bad light. When I was a young soldier I was told often "you are in the public eye, and your actions reflect on all of us".  Maybe you haven't heard that before.


Have a nice day.


----------



## Weinie

daftandbarmy said:


> Plea in mitigation?
> 
> He was just employing the greatest strengths of any successful denizen of higher echelon positions in Ottawa:
> 
> Lobbying. Deep mining.


FTFY.


----------



## trigger324

OldSolduer said:


> Everyone in the CAF including you. This paints all of you in a bad light. When I was a young soldier I was told often "you are in the public eye, and your actions reflect on all of us".  Maybe you haven't heard that before.
> 
> 
> Have a nice day.


Well I love it. I told you this back in April.


----------



## Weinie

trigger324 said:


> Well I love it. I told you this back in April.


Well aren't you Mr. Smarty Pants. Perhaps we'll pay more attention to your posts.


----------



## OldSolduer

trigger324 said:


> Well I love it. I told you this back in April.


 I know you do. There's nothing better than seeing these highbrow GOFO officers taken down a few notches. Does he deserve it? Maybe. Let the courts decide. 

You've found him guilty already.


----------



## trigger324

OldSolduer said:


> I know you do. There's nothing better than seeing these highbrow GOFO officers taken down a few notches. Does he deserve it? Maybe. Let the courts decide.
> 
> You've found him guilty already.


Oh no I didn’t. We’ve all been advocating for his day in court. Now he’s going to get it


----------



## trigger324

Weinie said:


> Well aren't you Mr. Smarty Pants. Perhaps we'll pay more attention to your posts.


I’ve seen yours, and one could say the same. Don’t troll me


----------



## OldSolduer

trigger324 said:


> Oh no I didn’t. We’ve all been advocating for a day in court. Now he’s going to get it


Your attitude towards senior personnel is apparent. Perhaps you should walk a mile in their shoes before you judge.


----------



## trigger324

OldSolduer said:


> Your attitude towards senior personnel is apparent. Perhaps you should walk a mile in their shoes before you judge.


Sexual misconduct? I’ll pass


----------



## dimsum

trigger324 said:


> Sexual misconduct? I’ll pass


TIL every single senior person has committed sexual misconduct.


----------



## brihard

QV said:


> Sorry, I asked what *crime *he was under investigation for, or perhaps which judicial proceeding was under way that which he then obstructed justice on.
> 
> Do we have an allegation of a crime other than the obstruct? Or is this a DAOD 5019 personal relationship deemed adverse thing?


It would be sufficient if they were investigating a CSD offence. Those are still offences under Canadian federal statute. It’s likely that what precisely was being investigated is not yet public.


----------



## OldSolduer

trigger324 said:


> Sexual misconduct? I’ll pass


That's very kind of you. Be careful what you wish for.

An accusation is enough to destroy a life. Pray that you will never have to undergo that.


----------



## PuckChaser

The Change of Command ceremony to Adm MacDonald was 14 Jan 2021. This charge is for incidents between 1-3 Feb 2021. Depending on when his actual release date was from the CAF, he may have allegedly committed this offence as General (ret'd) Vance, not the CDS.


----------



## QV

brihard said:


> It would be sufficient if they were investigating a CSD offence. Those are still offences under Canadian federal statute. It’s likely that what precisely was being investigated is not yet public.


I'm curious what was being investigated. My guess is what ever it was can't be made out, otherwise that charge(s) would also have been sworn along with the obstruct. I can't imagine they slapped a hasty obstruct charge with the main investigation still underway... I suspect this is all they have.

KB clearly didn't listen to Vance's request on Feb 1st and 3rd to not talk about their relationship post Gagetown. NIS assumed investigative responsibility Feb 4th.

Is Vance asking KB not to talk about their personal relationship, before an NIS investigation began, which she didn't adhere to anyway, still an obstruction of a case that can't even be made out? I know how that would have been handled for lesser, less politically visible folk.

Going out on a limb here without any insight or more detail, to me this seems weak and at this time I wouldn't be surprised if Vance is not convicted.


----------



## Weinie

trigger324 said:


> I’ve seen yours, and one could say the same. Don’t troll me


Not trolling. If you can find a post where I said that the past CDS deserves anything other than a complete application of justice, then show it to me. I have reacted to the trolling which has reacted to previous posts, going back to the initial reporting. To say you were right in your previous assessment, is quite frankly, narcissism.


----------



## trigger324

Not on this topic my friend. I’ve seen you mix it up with people in other threads and the actual reactions I’ve had to your posts are indeed narcissism and in fact condescension. And if you want to go back in this thread to reread my stance on this subject, feel free. You couldn’t be further off base in your assumption. That being said, who are you to call anyone out?


----------



## brihard

QV said:


> I'm curious what was being investigated. My guess is what ever it was can't be made out, otherwise that charge(s) would also have been sworn along with the obstruct. I can't imagine they slapped a hasty obstruct charge with the main investigation still underway... I suspect this is all they have.
> 
> KB clearly didn't listen to Vance's request on Feb 1st and 3rd to not talk about their relationship post Gagetown. NIS assumed investigative responsibility Feb 4th.
> 
> Is Vance asking KB not to talk about their personal relationship, before an NIS investigation began, which she didn't adhere to anyway, still an obstruction of a case that can't even be made out? I know how that would have been handled for lesser, less politically visible folk.
> 
> Going out on a limb here without any insight or more detail, to me this seems weak and at this time I wouldn't be surprised if Vance is not convicted.


Alternatively, we have only partial information. I cannot imagine the decision to charge the former CDS criminally is taken lightly and without running it past counsel first.


----------



## Jarnhamar

When you plant shit seeds you get shit flowers.


----------



## trigger324

Weinie said:


> Proof positive. Fantastic, dude. In that case I trust you’ll mute yourself on mine from here on out


----------



## trigger324

Jarnhamar said:


> When you plant shit seeds you get shit flowers.


Ain’t that the truth?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

trigger324 said:


> Sexual misconduct? I’ll pass


I'll address this once and only once.  There is no room on this forum for this type of inflammatory post.  The vast majority of senior members and CAF members writ large serve their Country with honour and pride.  

If you cannot keep your comments civil and follow site guidelines, there are other venues where you can have these types of discussion.  This is a forum for professional discussions on Military Affairs and tone and content will be reflective of that.

If you have issues with specific leaders or conduct, you may voice them but your tone and content must respect site guidelines.  Consider this your first warning.

HB

Army.ca Directing Staff


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Follow up to the above and for the remainder of the membership participating in the thread.  Counter-trolling will also not be tolerated nor will inflammatory language against members.  

Any members found in contravention of site guidelines in this thread will be warned and dealt with accordingly as the DS see fit. 

For the record,

I am personally disgusted by the conduct of Military members at all rank levels who break the law, violate the CSD and don't respect their fellow CAF members.  I am as interested in seeing justice carried out as some of you are.  

I would ask though that when discussing these issues, you keep it civil and respect site guidelines.  If you can't do that, I will ban you from participating in this thread. 

Regards,

HB

Army.ca Directing Staff


----------



## OldSolduer

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Follow up to the above and for the remainder of the membership participating in the thread.  Counter-trolling will also not be tolerated nor will inflammatory language against members.
> 
> Any members found in contravention of site guidelines in this thread will be warned and dealt with accordingly as the DS see fit.
> 
> For the record,
> 
> I am personally disgusted by the conduct of Military members at all rank levels who break the law, violate the CSD and don't respect their fellow CAF members.  I am as interested in seeing justice carried out as some of you are.
> 
> I would ask though that when discussing these issues, you keep it civil and respect site guidelines.  If you can't do that, I will ban you from participating in this thread.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> HB
> 
> Army.ca Directing Staff


Roger. Got it and I'm guilty of it too.


----------



## QV

brihard said:


> Alternatively, we have only partial information. I cannot imagine the decision to charge the former CDS criminally is taken lightly and without running it past counsel first.


Yeah I don’t know. The Norman affair and many other events going on in today’s government have me wondering a lot lately.


----------



## ballz

Well, going back to the alleged victim's testimony in the HoC, she was asked if Vance ever instructed her to lie about their relationship. KB's answer was that "yes, it's recorded, and the CFNIS has the recordings."

I guess I hadn't paid much attention to it at the time, but I guess we'll probably get to hear that conversation....


----------



## brihard

ballz said:


> Well, going back to the alleged victim's testimony in the HoC, she was asked if Vance ever instructed her to lie about their relationship. KB's answer was that "yes, it's recorded, and the CFNIS has the recordings."
> 
> I guess I hadn't paid much attention to it at the time, but I guess we'll probably get to hear that conversation....


If it goes to trial, yeah, we likely will.


----------



## Weinie

brihard said:


> If it goes to trial, yeah, we likely will.


What other options are there? Not familiar with how the process could unfold.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Weinie said:


> What other options are there? Not familiar with how the process could unfold.



It usually comes down to money. An out of court settlement might be in the offing.


----------



## SupersonicMax

daftandbarmy said:


> It usually comes down to money. An out of court settlement might be in the offing.


That would be for civil proceedings right?  The criminal case will go regardless I think.


----------



## daftandbarmy

SupersonicMax said:


> That would be for civil proceedings right?  The criminal case will go regardless I think.



If the Trudeau government doesn't want this dragged out in the press during an election campaign, I'm sure they'll find enough petty cash to make it go away on behalf of their former CDS.


----------



## captloadie

Would we get to hear the tapes at trial? If Vance was not aware he was being taped, did he have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and would his rights have been violated? While they could be used to further the investigation, can they legally be admitted as evidence?

If the tapes are admissible, would he be better to plead out for some minor punishment rather than have them on the official record?


----------



## Jarnhamar

captloadie said:


> Would we get to hear the tapes at trial?



I wouldn't be surprised if the LPC finds a way to censor them "for national security".


----------



## Good2Golf

Canadian laws permit recording of a conversation as long as at least one of the parties knows it is being recorded.  The recording party does not have to explicitly advise any other parties in the conversation of the recording.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

PuckChaser said:


> The Change of Command ceremony to Adm MacDonald was 14 Jan 2021. This charge is for incidents between 1-3 Feb 2021. Depending on when his actual release date was from the CAF, he may have allegedly committed this offence as General (ret'd) Vance, not the CDS.


While not t CDS, he had not been released at that time.


----------



## QV

So, to be a bit of a broken record, are there no criminal or service charges at all directly related to the conduct of Vance's personal relationship with KB while they both served which she made the complaints about? Setting aside the obstruct charge, I think that is pretty significant at this point, don't you think? Are we to take that to mean during the lengthy relationship between JV and KB there were no offence(s) committed?

On the obstruction, did Vance ask KB not to say anything to avoid personal/family embarrassment or did he foresee a criminal probe being initiated in the future that he intended to obstruct?


----------



## Haggis

daftandbarmy said:


> If the Trudeau government doesn't want this dragged out in the press during an election campaign, I'm sure they'll find enough petty cash to make it go away on behalf of their former CDS.


PM Trudeau regarding VAdm Norman (February 2018): "I expect this case will inevitably go to trial."

PM Trudeau regarding Gen (ret'd) Vance (August 2021): "I'm sure this can be settled without the need for a trial."


----------



## daftandbarmy

Haggis said:


> PM Trudeau regarding VAdm Norman (February 2018): "I expect this case will inevitably go to trial."
> 
> PM Trudeau regarding Gen (ret'd) Vance (August 2021): "I'm sure this can be settled without the need for a trial."


----------



## brihard

Weinie said:


> What other options are there? Not familiar with how the process could unfold.


The other possibilities being a deal based on a guilty please, or a stay of proceedings, or withdrawal of the charge.


----------



## Weinie

brihard said:


> The other possibilities being a deal based on a guilty please, or a stay of proceedings, or withdrawal of the charge.


Thx.

I suspect that this will go to court, given the attention that it has received, and the personalities involved, but I have been wrong before. I appreciate the info.


----------



## ballz

QV said:


> So, to be a bit of a broken record, are there no criminal or service charges at all directly related to the conduct of Vance's personal relationship with KB while they both served which she made the complaints about? Setting aside the obstruct charge, I think that is pretty significant at this point, don't you think?



No I don't think that's significant. Why do you think it's so significant?

Obstruction of justice is a separate piece, with separate elements that need to proven. Truthfully, if this was just an inappropriate, but consensual relationship, obstruction of justice is far worse.

If Vance was willing to stand up and be counted for his actions, why the hell is he calling this person to tell them to lie?

I actually didn't think the relationship bit was going to result in any charges given how subjective it is and very much "he said/she said" from what we know, but the fact that Vance decided he'd call her and start telling her what to say or not to say, makes it a lot worse. Notwithstanding that the Crown will need to prove more than the fact that he told her to do that, even if that call did take place and is as described (that he tried to persuade her to lie), it's a hell of an indictment of his character, regardless of whether he is guilty of obstruction or not.

The point you seem to be trying to make reminds me very much of a very shitty RSM who would try to come up with any excuse to undermine the Chain of Command who wanted to put a WO/SNCO on remedial measures and instead just wanted to post them to the Infantry School.... those people in leadership ranks who essentially turn the "benefit of a doubt" into "the benefit of me putting my head in the sand" are the true root of the problems the CAF faces when it comes to human resource management / accountability.


----------



## MilEME09

ballz said:


> The point you seem to be trying to make reminds me very much of a very shitty RSM who would try to come up with any excuse to undermine the Chain of Command who wanted to put a WO/SNCO on remedial measures and instead just wanted to post them to the Infantry School.... those people in leadership ranks who essentially turn the "benefit of a doubt" into "the benefit of me putting my head in the sand" are the true root of the problems the CAF faces when it comes to human resource management / accountability.


The promote and/or post problem members instead of using discipline or demotion is what's created some of our problems. Yeah sure promoting that MCpl to Sgt and posting then to Gander might put them where they can do little harm, but what happens when they get a good PER, get promoted to WO and posted to Pet? Now you have someone who doesn't know what they are doing in a position they need to be good at. Which then breeds more bad leaders because of poor mentorship.


----------



## kev994

MilEME09 said:


> The promote and/or post problem members instead of using discipline or demotion is what's created some of our problems. Yeah sure promoting that MCpl to Sgt and posting then to Gander might put them where they can do little harm, but what happens when they get a good PER, get promoted to WO and posted to Pet? Now you have someone who doesn't know what they are doing in a position they need to be good at. Which then breeds more bad leaders because of poor mentorship.


Yeah, I’ve seen more than one person get hidden in the Air Div where they can do less damage, only to be promoted and posted back to the unit where they do infinitely more damage with their incompetence.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Edward Campbell said:


> According to the news he us being charged under  §139 of the Criminal Code 0f Canada.
> 
> *139*(1) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding,
> (a) by indemnifying or agreeing to indemnify a surety, in any way and either in whole or in part, or
> (b) where he is a surety, by accepting or agreeing to accept a fee or any form of indemnity whether in whole or in part from or in respect of a person who is released or is to be released from custody,
> is guilty of
> (c) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or
> (d) an offence punishable on summary conviction.


Without taking anything away from the Vance situation, I am left to muse if calling up the Attorney General of Canada and asking them to maybe go easy on a Canadian Corporation might also fit the definition of S139…


----------



## Good2Golf

SeaKingTacco said:


> Without taking anything away from the Vance situation, I am left to muse if calling up the Attorney General of Canada and asking them to maybe go easy on a Canadian Corporation might also fit the definition of S139…


The Ouija board may tell the future…




Haggis said:


> PM Trudeau regarding VAdm Norman (February 2018): "I expect this case will inevitably go to trial."
> 
> PM Trudeau regarding Gen (ret'd) Vance (August 2021): "I'm sure this can be settled without the need for a trial."


----------



## ballz

MilEME09 said:


> Yeah sure promoting that MCpl to Sgt and posting then to Gander might put them where they can do little harm



Except the harm they do to the people that work for them, of course....


----------



## dapaterson

Having once managed a "clean pers file great guy" over 18 months through two trips to rehab and ultimately a 5F release... I have zero empathy for the lazy chains of command.


----------



## lenaitch

A conditional discharge and Sec. 810 peace bond is really popular with Ontario courts.


----------



## QV

ballz said:


> No I don't think that's significant. Why do you think it's so significant?
> 
> Obstruction of justice is a separate piece, with separate elements that need to proven. Truthfully, if this was just an inappropriate, but consensual relationship, obstruction of justice is far worse.
> 
> If Vance was willing to stand up and be counted for his actions, why the hell is he calling this person to tell them to lie?
> 
> I actually didn't think the relationship bit was going to result in any charges given how subjective it is and very much "he said/she said" from what we know, but the fact that Vance decided he'd call her and start telling her what to say or not to say, makes it a lot worse. Notwithstanding that the Crown will need to prove more than the fact that he told her to do that, even if that call did take place and is as described (that he tried to persuade her to lie), it's a hell of an indictment of his character, regardless of whether he is guilty of obstruction or not.
> 
> The point you seem to be trying to make reminds me very much of a very shitty RSM who would try to come up with any excuse to undermine the Chain of Command who wanted to put a WO/SNCO on remedial measures and instead just wanted to post them to the Infantry School.... those people in leadership ranks who essentially turn the "benefit of a doubt" into "the benefit of me putting my head in the sand" are the true root of the problems the CAF faces when it comes to human resource management / accountability.


I think it’s significant because if Vance didn’t commit any offence there would not be any judicial proceeding that could have been obstructed by his witness tampering. And was there even intent to obstruct a judicial proceeding, because absent crimes who thinks their personal relationships will be scrutinized by a court of law? 

The point I‘m alluding to is there was likely no crime, nor an allegation of a crime or offence. But they had the police investigate the morality of a personal relationship probably trying awfully hard to make a service offence out of it but couldn’t even do that. When Billy and Becky have an affair at their workplace Walmart, are the police handling that matter or does management sort it out? 

Perhaps if disciplinary matters were handled properly by leadership and police matters were handled properly by the police without the two getting twisted together because ARMY, the CAF wouldn’t find itself in its 3rd review of military justice, allegations of CoC interference, nor would it be in the present terrible perception. In reality if everyone played their role properly, the system as it exists today is perfectly fine.

Just my thoughts, they‘re worth as much as you paid.


----------



## FJAG

This is an excerpt from the headnote of the Supreme Court of Canada case of R v Wijesinha :


> The term "course of justice" in s. 139(2) of the _Code_ includes investigations.  Section 139 and s. 118, which defines judicial proceeding, should be read together.  The definition of judicial proceeding in s. 118 accordingly applies to all three subsections of s. 139 and the phrase "course of justice" in s. 139(2) is therefore not limited to existing or proposed judicial proceedings.  A serious perversion of justice can occur just as readily in the work of administrative tribunals or disciplinary bodies.  An attempt to mislead an investigation into facts which could give rise to a disciplinary hearing constitutes an attempt to pervert the course of justice. The commencement of proceedings invoking a tribunal's jurisdiction to enforce rights and liabilities may set in train a relevant "course of justice".



Therefore the investigation into an offence by itself is part of the "course of justice" and obstruction can occur even if eventually no charge is brought on the initial subject of the investigation. Note that this case concerned a law society disciplinary hearing which has no penal consequences, just professional ones but was a quasi-judicial proceeding. Sect 118 of the CCC states:



> judicial proceeding means a proceeding
> 
> (a) in or under the authority of a court of justice,
> (b) before the Senate or House of Commons or a committee of the Senate or House of Commons, or before a legislative council, legislative assembly or house of assembly or a committee thereof that is authorized by law to administer an oath,
> (c) before a court, judge, justice, provincial court judge or coroner,
> (d) before an arbitrator or umpire, or a person or body of persons authorized by law to make an inquiry and take evidence therein under oath, or
> (e) before a tribunal by which a legal right or legal liability may be established,
> whether or not the proceeding is invalid for want of jurisdiction or for any other reason;



That cast a fairly wide net and I can think of various investigative processes that can occur within DND that would fall within the definition.

🍻


----------



## brihard

QV said:


> I think it’s significant because if Vance didn’t commit any offence there would not be any judicial proceeding that could have been obstructed by his witness tampering. And was there even intent to obstruct a judicial proceeding, because absent crimes who thinks their personal relationships will be scrutinized by a court of law?
> 
> The point I‘m alluding to is there was likely no crime, nor an allegation of a crime or offence. But they had the police investigate the morality of a personal relationship probably trying awfully hard to make a service offence out of it but couldn’t even do that. When Billy and Becky have an affair at their workplace Walmart, are the police handling that matter or does management sort it out?
> 
> Perhaps if disciplinary matters were handled properly by leadership and police matters were handled properly by the police without the two getting twisted together because ARMY, the CAF wouldn’t find itself in its 3rd review of military justice, allegations of CoC interference, nor would it be in the present terrible perception. In reality if everyone played their role properly, the system as it exists today is perfectly fine.
> 
> Just my thoughts, they‘re worth as much as you paid.


Nope, your understanding of “obstruction” is flawed and lacking. It is not necessary that a court proceeding has begun for the elements of an obstruction offence to be met. Obstructing a police investigation easily suffices.

EDIT: Predictably, FJAG beat me to it, and in greater detail.


----------



## MilEME09

The Canadian military has received more than 700 sexual assault reports since 2016: data - National | Globalnews.ca
					

There have been 726 reports of military sexual assault since 2016, which is nearly a third of the more than 2,000 total military sexual misconduct reports since then.




					globalnews.ca
				




The saga continues


----------



## QV

lenaitch said:


> A conditional discharge and Sec. 810 peace bond is really popular with Ontario courts.





brihard said:


> Nope, your understanding of “obstruction” is flawed and lacking. It is not necessary that a court proceeding has begun for the elements of an obstruction offence to be met. Obstructing a police investigation easily suffices.
> 
> EDIT: Predictably, FJAG beat me to it, and in greater detail.


No it’s not. I understand the charge can be laid, but for the reasons I stated I believe he won’t be convicted. And I also doubt this case would be moving forward if it weren’t for the the political aspects.


----------



## FJAG

QV said:


> No it’s not. I understand the charge can be laid, but for the reasons I stated I believe he won’t be convicted. And I also doubt this case would be moving forward if it weren’t for the the political aspects.



I don't know about the political aspects but I do know cops get kind of p.o.'d when the subjects of an investigation try to get witnesses to lie.

Unless I see clear proof to the contrary, I'll just consider this the police, and the prosecutors advising them, doing their jobs.

🍻


----------



## Kilted

Evan thought he was still in the military at the time when this occurred, the fact that it is proceeding in civilian court should mean that he would not be subject to punishments under the NDA such as demotion.


----------



## dapaterson

Correct.  As they are Criminal Code charges, he is only subject to the penalties articulated in the Criminal Code.

Note that since this is not a proceeding under the Code of Service Discipline, there is no entitlement to Defence Counsel at Crown expense (NDA 249.17 / QR&O volume II chapter 101 article 101.11)



> *249.17* A person who is liable to be charged, dealt with and tried under the Code of Service Discipline has the right to be represented in the circumstances and in the manner prescribed in regulations made by the Governor in Council.



The NDA assumes good faith actors as CDS, JAG, CF Provost Marshall, military judges, and the directors responsible for military prosecutions and defence counsel services.  The Act is not adequately structured to deal with misconduct by any of those actors.

Couple those gaps with a MND who can charitably be described as the weakest of the 21st century...


----------



## Jarnhamar

daftandbarmy said:


> It's OK, I get all my news from this site




_* Need to know more intensifies *_


----------



## dimsum

Jarnhamar said:


> _* Need to know more intensifies *_


We can add gifs now, ya know...


----------



## Haggis

daftandbarmy said:


> It's OK, I get all my news from this site


Did the CBC change their logo?


----------



## The Bread Guy

Brad Sallows said:


> Maybe just take it to a reporter.  Get wider coverage.


... realizing that all you can control is what you share, not what they see/hear/write.


----------



## daftandbarmy

dimsum said:


> We can add gifs now, ya know...



Dude... don't dilute my super powers


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Huh?


----------



## dapaterson

The National Post has further details from Fortin's affidavit.  And apparently the Government is seeking to have his lawsuit dismissed as he did not first avail himself of internal administrative options (ie a grievance).









						'My career appears to be over': Former head of vaccine rollout says sudden firing was devastating
					

In an affidavit, Maj.-Gen. Dany Fortin wrote his reputation 'has been irreparably tarnished by the Decision to announce publicly an investigation into my…




					nationalpost.com


----------



## Good2Golf

Action was taken far higher than the final authority of the CAF Grievance process (the CDS), so that ‘should’ be a reasonable dismissal of the Fed Govt’s motion.

That said, we know the Fed Govt will go as far as firing the Attorney General if the PM doesn’t get what he wants, so too early to count ‘Fed motion dismissal’ eggs before they hatch.

G2G


----------



## ModlrMike

Kind of hard to file a RoG when the person who wronged you is also the IA and FA. AFAIK, there is nothing in the manual about filing a grievance where the CDS is the respondent.


----------



## daftandbarmy

dapaterson said:


> The National Post has further details from Fortin's affidavit.  And apparently the Government is seeking to have his lawsuit dismissed as he did not first avail himself of internal administrative options (ie a grievance).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'My career appears to be over': Former head of vaccine rollout says sudden firing was devastating
> 
> 
> In an affidavit, Maj.-Gen. Dany Fortin wrote his reputation 'has been irreparably tarnished by the Decision to announce publicly an investigation into my…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nationalpost.com



You'd think a 2 star would know about how all that stuff works...


----------



## Good2Golf

daftandbarmy said:


> You'd think a 2 star would know about how all that stuff works...


Pretty sure both he and Thomas Conway, his counsel do.  The trial balloons being floated from the shadows about the Fed Govt considering seeking to dismiss Fortin’s case smell of more of the same as what led to his removal from his PHAC secondment.


----------



## brihard

It’s a principle in administrative law that a request for judicial review should follow the exhaustion of internal redress mechanisms first. This will likely hinge on a successful argument that the issue was not redressible internally to CAF. That’s probably a very reasonable claim in this case.

That said, his counsel will of course then need to succesfully argue that he was in fact denied procedural fairness. I’m not able to assess that.


----------



## Jarnhamar

formerdndemployee said:


> I posted my research about 10 hours ago.  I don't know what happened but the posting is gone.  I will try again but I will have to start again.


I share your pain. When I spend days researching groundbreaking information to present I always forget to turn on auto-save and never save stuff to folders.

Unless you saved it on your computer and that was mysteriously deleted too. Careful.


----------



## brihard

formerdndemployee said:
			
		

> I posted my research about 10 hours ago. I don't know what happened but the posting is gone. I will try again but I will have to start again. I think I am being blocked by a guy named Bruce Monkhouse. He said I have to buy some of his crap to continue.



So, no, that's not what happened. Bruce is one of the admins of the page. You were not told you need to 'buy something' to continue. 

I read your post. It was certainly interesting, and entirely possible that it was true. But, you're a completely anonymous person claiming to have inside information, and you posted a great amount of pretty salacious details, specifically naming a person who has been involved in a lot of various administrative and procedural stuff. None of us have any ability to assess your credibility, and the things you posted would definitely open the owners of the site to potential allegations of defamation from two named parties. It appears that you joined this site entirely with the purpose of airing this very dirty laundry.

I'm not an admin of this page. Used to be a while ago though- and had I still been, I would have removed the post and sent you a private message with concerns. I suspect that is what has happened here from someone - Bruce - who still is one of the people running the page. He and the rest of the team generally do a pretty good job keeping this page out of the muck. If you have further concerns, they're probably best addressed to him. What you won't succeed in doing is rallying many people to your cause here. None of us have a damned clue who you are, and your motive in joining the page is as obvious as it is self-interested.


----------



## Scott

What Brihard describes is exactly what is happening.

OP can communicate with the Staff who have reached out.


----------



## OldSolduer

Good2Golf said:


> Action was taken far higher than the final authority of the CAF Grievance process (the CDS), so that ‘should’ be a reasonable dismissal of the Fed Govt’s motion.
> 
> That said, we know the Fed Govt will go as far as firing the Attorney General I’d the PM doesn’t get what he wants, so too early to count ‘Fed motion dismissal’ eggs before they hatch.
> 
> G2G


FWIW I smell a rat - I may have said this before but someone has it in for MGen Fortin, sensed an opportunity and struck while the iron was hot. 

This isn't the first time a GOFO has been sent up the creek with no paddle. I have suspicions.... 😈


----------



## Haggis

brihard said:


> It’s a principle in administrative law that a request for judicial review should follow the exhaustion of internal redress mechanisms first. This will likely hinge on a successful argument that the issue was not redressible internally to CAF. That’s probably a very reasonable claim in this case.
> 
> That said, his counsel will of course then need to succesfully argue that he was in fact denied procedural fairness. I’m not able to assess that.


According to the posted article and others, he was relieved of his duties by the CDS at the joint direction of the MND, Health Minister and PMO, thereby making the MND the de-facto FA in any grievance process.  In that the MND cannot be an FA as he is not part of the CAF, this is likely not redressable, unless the relief was done by the CDS IAW QR&O 19.75.  However, 19.75 (6) requires that the authority considering the relief to inform the member beforehand of the circumstances leading to the relief.  Was this done?  I don't know, but it appears MGen Fortin was aware several months beforehand that he was being investigated.

WRT procedural fairness, I see two interests in play.  First, as the allegations against him are unproven he is (should be) innocent until proven guilty.  Second, if he was denied the prior information required by 19.75 (6), that could well be redressable.


----------



## hattrick72

formerdndemployee said:


> I posted my research about 10 hours ago.  I don't know what happened but the posting is gone.  I will try again but I will have to start again.


Dang, I missed it


----------



## ModlrMike

Haggis said:


> Second, if he was denied the prior information required by 19.75 (6), that could well be redressable.



The challenge though is because the CDS is responsible for supplying the info, and the CDS is also at the top of the food chain WRT IA for grievances, there is no mechanism available through which he can complain.


----------



## Haggis

ModlrMike said:


> The challenge though is because the CDS is responsible for supplying the info, and the CDS is also at the top of the food chain WRT IA for grievances, there is no mechanism available through which he can complain.


Was he, though?  At the time, PHAC was MGen Fortin's "employing unit". Would not his PHAC superiors be responsible for that "hey, we're going to relieve you of your duties because we've been told to" talk?


----------



## ModlrMike

> QR&O 19.75 (2)  For the purpose of this article, the Chief of the Defence Staff and an officer commanding a command are the authorities who may relieve an officer or non-commissioned member from the performance of military duty.



I suggest PHAC does not qualify as an officer commanding a command, therefore the decision and responsibility lies with the CDS.


----------



## Haggis

ModlrMike said:


> I suggest PHAC does not qualify as an officer commanding a command, therefore the decision and responsibility lies with the CDS.


True, which is why the A/CDS relieved him (if it was in fact done under QR&O 19.75).  However, the information required to be delivered IAW 19.75 (6) could have been delivered by his PHAC superior at the request of the A/CDS.  What we don't know, and the question is , was the information delivered at all?  Or was he blindsided?


----------



## ModlrMike

Another thought experiment:

Does an A/CDS require delegated powers in the same manner as other commanders do?


----------



## MilEME09

Sabrina Maddeaux: Justin Trudeau's sociopathic dismissal of sexual misconduct in the military
					

Rather than acknowledge or share in women’s anger, Trudeau went on to accuse the media




					nationalpost.com
				




Opinion piece hits the nail on the head


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Does no one care that the PM was accused of sexual assault?  And dismissed it?  If he was Cpl let alone a BGen, he would have been run out of town a long time ago


----------



## MilEME09

PPCLI Guy said:


> Does no one care that the PM was accused of sexual assault?  And dismissed it?  If he was Cpl let alone a BGen, he would have been run out of town a long time ago


Amazing those allegations disappeared quickly too, wonder what they did to make it disappear


----------



## FJAG

Just a quick point: if you look at the style of cause of Fortin's affidavit in the Fed Ct, he is bringing an application for judicial review against the Minister of Health, the Minister of National Defence, the Prime Minister, and the Clerk of the Privy Council. He is not suing the A/CDS.

Note that these applications come under s 18.1 of the Fed Court Act and pursuant to s 18.1(2) must be brought within 30 days of the decision of a federal board, commission or other tribunal being communicated to the applicant.

At first blush the argument that he should have first exhausted other review processes is specious because there is no process that could grant relief  -- and there is a limitation period -- the safe course is to bring an application immediately. 

On the other hand, I wonder if the individuals named as respondents, either alone or in the aggregate constitute an "other tribunal". I have done some very, very, very superficial research and came up with the following:



> judicial review under section 18 must be given a broad and liberal interpretation, as a result of which a wide range of administrative actions will fall within the Court's judicial review mandate. It is also clear that judicial review is no longer restricted to decisions or orders that a decision maker was expressly charged to make under the enabling legislation. Rather, judicial review will extend to decisions or orders that determine a party's rights, even if the decision at issue is not the ultimate decision. The word "matter" in section 18.1 (anyone affected by the matter may apply for judicial review) is not restricted to "decisions or orders", but encompasses any matter in regard to which a remedy might be available under section 18 or subsection 18.1(3).



That may not be the final word but I'll hang my hat on it for the time being. Law is fun --- and flexible.

🍻


----------



## daftandbarmy

PPCLI Guy said:


> Does no one care that the PM was accused of sexual assault?  And dismissed it?  If he was Cpl let alone a BGen, he would have been run out of town a long time ago



Luckily for him, God is apparently a Liberal, and a teflon peddler:


Don Martin: Teflon Trudeau dodges trouble with a gift from the Greens​
Having covered politics for four decades, I can’t recall a prime minister or premier who has broken or deferred so many pledges, endured so many controversies, and morphed into the polar opposite of their promised fresh-face start only to retain decent levels of popularity.

For his 2,040 days as prime minister, questionable conduct, bad decisions and scandals have slid off Trudeau with a slipperiness that makes Teflon work like Superglue.









						Don Martin: Teflon Trudeau dodges trouble with a gift from the Greens
					

Having Fredericton MP Jenica Atwin quit the Greens over Middle East political differences helped change the channel on a bad news day for the Liberal government, Don Martin writes in his latest column for CTVNews.ca.




					www.ctvnews.ca


----------



## OldSolduer

PPCLI Guy said:


> Does no one care that the PM was accused of sexual assault?  And dismissed it?  If he was Cpl let alone a BGen, he would have been run out of town a long time ago


His father was the same way. Oh fuddle duffle.
One of his sons was arrested for possession of marijuana and the charges “went away”. I recall our Dear Leader saying that.
Whatever you think of marijuana at that time possession was illegal. So obstruction of Justice was one of Pierre’s talents.


----------



## Haggis

PPCLI Guy said:


> Does no one care that the PM was accused of sexual assault?  And dismissed it?  If he was Cpl let alone a BGen, he would have been run out of town a long time ago


Those that care wouldn't have voted for him anyways.  The rest are blinded by his celebrity and other attributes that have nothing to do with his political skills or leadership ability so are willing to forgive his transgressions in order to maintain their illusion of him.  He leads a personality cult that just happens to govern a nation.


----------



## Blackadder1916

PPCLI Guy said:


> Does no one care that the PM was accused of sexual assault?  And dismissed it?  If he was Cpl let alone a BGen, he would have been run out of town a long time ago



Just the circumstances of this thread would suggest that a lot of serving members (including Cpls, Snr NCOs, WOs and GOFOs) who engaged in the same alleged conduct in the same time frame weren't run out of town a long time ago.


----------



## ModlrMike

Haggis said:


> Those that care wouldn't have voted for him anyways.  The rest are blinded by his celebrity and other attributes that have nothing to do with his political skills or leadership ability so are willing to forgive his transgressions in order to maintain their illusion of him.  He leads a personality cult that just happens to govern a nation.



Sounds like you're describing a former POTUS.


----------



## Haggis

ModlrMike said:


> Sounds like you're describing a former POTUS.


It certainly does.  "The Presidency" was the longest running reality show Trump ever starred in.


----------



## OldSolduer

ModlrMike said:


> Sounds like you're describing a former POTUS.


William Jefferson Clinton??


----------



## PuckChaser

OldSolduer said:


> William Jefferson Clinton??


Pretty sure it was an Obama or Reagan reference.


----------



## Loachman

MilEME09 said:


> Amazing those allegations disappeared quickly too, wonder what they did to make it disappear



The CBC was aware of the incident, which, if I remember, was first brought up to the general public by (the sometimes-useful) Warren Kinsella, but sat on it until they absolutely no longer could.

His young victim did, eventually, confirm that the incident, about which she had written in her newspaper the following day, occurred, but did not want to press the matter.

Had she, we'd all be better off.

Maybe.



OldSolduer said:


> His father was the same way. Oh fuddle duffle.
> One of his sons was arrested for possession of marijuana and the charges “went away”. I recall our Dear Leader saying that.
> Whatever you think of marijuana at that time possession was illegal. So obstruction of Justice was one of Pierre’s talents.



One of his sons was also photographed holding a "weapon" that his father had recently *prohibited* as the family stood at the door of the CF Boeing 707 that returned them from a trip to somewhere in South America.

The "weapon" was described in the prohibition order as a "Yaqui blow-gun".

Anybody who has ever bought a section of common pipe from The Home Depot to repair or upgrade their home plumbing system has unwittingly violated that law.

Or not, as nobody ever defined a difference between a "Yaqui" blow-gun or any other blow-gun.

Stupid rules.

Stupid rule-makers.


----------



## dapaterson

Some of the A/CDS' personal notes have been entered into evidence.



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/handwritten-top-soldier-notes-dany-fortin-removal-1.6124328?__vfz=medium%3Dsharebar


----------



## ballz

Am I the only one that is thinking Fortin has taken the most expensive legal route possible. Who cares if he submitted a grievance and the CDS denied it, but the CDS was in fact being influenced, he'd still have the option for a judicial review afterward... and I don't really see how the government could litigate against that, they'd just have to go right into the judicial review.

The way this is occurring he's going to be up to his neck in legal bills before he even gets to the judicial review, if he doesn't just spend a bunch of money only to have this thrown out / be told to submit a grievance.


----------



## ModlrMike

The tricky thing is the CDS is the subject of the grievance. In that context, he can't render a decision on his own acts, and still uphold the tenets of the greivance system. If you look at DAOD 201-1, QR&O 7.01 and 7.02, and NDA s.29 (1) and (2), you will see that there is no mechanism available to grieve an act or decision made by the CDS. I would therefore submit that the requirement for MGen Fortin to first submit a grievance cannot be enforced, as there is no ability for him to actually do that IAW the regulations.


----------



## CBH99

I hope the evidence they used in their decision to pursue action against Fortin is rock solid, and serious enough to justify going after someone 30 years later.  

I don’t know what the allegation is, so perhaps it is.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Once again the government displays its penchant to behave like trash instead of taking the high road. 

And another example of political interference that will go all but ignored by Canadians.

The irony of the prime ministers rapey hands getting a pass is incredible.


----------



## Good2Golf

ballz said:


> Am I the only one that is thinking Fortin has taken the most expensive legal route possible. Who cares if he submitted a grievance and the CDS denied it, but the CDS was in fact being influenced, he'd still have the option for a judicial review afterward... and I don't really see how the government could litigate against that, they'd just have to go right into the judicial review.
> 
> The way this is occurring he's going to be up to his neck in legal bills before he even gets to the judicial review, if he doesn't just spend a bunch of money only to have this thrown out / be told to submit a grievance.


Do you have knowledge of the payment arrangement between Fortin and his lawyer?  I would have guessed retainer up front and % of settlement upon award, but if you have more insight, we’d be interested to know what you know.

Thomas G. Conway seems to be competent in litigation.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

ballz said:


> Am I the only one that is thinking Fortin has taken the most expensive legal route possible. Who cares if he submitted a grievance and the CDS denied it, but the CDS was in fact being influenced, he'd still have the option for a judicial review afterward... and I don't really see how the government could litigate against that, they'd just have to go right into the judicial review.
> 
> The way this is occurring he's going to be up to his neck in legal bills before he even gets to the judicial review, if he doesn't just spend a bunch of money only to have this thrown out / be told to submit a grievance.



Actually, Ballz, you are thinking in criminal law terms. This is a civil law suit. On every motion and at the end of the case, the court rules on legal costs and can award them to the prevailing party. In Ontario the usual basis is "condemning XXX to pay or do XX, with cost", which result in the winning lawyer filing a bill of cost on behalf of his client, which is then "taxed" (meaning evaluated for reasonableness) by a taxing master, who sets the amount due (in Ontario, that is usually something close to approx. 60% of what a reasonable average amount of time at a reasonable average lawyers hourly rate would be billed to a client in Toronto + all actual set expenses). However, in cases of unjust dismissal or anything affecting a person's reputation, if the court finds any indication of bad faith on the part of the employer or libeller, the court can order the costs on a "party and party" basis, meaning the lawyer simply supplies all of his/her actual billing to her client to the taxing master and he has to accept them in full.


----------



## CBH99

CBH99 said:


> I hope the evidence they used in their decision to pursue action against Fortin is rock solid, and serious enough to justify going after someone 30 years later.
> 
> I don’t know what the allegation is, so perhaps it is.


I posted more in my post above, I’m not sure what happened to the rest of it.  

But basically what Jarnhammer said.  

Political interference in which actions - which were clearly pre-meditated from the sounds of the various discussions had between the PCO & various people.  And political pressure to pursue ‘something’ - which ultimately has ruined this man’s career and reputation.  And for what?  What did it accomplish, even if he is found to have done whatever ‘misconduct’ they are alleging from 30+ years ago?

As we don’t have the speedo is released to us yet (unless I’m wrong, I have been working a lot lately and may have missed it) - it’s misconduct, not assault.  And after a very public & swift destruction of his future career and reputation, they leave in the hands of crown prosecutors “to see if they think they can prosecute”?

Wtf… shouldn’t the government’s own lawyers be able to look at something like this and say “yes, it is prosecutable” or “no, this doesn’t meet the CC definition of a criminal offence and therefore we cannot prosecute.”  Like shouldn’t you know whether this is something the crown can pursue BEFORE you take action?  You know, gather & verify your info and confirm possible courses of action, first?

Did Adm. MacDonald not teach them anything?  Do they enjoy using our tax dollars (in which we now pay a LOT of) so they can squander it on paying people to shut their mouth & go away… usually after THEY are the ones who started the fight?


When it comes to this particular situation, I really do think the government/crown needs to be transparent and open.  The two things Trudeau always goes on about - this is a great time to start.

- Release the details of the matters to the public.  Let the public see for ourselves what the allegations are, and how founded they are.  (Since the PM & MND are elected officials, using taxpayer dollars, to do all of this with)

- Why is this coming to light now if it happened 30+ years ago?  Did the complainant just file the complaint now?  If so, why?  Is it a bunch of fabricated & twisted BS the government has concocted to remove someone they didn’t like?  Details.


I realize there is obviously a process, and I want Gen. Fortin to be given every right & privilege he is entitled to.  But in this case - and the others revolving around sexual misconduct - the public has a right to know some of the details about that which is plaguing our senior staff.  

As for the PM… I’ve never disliked a PM anywhere near this much.  I’ve been frustrated with most, impressed with very few.  But I’ve never truly disliked one like this before.  

Lead by example.  Got frisky when you were younger?  Own it like a good human, we all grow and mature - and part of that is looking back on certain things from our past selves and thinking “Man, that was so dumb, or so wrong.”  If you can’t do that yet, chances are you’re still dumb or still a dirtbag.  


Under the circumstances - do what needs to be done in order for us to know the details of what’s being alleged.  Droplets here and there don’t cut it.  Respect the rights & advantages afforded to an accused, give them due process, and do what has to be done so the public can see for themselves what the shenanigans are really all about.  

<sorry for rant>

0.02


----------



## FJAG

It's kind of interesting when you recall that the Liberal beef against Harper was that he was secretive and required everyone to tow a strict party line. Pot - kettle - black.

🤨


----------



## CBH99

I truly think if Harper had been as open and transparent as they wanted him to be, Parliament would have been even more dry 😅 🥱 😴 

Which is a wonderful thing.  I want my PM’s to be fairly boring folks who run the country decently well, and are able to step up when needed.  I’d much prefer that over this nonsense


----------



## OldSolduer

I've said it before. SOMEONE has seized an opportunity to publicly humiliate a GOFO over a slight of some sort.

SOMEONE got Butts hurt...…

We've seen this before.


----------



## ballz

Good2Golf said:


> Do you have knowledge of the payment arrangement between Fortin and his lawyer?  I would have guessed retainer up front and % of settlement upon award, but if you have more insight, we’d be interested to know what you know.
> 
> Thomas G. Conway seems to be competent in litigation.



No idea, just being curious out loud and luckily OGBD could provide some insight.



Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Actually, Ballz, you are thinking in criminal law terms. This is a civil law suit. On every motion and at the end of the case, the court rules on legal costs and can award them to the prevailing party. In Ontario the usual basis is "condemning XXX to pay or do XX, with cost", which result in the winning lawyer filing a bill of cost on behalf of his client, which is then "taxed" (meaning evaluated for reasonableness) by a taxing master, who sets the amount due (in Ontario, that is usually something close to approx. 60% of what a reasonable average amount of time at a reasonable average lawyers hourly rate would be billed to a client in Toronto + all actual set expenses). However, in cases of unjust dismissal or anything affecting a person's reputation, if the court finds any indication of bad faith on the part of the employer or libeller, the court can order the costs on a "party and party" basis, meaning the lawyer simply supplies all of his/her actual billing to her client to the taxing master and he has to accept them in full.



Correct, I was thinking about how expensive top legal professionals cost and the 1,000,000+ speculated by many related to VAdm Norman's bill. While it's not a criminal case an expert lawyer is an expert lawyer so I imagine Thomas Conway's fees aren't cheap either.

So, if he went through the grievance system, none of the above would apply and therefore he'd be on the hook regardless? But since he's going this route he can get all of the fees paid for (assuming he wins)?


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Jarnhamar said:


> The irony of the prime ministers rapey hands getting a pass is incredible.


Exactly


----------



## Maxman1

FJAG said:


> It's kind of interesting when you recall that the Liberal beef against Harper was that he was secretive and required everyone to tow a strict party line. Pot - kettle - black.
> 
> 🤨



They truly are the authoritarians they accused Harper of being.


----------



## PuckChaser

Moved the election stuff where it belongs. I know there's a pretty close political nexus to these GOFO removals, but that got way off the rails quick.

- Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## SeaKingTacco

PuckChaser said:


> Moved the election stuff where it belongs. I know there's a pretty close political nexus to these GOFO removals, but that got way off the rails quick.
> 
> - Milnet.ca Staff


Thank-you and sorry for the derail!


----------



## dimsum

Investigation into sexual misconduct allegations against Admiral Art McDonald ends without charges
​


> An investigation into sexual misconduct allegations against Admiral Art McDonald has concluded and will not result in any charges against Canada's top military commander.
> 
> "The investigation did not reveal evidence to support the laying of charges under either the Code of Service Discipline or the Criminal Code of Canada," said a statement issued by the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal today,
> 
> The investigation into McDonald was handled by the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS), which says it interviewed "a large number of potential witnesses" connected to the case.
> 
> "The evidence gathered from these witnesses was considered in the ultimate determination that the evidence did not support the laying of any charges," the statement continued.
> 
> CFNIS said it will not release any further details due to the privacy rights of the people involved.





> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/art-mcdonald-investigation-concludes-1.6132999


----------



## dangerboy

The question is what happens now? Does he go back to being CDS? I doubt it.


----------



## Kilted

dangerboy said:


> The question is what happens now? Does he go back to being CDS? I doubt it.


I think that there will be a lot of people who will be upset either way.


----------



## MilEME09

Kilted said:


> I think that there will be a lot of people who will be upset either way.


Plenty of comments on Facebook claiming white privilege, connections to the liberals...etc... whole cleared innocent by putting this in the media the court of public opinion already found him guilty and his career is likely dome as a result.


----------



## FSTO

Is it not the PM’s prerogative to give him the job back? But then that would halt his ability to be disappointed in the decision process of the CAF GOFOs.


----------



## Good2Golf

FSTO said:


> Is it not the PM’s prerogative to give him the job back? But then that would halt his ability to be disappointed in the decision process of the CAF GOFOs.


It is, but many are willing to bet that the PM will chose instead to be all preachy about how the CAF needs to be even better, ignoring that fact that he himself is a sexual assaulter, cultural appropriator, woman’s chest groper, black pretender, etc. but that was far enough in his past that he’s moved on, but the CAF needs to work harder because…that’s what Canadians expect. Life in the ivory moral towers is grand indeed…if you’re a false-feminist politician.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Kilted said:


> I think that there will be a lot of people who will be upset either way.


No doubt, this is a tough one. I can't see this become anything but an albatross around his neck, so probably best if he just quietly retires. On one hand, he is a good institutional leader from what I've seen, but his credibility is gone here, so can't see him being effective if reinstated as CDS, and there aren't really any other employment options.


----------



## ballz

Kilted said:


> I think that there will be a lot of people who will be upset either way.



Well of course.... broken record here, but without any transparency, those who are on the wrong side of this issue can't be corrected / have their concerns addressed.

One side seems to think that just because there's no charges laid, he should be "exonerated." That's dumb. The standard for laying a charge is higher than the balance of probabilities. The evidence could very well suggest that he is, in fact, guilty of sexual assault.

The other side seems to think that there is ample evidence but the institution is covering it up / not being firm enough.

Neither side can be shown to be incorrect without transparency. We need to amend the Privacy Act and start regulating ourselves like a proper profession.


----------



## brihard

ballz said:


> Well of course.... broken record here, but without any transparency, those who are on the wrong side of this issue can't be corrected / have their concerns addressed.
> 
> One side seems to think that just because there's no charges laid, he should be "exonerated." That's dumb. The standard for laying a charge is higher than the balance of probabilities. The evidence could very well suggest that he is, in fact, guilty of sexual assault.
> 
> The other side seems to think that there is ample evidence but the institution is covering it up / not being firm enough.
> 
> Neither side can be shown to be incorrect without transparency. We need to amend the Privacy Act and start regulating ourselves like a proper profession.


Without a misconduct proceeding going through a court or other quasi-judicial body, what is it that you imagine would be made public?

It sounds like you basically want CAF members to lose the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in conduct measures. Ok, fine, but you need to be prepared for some sanctions (Eg, cells) to be removed from the table. You would probably be most likely to find an analogous system in police conduct matters- but even that doesn’t mean all are published or subject to disclosure.

What information, in the CDS’ case, do you think should be made public?


----------



## McG

brihard said:


> It sounds like you basically want CAF members to lose the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in conduct measures.


Careful that you are not building a strawman argument. I did not see anything suggesting what you are attacking.



brihard said:


> Without a misconduct proceeding going through a court or other quasi-judicial body, what is it that you imagine would be made public?


I think a judicial body is what the post was proposing. Most professions have a disciplinary body that holds members accountable to professional standards of conduct and performance. These bodies conduct trials in public and they can typically levy sanctions based on a balance of probabilities.

We don’t have this. Our Courts Martial and summary trials are all held to the level of beyond reasonable doubt, and our remedial measures system is kept hidden and behind closed doors. 

For a profession, it is healthy that the public can see it holds its members to account. If we had a tribunal system that could convict some offences on balance of probabilities, then situations such as the current one could be resolved in public without people imagining that the institution is involved in a cover-up.


----------



## ballz

brihard said:


> Without a misconduct proceeding going through a court or other quasi-judicial body, what is it that you imagine would be made public?
> 
> It sounds like you basically want CAF members to lose the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in conduct measures. Ok, fine, but you need to be prepared for some sanctions (Eg, cells) to be removed from the table. You would probably be most likely to find an analogous system in police conduct matters- but even that doesn’t mean all are published or subject to disclosure.
> 
> What information, in the CDS’ case, do you think should be made public?



Nope, not at all. MCG has explained it pretty well, as I have on other threads.

We use the term "discipline" regarding court martials / summary trials, but in reality that's a justice system.

When other professions use "discipline," it's synonymous with our administrative actions. Sanctions for performance and conduct that are not criminal / illegal but are not accepted by the profession nonetheless. Similar to us, you could be charged for fraud in the justice system (civilian courts) and sanctioned by your profession at the same time, completely separate proceedings that are independent of one another. The professional "disciplinary proceeding" (again, this administrative action) is public, the evidence is public, the decisions are public, the reasonings are public, the sanctions are public, etc.

There are plenty of items that don't meet proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that a profession needs to deal with. If anyone thinks we should only be able to sanction people professionally if it's been "proven beyond a reasonable doubt," then you're part of the problem. If we've got evidence beyond the balance of probabilities that someone sexually assaulted someone, I don't give a damn about their "innocence until proven guilty," that's so we don't accidentally lock someone up, it's not to protect their employment with our organization. Release under 2a for unsatisfactory conduct, see ya later buds.

For some reason we seem to think administrative measures / balance of probabilities are good enough for Corporals but not for Colonels.

Every other self-regulated profession has managed to figure this out, time for the CAF to turn down the suck.


----------



## dapaterson

Navy_Pete said:


> No doubt, this is a tough one. I can't see this become anything but an albatross around his neck, so probably best if he just quietly retires. On one hand, he is a good institutional leader from what I've seen, but his credibility is gone here, so can't see him being effective if reinstated as CDS, and there aren't really any other employment options.



A good institutional leader would have actually changed the Naval ranks in English, and not just made an announcement without legal authority to do so.


----------



## Sprinting Thistle

I think the more pressing question is, what will the CAF and Department do to rehabilitate MacDonald's reputation?  Nothing of course.  The institution and the government are very quick to throw a member under the bus and trash the person's reputation, but do nothing to rehabilitate it after the fact?  Once charges were dropped against Norman, nothing was done to publicly repair the damage to his personal and professional reputation.  Anyone remember LCol Mason Stalker?  Removed from command of an Infantry Battalion, dragged publicly through the mud by Vance, et al., then when the charges were dropped, quietly promoted and posted away (cash in hand of course).  Same will happen with Fortin after the Quebec prosecutor drops the charges.


----------



## MilEME09

Sprinting Thistle said:


> I think the more pressing question is, what will the CAF and Department do to rehabilitate MacDonald's reputation?  Nothing of course.  The institution and the government are very quick to throw a member under the bus and trash the person's reputation, but do nothing to rehabilitate it after the fact?  Once charges were dropped against Norman, nothing was done to publicly repair the damage to his personal and professional reputation.  Anyone remember LCol Mason Stalker?  Removed from command of an Infantry Battalion, dragged publicly through the mud by Vance, et al., then when the charges were dropped, quietly promoted and posted away (cash in hand of course).  Same will happen with Fortin after the Quebec prosecutor drops the charges.


If released or retired, the key question will be if Macdonald sues for his career being ruined by the very public investigation and the lack of repair once cleared. A lot of people can drag the government through the mud during an election if they wanted to, and if they wanted to deal damage they would decline any settlement


----------



## Good2Golf

Depends how much Trudeau doesn’t want it to be an election issue…


----------



## dapaterson

Not being charged doesn't mean nothing happened.


----------



## ballz

dapaterson said:


> Not being charged doesn't mean nothing happened.



There's quite a few people in this thread who are quick to bitch about "the court of public opinion" that have decided he's completely innocent despite zero evidence to suggest so.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

dapaterson said:


> Not being charged doesn't mean nothing happened.


#kokaneegrope


----------



## Brad Sallows

Investigative procedures are rarely structured to put a lot of effort into seeking exoneration, which means exoneration is usually only proven if investigators stumble across something (eg. while asking about alibis, they are presented with an obvious one).  "But he wasn't exonerated" ranks high among the most fatuous statements people make in the wake of investigations.

"Not exonerated" is basically "they didn't find something they weren't looking for".


----------



## OldSolduer

dapaterson said:


> Not being charged doesn't mean nothing happened.


Where there’s smoke there’s usually fire 🔥


----------



## Ostrozac

dapaterson said:


> A good institutional leader would have actually changed the Naval ranks in English, and not just made an announcement without legal authority to do so.


Oh yeah! I forgot about those illegal ‘pirate ranks’ that were introduced almost a year ago. The QR&O still hasn’t been amended, so their use is still a (minor) act of rebellion. Or mutiny, to use the traditional naval term.

The good Admiral has two choices, as I see it. Explain what happened, and how that whatever he did was perfectly acceptable and is well within the standards of professional behaviour, and in fact, we should all feel free to do the same thing the next chance we get, or explain that while whatever he did was not illegal, it was unacceptable and he will step aside. Don’t really see a third option.


----------



## ballz

Brad Sallows said:


> Investigative procedures are rarely structured to put a lot of effort into seeking exoneration, which means exoneration is usually only proven if investigators stumble across something (eg. while asking about alibis, they are presented with an obvious one).  "But he wasn't exonerated" ranks high among the most fatuous statements people make in the wake of investigations.
> 
> "Not exonerated" is basically "they didn't find something they weren't looking for".



That would be true if there weren't a half a dozen people on this thread lining up declaring him "cleared," talking about whether or not he will be reinstated (insinuating he's been exonerated) as CDS, remarking that the only reason he won't be is because of politics, etc.... all clearly having confused "charged will not be laid" with "exonerated."

But since that is the case, pointing out that he is not actually exonerated is not in any way fatuous. In fact, the people who clearly can't distinguish the difference are being pretty fatuous, not the people pointing out a completely correct statement.

For all we know, they have concluded that on the balance of probabilities he sexually assaulted someone and his 2a release is being processed right now. Once again going back to my earlier point about the need for transparency related to administrative actions/proceedings.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Things must have changed.  "Cleared" used to be synonymous with "investigated and not [whatever]".  The alternative is that anyone accused of anything goes through life under eternal suspicion unless someone puts in the time and money to find exonerating evidence.  Unproven allegations of sexual misconduct are particularly hard to get out from under - the accused is pretty much fucked from that day forward, and liberally-inclined people should do more to change that, even if all they can influence is themselves.  It would be great if the politically correct bootlickers would stop trying to move goalposts away from the presumption of innocence.

Confusion over exoneration is to be expected, with the overuse of the word to the south of us.  But that doesn't excuse the disappointed tiny-minded illiberal ankle-biting "not exonerated" crowd.  "Oh, we're just trying to clear up confusion."  The hell they are.


----------



## ballz

Brad Sallows said:


> Things must have changed.  "Cleared" used to be synonymous with "investigated and not [whatever]".  The alternative is that anyone accused of anything goes through life under eternal suspicion unless someone puts in the time and money to find exonerating evidence.  Unproven allegations of sexual misconduct are particularly hard to get out from under - the accused is pretty much fucked from that day forward, and liberally-inclined people should do more to change that, even if all they can influence is themselves.  It would be great if the politically correct bootlickers would stop trying to move goalposts away from the presumption of innocence.
> 
> Confusion over exoneration is to be expected, with the overuse of the word to the south of us.  But that doesn't excuse the disappointed tiny-minded illiberal ankle-biting "not exonerated" crowd.  "Oh, we're just trying to clear up confusion."  The hell they are.



When I hear "cleared" in the context in this thread, it's clearly pointing towards "they've concluded that he's done nothing wrong," which simply isn't the case.

If we had the kind of transparency of other professions, then we would be able to see the evidence and we'd be able to see if profession concludes, on the balance of probabilities, if the person did something wrong or not. If there's a transparent process for that, and the conclusion is that he did not, on the balance of probabilities, do anything wrong, then there would be no issue with reinstating him as CDS. It's almost like a transparent process would benefit both innocent people, the profession, and the public! The only people disadvantaged by it are those who are probably (by definition) guilty of misconduct. They aren't in legal jeopardy, but their job might be.... the same as it is in the real world, the one outside the CAF's bubble that the rest of us have to live in.

Right now we have those who want to be willfully blind to our leaderships failures and identify too closely with the institution so are afraid of a little sunshine, on a rant about "court of public opinions" and how an "innocent" person has been skewered, despite the fact that they have no idea if that's true or not.

And then the "politically correct bootlickers" on a rant about how it's all a cover up, the CAF is protecting  its own, etc. and they also have no clue if that's true or not.

And neither one can be objectively analyzed because _there's no transparency_.

If the CAF is doing things right, it should be happy about transparency. If all these GOFOs have done nothing wrong, they should pleading for transparency.


----------



## brihard

ballz said:


> Nope, not at all. MCG has explained it pretty well, as I have on other threads.
> 
> We use the term "discipline" regarding court martials / summary trials, but in reality that's a justice system.
> 
> When other professions use "discipline," it's synonymous with our administrative actions. Sanctions for performance and conduct that are not criminal / illegal but are not accepted by the profession nonetheless. Similar to us, you could be charged for fraud in the justice system (civilian courts) and sanctioned by your profession at the same time, completely separate proceedings that are independent of one another. The professional "disciplinary proceeding" (again, this administrative action) is public, the evidence is public, the decisions are public, the reasonings are public, the sanctions are public, etc.
> 
> There are plenty of items that don't meet proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that a profession needs to deal with. If anyone thinks we should only be able to sanction people professionally if it's been "proven beyond a reasonable doubt," then you're part of the problem. If we've got evidence beyond the balance of probabilities that someone sexually assaulted someone, I don't give a damn about their "innocence until proven guilty," that's so we don't accidentally lock someone up, it's not to protect their employment with our organization. Release under 2a for unsatisfactory conduct, see ya later buds.
> 
> For some reason we seem to think administrative measures / balance of probabilities are good enough for Corporals but not for Colonels.
> 
> Every other self-regulated profession has managed to figure this out, time for the CAF to turn down the suck.


So I’m confused. I’m being told I’m wrong in what I say this sounds like, but then very clearly you’re talking about moving to a balance of probabilities threshold for conduct issues. We’re talking about alleged sexual assault; if that’s not conduct, I don’t know what is.

Our administrative measures overlap conduct, but they cover a lot of stuff besides that. There would need to be serious rejigging of what’s genuinely administrative (e.g., review of security clearance, universality of service, unable to adapt to military life), what’s conduct but not meriting a truly judicial approach (e.g., a lot of smaller CSD stuff) and would be publicly transparent at balance of probabilities, and what is to be left to real courts, either civilian or martial. Even at that there will be overlap. 

Looking to the RCMP for instance (just as a convenient, federal example), a ‘conduct meeting’ between a member and their officer can result in a finding of a violation under the RCMP act and can result in relatively minor financial sanctions as well as reprimands. The accused has no right to counsel, yet legally the proceeding is considered a court of competent jurisdiction- but this proceeding still doesn’t get publicly reported. More serious conduct matters that go before a conduct board for a hearing do get published, and can result in measures up to significant fines or dismissal... Much more comparable to what you would see in civilian professions.

The devil being in the details, where in the sand do the lines get drawn? What’s public and what’s not? What’s the burden of proof and what rights does the member have? How would appeals function?

I’m genuinely interested in this, I’m not coming in here trying to crap on things. I gather my question ruffled a few feathers, yet it does seem I accurately described what you’re leaning towards. What am I missing?


----------



## ballz

brihard said:


> So I’m confused. I’m being told I’m wrong in what I say this sounds like, but then very clearly you’re talking about moving to a balance of probabilities threshold for conduct issues. We’re talking about alleged sexual assault; if that’s not conduct, I don’t know what is.
> 
> Our administrative measures overlap conduct, but they cover a lot of stuff besides that. There would need to be serious rejigging of what’s genuinely administrative (e.g., review of security clearance, universality of service, unable to adapt to military life), what’s conduct but not meriting a truly judicial approach (e.g., a lot of smaller CSD stuff) and would be publicly transparent at balance of probabilities, and what is to be left to real courts, either civilian or martial. Even at that there will be overlap.
> 
> Looking to the RCMP for instance (just as a convenient, federal example), a ‘conduct meeting’ between a member and their officer can result in a finding of a violation under the RCMP act and can result in relatively minor financial sanctions as well as reprimands. The accused has no right to counsel, yet legally the proceeding is considered a court of competent jurisdiction- but this proceeding still doesn’t get publicly reported. More serious conduct matters that go before a conduct board for a hearing do get published, and can result in measures up to significant fines or dismissal... Much more comparable to what you would see in civilian professions.
> 
> The devil being in the details, where in the sand do the lines get drawn? What’s public and what’s not? What’s the burden of proof and what rights does the member have? How would appeals function?
> 
> I’m genuinely interested in this, I’m not coming in here trying to crap on things. I gather my question ruffled a few feathers, yet it does seem I accurately described what you’re leaning towards. What am I missing?



The threshold for conduct and performance deficiencies already is balance of probabilities on the administrative law side of the house. I'm advocating that our administrative actions system needs to be public as opposed to done behind the curtains of the Privacy Act. I've advocated for anybody in a leadership position, so MCpl+ for NCMs and 2Lts+ for officers. We can argue about which rank levels should be public separately, I'm certainly not married to it. But I know for sure that public has at least as much of an interest in the performance/conduct issues of a General Officer as they do an accountant, engineer, doctor, lawyer, etc. and so by that standard, anyone should be able to look up a GOFO and see if he's been put on remedial measures and for what.

Things I can think of that would need to be figured out:

1. What ranks are subject to this?

2. To what level of detail is the remedial measure / admin review made public? Maybe the details are as sparse as:
"BGen X
Issued C&P for conduct related to a harassment complaint.
Issued on xx May 21
Completed on xx Nov 21"

Maybe the narrative is summarized, maybe it's published in full and redacted if/as required.

Maybe the member makes representations and then it's determined "the balance of probabilities has not been met" and that's what gets published, essentially exonerating the person.

3. What things need to be protected info for reasons of operational or personal security, or protected any alleged victims. Other professions have to deal with confidential manners as well, this is not a barrier, just requires some thought as to how tackle it.

4. Efficiency.... What ends up with a tribunal vs. where is no tribunal offered. Obviously we can't have a tribunal for every person that's performed shitty and is being put on IC, but certainly if something is so bad that a release or demotion is being recommended, there should probably be one.

5. Perhaps if the person is found guilty in a summary trial / court martial you can automatically skip the tribunal, given that "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" has already been established. Or at least the tribunal can skip right to the sentencing aspects.

This isn't groundbreaking stuff, it's practiced in other professions successfully. It allows for stakeholders such as the public, the government, members of the profession, etc. to properly scrutinize the governance/regulation of the profession.

Certainly, the CDS has been investigated criminally and it's been decided that the available evidence does not meet the threshold for laying charges. If the evidence is such that there are reasonable prospects of a conviction on the balance of probabilities, this should be moved to an administrative tribunal to determine if he's guilty on the balance of probabilities and then if so, what professional sanctions (IC, RW, C&P, demotion, release, etc...) will be issued. All public.

Or, if there's no reasonable prospect of a conviction on the balance of probabilities, then something to state as such. In accounting, if the profession gets a complaint about a CPA and finds there isn't enough evidence to bring it to a hearing, then they state "the complaint was unfounded." _But they don't get to hide behind the Privacy Act and say "don't worry, we're dealing with it, but we can never tell you anything and you'll just have to trust us on this one."_

Your example of the RCMP is a good one, because theirs isn't public either, and they've been facing similar issues for a long time, and a similar breakdown in public confidence. When was the last time you saw the engineer, accounting, medicine, legal professions being brought into such disrepute as the CAF or the RCMP?

Your original post was wrong to me because the way you were wording it, it was as if I was trying to change the standard for criminal proceedings to balance of probabilities. That is not the case. When it comes to court martials/summary trials/civie-side criminal proceedings, the legal standard is and should stay at proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But when it comes to administrative law (i.e. whether or not to fire someone), the standard is balance of probabilities already and all I am advocating is that the Privacy Act being amended so that the CAF, a self-regulated profession, can be and is forced to be transparent with the public.

The bottom line is that the lack of transparency around our administrative actions is not helping anybody except those who are probably (more probable than not) guilty of something.

EDIT to add: Your point about "if sexual assault isn't conduct, I don't know what is" seems to be indicating you think a sexual assault is only dealt with the on the disciplinary (court martial/summary trial) side of the house. This is not the case, it's dealt with simultaneously by the disciplinary side and the administrative side, I'm not advocating for any change in that regard. Simply that the admin side isn't done behind closed doors.


----------



## McG

brihard said:


> Our administrative measures overlap conduct, but they cover a lot of stuff besides that. There would need to be serious rejigging of what’s genuinely administrative (e.g., review of security clearance, universality of service, unable to adapt to military life), what’s conduct but not meriting a truly judicial approach (e.g., a lot of smaller CSD stuff) and would be publicly transparent at balance of probabilities, and what is to be left to real courts, either civilian or martial.


You are over complicating this. Universality of service and security clearance reviews are red herrings that would not somehow need to be separated out from conduct. They already are separated out; they already have their own processes that do not overlap those used for conduct. The idea is that the remedial measures process should be dragged into the light of day.


----------



## Kilted

The other issue is, we still don't know what he was accused of.  Its a little hard to clear someone in the court of public opinion if we don't even know what someone said he did.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

The amount of members of all ranks that don't understand our Administrative Orders and the differences between them and the CSD, NDA and QR&Os is staggering.  Perhaps the CAF needs to embark on an education program for its serving members?


----------



## MilEME09

Humphrey Bogart said:


> The amount of members of all ranks that don't understand our Administrative Orders and the differences between them and the CSD, NDA and QR&Os is staggering.  Perhaps the CAF needs to embark on an education program for its serving members?


One of the many things cut from BMQ


----------



## ModlrMike

ballz said:


> The threshold for conduct and performance deficiencies already is balance of probabilities on the administrative law side of the house. I'm advocating that our administrative actions system needs to be public as opposed to done behind the curtains of the Privacy Act. I've advocated for anybody in a leadership position, so MCpl+ for NCMs and 2Lts+ for officers. We can argue about which rank levels should be public separately, I'm certainly not married to it. But I know for sure that public has at least as much of an interest in the performance/conduct issues of a General Officer as they do an accountant, engineer, doctor, lawyer, etc. and so by that standard, anyone should be able to look up a GOFO and see if he's been put on remedial measures and for what.
> 
> Things I can think of that would need to be figured out:
> 
> 1. What ranks are subject to this?
> 
> 2. To what level of detail is the remedial measure / admin review made public? Maybe the details are as sparse as:
> "BGen X
> Issued C&P for conduct related to a harassment complaint.
> Issued on xx May 21
> Completed on xx Nov 21"


If we make one remedial measure public, we have to make them all public. To do otherwise is to treat people differently under the same process; instant winnable grievance. Further, by making remedial measures public, there is a risk of them becoming disciplinary. They're supposed to be a one and done means of correction, not a proverbial sword of Damocles held over a member's head in perpetuity. Then there's that whole privacy and Protected B issue.


----------



## OldSolduer

Remedial measures IIRC are in three steps - Verbal, Written and Counselling and Probation. 

C & P we were told in SLC was the last and most stringent measure to be used as it is the last attempt to salvage the member's career.

Is this still the case?


ModlrMike said:


> If we make one remedial measure public, we have to make them all public. To do otherwise is to treat people differently under the same process; instant winnable grievance. Further, by making remedial measures public, there is a risk of them becoming disciplinary. They're supposed to be a one and done means of correction, not a proverbial sword of Damocles held over a member's head in perpetuity. Then there's that whole privacy and Protected B issue.


----------



## brihard

McG said:


> You are over complicating this. Universality of service and security clearance reviews are red herrings that would not somehow need to be separated out from conduct. They already are separated out; they already have their own processes that do not overlap those used for conduct. The idea is that the remedial measures process should be dragged into the light of day.


Respectfully, I don’t think I’m over complicating it at all. CAF has administrative processes that can result in release for various reasons of unsuitability. Case in point, administrative releases for Op Honour violations. The mechanisms allowing this are not fundamentally disconnected from the administrative mechanisms for other reasons to release someone against their desires for various personal or professional shortcomings.

I’m not bringing this up to suggest that it’s insurmountable in any way, but rather to point out that CAF has a blending of disciplinary and administrative processes, and that, on the administrative side, there doesn’t seem to be a clean delineation of where “member doing stupid shit resulting in loss of job” necessarily starts or stops.

In professional disciplinary processes, there is generally going to be a specific ‘offense’ or contravention alleged. CAF absolutely could adopt a disciplinary tribunal to be handled administratively rather than judicially, subject to grievance and judicial review mechanisms. It would just be a lot of shift from where CAF is now.




ModlrMike said:


> If we make one remedial measure public, we have to make them all public. To do otherwise is to treat people differently under the same process; instant winnable grievance. Further, by making remedial measures public, there is a risk of them becoming disciplinary. They're supposed to be a one and done means of correction, not a proverbial sword of Damocles held over a member's head in perpetuity. Then there's that whole privacy and Protected B issue.



Not necessarily. The RCMP act and associated regulations has two levels of conduct proceeding. The lower level (a ‘meeting’) is not publicized. The results of the higher level ones (‘hearings’) are public and published. I believe the mechanism that established this is at the regulatory level, empowered by that organization’s statutes. No reason that I’m aware of that the same could not be done for CAF by QR&O.


----------



## SupersonicMax

I think it's already what people are saying but there are differences between a criminal offence (judicial process), a disciplinary matter (the summary process), and an administrative issue (administrative measures).  Of course, all are linked together but we lump disciplinary issues into the judicial process (just because of the way our system is set up), which makes it difficult to de-link the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt and disciplinary issues. I agree that administrative actions should remain protected but disciplinary actions should be transparent once some criteria are met (rank or appointment - my take on it is any Col and above, and any Commanding Officers regardless of rank should be subjected to transparency of their disciplinary record while in those functions).  As of now, a criminal matter cannot be dealt with through the judicial process and the disciplinary process but in my mind, they should be.  Disciplinary matters should only apply as much it impacts military discipline.  Yes, it may mean that some of the administrative processes would be dealt with on the discipline side but we're somewhat already doing this (tossing people out for conduct through the admin process).

Or perhaps a simpler solution is to make administrative measures available to the public for Col, GOFOs and COs (but I doubt GOFOs are subjected to admin measures very often, even when perhaps they should be).


----------



## ballz

ModlrMike said:


> If we make one remedial measure public, we have to make them all public. To do otherwise is to treat people differently under the same process; instant winnable grievance.



I don't think that's the case at all. First of all, it'd have to be an amendment to the Privacy Act / written into the Privacy Act, so they'd have to challenge that as unconstitutional. Which Charter right/freedom would be violated by making remedial measures public for Generals and not Privates?



ModlrMike said:


> Further, by making remedial measures public, there is a risk of them becoming disciplinary. They're supposed to be a one and done means of correction, not a proverbial sword of Damocles held over a member's head in perpetuity.



That's all based around an individual's perception, and most people already view it as disciplinary anyway, so that is hardly any kind of change to the status quo.



ModlrMike said:


> Then there's that whole privacy and Protected B issue.



This has already been addressed and is a very very weak point.



brihard said:


> Respectfully, I don’t think I’m over complicating it at all. CAF has administrative processes that can result in release for various reasons of unsuitability. Case in point, administrative releases for Op Honour violations. The mechanisms allowing this are not fundamentally disconnected from the administrative mechanisms for other reasons to release someone against their desires for various personal or professional shortcomings.



Proceedings for a release for sexual misconduct (a conduct issue) would be public. Proceedings for personal and professional shortcomings (conduct and/or performance issues) would be public.

How does this tie into your earlier points about universality of service? If there's an AR done for universality of service, that's a medical issue, not a conduct or performance issue. I'm not advocating medical issues be public.



brihard said:


> In professional disciplinary processes, there is generally going to be a specific ‘offense’ or contravention alleged. CAF absolutely could adopt a disciplinary tribunal to be handled administratively rather than judicially, subject to grievance and judicial review mechanisms. It would just be a lot of shift from where CAF is now.



We technically already have this. We don't hold a formal hearing, but a member needs to notified on the intent to place them on remedial measures, disclosed the evidence against them, and given time to make representations. Then a decision gets rendered. This wouldn't necessarily need to change to at all particularly if it's only published if a remedial measure is issued (which would be a huge improvement). For practical purposes they might have to stop doing NOIs for IC/RWs "verbally" which quite frankly is stupid anyway, those should be done in writing the same as C&P, the fact they aren't is just more evidence that we can't do anything in human resource management right.

That said, I would welcome anything that codifies performance or conduct "offences" so to speak. Besides lacking transparency, we also lack clear guidance/direction which contributes to our inability to conduct proper human resource management. What is the "standard" for an IC for a Cpl or a LCol? There is none established by the CAF, which contributes to us sweeping issues under the rug.




SupersonicMax said:


> I think it's already what people are saying but there are differences between a criminal offence (judicial process), a disciplinary matter (the summary process), and an administrative issue (administrative measures).  Of course, all are linked together but we lump disciplinary issues into the judicial process (just because of the way our system is set up), which makes it difficult to de-link the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt and disciplinary issues. I agree that administrative actions should remain protected but disciplinary actions should be transparent once some criteria are met (rank or appointment - my take on it is any Col and above, and any Commanding Officers regardless of rank should be subjected to transparency of their disciplinary record while in those functions).  As of now, a criminal matter cannot be dealt with through the judicial process and the disciplinary process but in my mind, they should be.  Disciplinary matters should only apply as much it impacts military discipline.  Yes, it may mean that some of the administrative processes would be dealt with on the discipline side but we're somewhat already doing this (tossing people out for conduct through the admin process).
> 
> Or perhaps a simpler solution is to make administrative measures available to the public for Col, GOFOs and COs (but I doubt GOFOs are subjected to admin measures very often, even when perhaps they should be)



Max, I think we have a very different understanding of our own system.

In the context of the CAF...
Disciplinary system = Criminal/NDA offences, and includes court martials and summary trials. Both are public.
Administrative system = Performance management system and deals with performance/conduct issues from an administrative law perspective. This is privacy-protected under the Privacy Act, and I contend it shouldn't be.

In blue... that's all I was/am advocating for orginally, we've gone down some other tangents that muddies that (somewhat my own fault). I would argue different ranks, but that's a tangent.
In orange... agreed, and that's part of my point. It it were transparent (public), the CAF would no longer be able to sweep this stuff under the rug.



Humphrey Bogart said:


> The amount of members of all ranks that don't understand our Administrative Orders and the differences between them and the CSD, NDA and QR&Os is staggering.  Perhaps the CAF needs to embark on an education program for its serving members?



We need divine intervention when it comes to our human resource management practices. They're not written particularly well, and then we appoint some random Infantry Officer and random HRA NCM as "experts" on the matter, and simply defer to their "expertise." It's really no wonder we're where we are.


----------



## McG

brihard said:


> Respectfully, I don’t think I’m over complicating it at all. CAF has administrative processes that can result in release for various reasons of unsuitability. Case in point, administrative releases for Op Honour violations. The mechanisms allowing this are not fundamentally disconnected from the administrative mechanisms for other reasons to release someone against their desires for various personal or professional shortcomings.


Still over complicating but, instead of meshing things that are separate processes, you are now separating out things that are not unique. Release for Op Honour violations is release for conduct. It flows from the remedial measures process which covers conduct and performance. 



brihard said:


> CAF absolutely could adopt a disciplinary tribunal to be handled administratively rather than judicially, subject to grievance and judicial review mechanisms. It would just be a lot of shift from where CAF is now.


We are now in the process of change, so why not aim for what a profession needs? Our summary trial system was burdened by the need for proof beyond reasonable doubt while empowering COs to levy punishments with criminal record implications. We are going to a system of summary hearings. Much of that plan is (hopefully) already written, so instead of an end point the initial summary hearing system could be a waypoint toward what right looks like. That future system does not need to include powers with criminal record implications, it should reach conclusions based on a balance of probabilities, and it should become the profession’s primary mechanism of levying remedial measures for conduct.



ModlrMike said:


> If we make one remedial measure public, we have to make them all public. To do otherwise is to treat people differently under the same process; instant winnable grievance.


Some professional organizations have a mechanism where disciplinary results are public and published by default, but individuals can petition (during their hearing) to have their name redacted from the published results. That is an option for us to explore. Or, if summary hearings could become the primary mechanism to levy remedial measures, then the existence and severity of RM would be public knowledge by virtue of the public hearing but the documentation and conduct of the RM could still be completed under the shroud of privacy legislation.


----------



## ModlrMike

McG said:


> Some professional organizations have a mechanism where disciplinary results are public and published by default, but individuals can petition (during their hearing) to have their name redacted from the published results. That is an option for us to explore. Or, if summary hearings could become the primary mechanism to levy remedial measures, then the existence and severity of RM would be public knowledge by virtue of the public hearing but the documentation and conduct of the RM could still be completed under the shroud of privacy legislation.


Yes, but remedial measures are not disciplinary, they're administrative, and I don't think we want to bring RM under the umbrella of the disciplinary process. Chiefly because it would deprive us of non-judicial means of managing conduct or performance defects. In order for RM to be assessed at a summary hearing, the member would have to have been charged with a CSD offence. Do we really want to hold hearings for petty lateness or for being a bag of hammers in uniform?


----------



## ballz

ModlrMike said:


> Yes, but remedial measures are not disciplinary, they're administrative, and I don't think we want to bring RM under the umbrella of the disciplinary process. Chiefly because it would deprive us of non-judicial means of managing conduct or performance defects. In order for RM to be assessed at a summary hearing, the member would have to have been charged with a CSD offence. Do we really want to hold hearings for petty lateness or for being a bag of hammers in uniform?



You are not addressing what's being proposed at all, you are addressing the idea from current legislation/policy and some of it's not even true. You need to step outside that box and actually criticize the idea.

If the Privacy Act is amended as I have suggested, none of what you used as a counter is true.

We're talking about addressing systemic issues here, i.e. changing the system. Not working within the current system. That gets us nowhere.



ModlrMike said:


> Yes, but remedial measures are not disciplinary, they're administrative, and I don't think we want to bring RM under the umbrella of the disciplinary process.



No one is suggesting that remedial measures be moved under the umbrella of the disciplinary system.



ModlrMike said:


> In order for RM to be assessed at a summary hearing, the member would have to have been charged with a CSD offence.



Remedial measures already have a "summary hearing" mechanism, it's just done in writing instead of in person. 

Please cite which policy requires someone to be charged with a CSD before any kind of summary hearing / administrative proceedings can occur. Someone should tell the CDS that we're all breaking it.



ModlrMike said:


> Do we really want to hold hearings for petty lateness or for being a bag of hammers in uniform?



No, as has already been addressed. The current process for addressing remedial measures doesn't even necessarily need to change, it just needs to be public. The only barrier to it being public is the Privacy Act, none of the things you've brought up are factual.

While there could be scope to add hearings (as opposed to ARs done by DMCA), that's somewhat separate from the core issue: transparency.


----------



## McG

ModlrMike said:


> remedial measures are not disciplinary, they're administrative


True in our current system because it was designed that way. But what does the profession gain from maintaining parallel systems to address misconduct? Currently it creates a problem where it appears the profession does not hold members accountable for misconduct and/or negligence.



ModlrMike said:


> Do we really want to hold hearings for petty lateness or for being a bag of hammers in uniform?


In fact, the summary trial process is a far more appropriate response than the hammer of remedial measures for such things. So I hope we are already doing things that way.



ModlrMike said:


> I don't think we want to bring RM under the umbrella of the disciplinary process. Chiefly because it would deprive us of non-judicial means of …


What does “judicial means” mean to you? What aspect of “judicial means” do you feel are inappropriate to misconduct?


----------



## OldSolduer

I've read elsewhere that the GoC has been advised not to reinstate the Admiral as CDS. Can anyone here confirm that?


----------



## dimsum

OldSolduer said:


> I've read elsewhere that the GoC has been advised not to reinstate the Admiral as CDS. Can anyone here confirm that?


Yup.



			Liberal government urged not to reinstate top military commander McDonald


----------



## OldSolduer

dimsum said:


> Yup.
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal government urged not to reinstate top military commander McDonald


Roger sir!!!


----------



## Navy_Pete

dimsum said:


> Yup.
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal government urged not to reinstate top military commander McDonald


Wow, this whole process has been really awful for both Heather (MacDonald, the complainant) and Ray (Trotter, the supervisor who passed it up the chain); pretty obvious why people would be hesitant to report anything. Who doesn't want to be in the news, or get anonymous, threatening phone calls.


----------



## dapaterson

CBC provides an update: The CFNIS will not call in the to investigate sexual assault claim involving senior commander.  Most puzzling is the chaser to the story - why would DND's Deputy Minister insert herself into the investigation, and attempt to contact the woman who filed the complaint?  



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-armed-forces-alleged-rape-senior-leader-1.6135609


----------



## MJP

MilEME09 said:


> One of the many things cut from BMQ


No one understood them even when they were in basic, hell a good portion of senior people have tenuous grasps on them.


----------



## Good2Golf

dapaterson said:


> CBC provides an update: The CFNIS will not call in the to investigate sexual assault claim involving senior commander.  Most puzzling is the chaser to the story - why would DND's Deputy Minister insert herself into the investigation, and attempt to contact the woman who filed the complaint?
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-armed-forces-alleged-rape-senior-leader-1.6135609


Excellent article by Ashley Burke.  I’m normally not overly impressed with the CBC, but Burke has done solid work on the CAF sexual misconduct/assault file, digging deep into the activities and developing many valid framework elements to question what is going on at the higher levels of government (DM-Ministerial-PCO/PMO-PM).

As are you, DAP, I can’t imagine why DM Thomas could remotely consider a DM-DM>Viau communication as appropriate…what was she thinking?  Talk about totally inappropriate.


> Thomas later apologized, said Champ. The defence department said the intention was never to make Viau uncomfortable, but rather to ensure her workplace was providing her with support.


🧐 That sounds very questionable…I don’t buy it. It sounds like Thomas was trying to influence Viau, although I can’t imagine her (Thomas’) motivation to do so.  Why would she not be confident in Viau’s own Department’s supervisory chain to provide the necessary support?

Something doesn’t add up here…although I’m sure that Ashley Burke has more to come in this branch of unfolding events.

As well, is there anything keeping Viau from going directly to the RCMP herself and lodging a complaint?  If she were to get pushback about the extra-Canada jurisdiction issue, then you’d know for sure that something untoward is happening beneath the veneer that the Canadian public is privy to.

And finally, aside from criminal pursuit of Edmundson’s alleged rape of Viau in 1991, could she not take civil action against Edmundson?

G2G


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Good2Golf said:


> Excellent article by Ashley Burke.  I’m normally not overly impressed with the CBC, but Burke has done solid work on the CAF sexual misconduct/assault file, digging deep into the activities and developing many valid framework elements to question what is going on at the higher levels of government (DM-Ministerial-PCO/PMO-PM).
> 
> As are you, DAP, I can’t imagine why DM Thomas could remotely consider a DM-DM>Viau communication as appropriate…what was she thinking?  Talk about totally inappropriate.
> 
> 🧐 That sounds very questionable…I don’t buy it. It sounds like Thomas was trying to influence Viau, although I can’t imagine her (Thomas’) motivation to do so.  Why would she not be confident in Viau’s own Department’s supervisory chain to provide the necessary support?
> 
> Something doesn’t add up here…although I’m sure that Ashley Burke has more to come in this branch of unfolding events.
> 
> As well, is there anything keeping Viau from going directly to the RCMP herself and lodging a complaint?  If she were to get pushback about the extra-Canada jurisdiction issue, then you’d know for sure that something untoward is happening beneath the veneer that the Canadian public is privy to.
> 
> And finally, aside from criminal pursuit of Edmundson’s alleged rape of Viau in 1991, could she not take civil action against Edmundson?
> 
> G2G


Or she could report the matter to NCIS in Pearl Harbor…


----------



## dapaterson

Would NCIS have jurisdiction, or would a status of forces agreement preempt that, particularly since both parties were foreign nationals of the same nation on board a foreign warship?


----------



## PPCLI Guy

dapaterson said:


> Most puzzling is the chaser to the story - why would DND's Deputy Minister insert herself into the investigation, and attempt to contact the woman who filed the complaint?
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-armed-forces-alleged-rape-senior-leader-1.6135609


Great question!  So odd....


----------



## Weinie

PPCLI Guy said:


> Great question!  So odd....


Where did that sarcasm emoji go?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

dapaterson said:


> Would NCIS have jurisdiction, or would a status of forces agreement preempt that, particularly since both parties were foreign nationals of the same nation on board a foreign warship?


I don’t know. Honestly.

But, they would be an outside agency that would certainly settle the issue of who has jurisdiction, wouldn’t they?


----------



## OldSolduer

SeaKingTacco said:


> I don’t know. Honestly.
> 
> But, they would be an outside agency that would certainly settle the issue of who has jurisdiction, wouldn’t they?


FJAG if he is around can probably give us the answer.


----------



## Good2Golf

Was PRO alongside when the alleged rape occurred?


----------



## FJAG

OldSolduer said:


> FJAG if he is around can probably give us the answer.


I'm around but keeping my head down on much of this topic as I try not to comment about things where I do not have enough details to be able to form a worthwhile opinion. Since you've asked, however, I'll give you my $0.02 worth.

The facts as I understand them is that the alleged incident took place between two CF personnel on a CF ship within the US territorial limits which leaves me no doubt that the CF has jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute. 

The offence of sexual assault is one common to the laws of both Canada and the Hawaii and by being on a Canadian ship in US territory would result in concurrent jurisdiction under paras 1a and b of Article VII of the NATO SOFA BUT, since the offence was against a CF member, Canada would have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction under para 3a of Article VII. 

Note that para 3c of Article VII requires that if Canada chooses not to exercise its primary right to take jurisdiction then there is an obligation to advise the US of it's decision as soon as practical. This would have been of significance if the incident had been reported at the time of the incident as at that time the Hawaiian authorities could have taken up jurisdiction.

Note that there is a statute of limitations with respect to rape in Hawaii of three years from the date of the offence in the case of an 18 year and older adult and I'm not aware of any circumstances at play that would result in an extension of that limitation.

I'm not one hundred percent certain but I do not think that NCIS would have any jurisdiction in this matter as this case would not involve any US Navy personnel subject to the UCMJ or other Navy assets over which NCIS would have criminal investigative authority. The fact that it may have happened within the confines of a US Navy shipyard would not, in my opinion, by itself be sufficient and I would think that state authorities would have had primary jurisdiction under US law.

🍻


----------



## McG

I though Sovereign Immunity applied to a nation’s warships when in another nation’s waters. That would preclude any US jurisdiction.


----------



## FJAG

McG said:


> I though Sovereign Immunity applied to a nation’s warships when in another nation’s waters. That would preclude any US jurisdiction.


I'm by no means an expert in maritime law, but my understanding that the principle of sovereign immunity under maritime law applies to the vessels and not the crews which are subjects to the provisions of SOFAs as visiting forces.

🍻


----------



## McG

SOFA applies to crew members if & when they leave the ship, but while on ship they are subject to home nation jurisdiction.


----------



## OldSolduer

Thank you all. Great discussion.


----------



## brihard

Good2Golf said:


> As well, is there anything keeping Viau from going directly to the RCMP herself and lodging a complaint?  If she were to get pushback about the extra-Canada jurisdiction issue, then you’d know for sure that something untoward is happening beneath the veneer that the Canadian public is privy to.


I’m not aware of any provision of the Criminal Code that would allow for civilian police to lay charges for a ‘common’ sexual assault outside of Canada. There are limited offences that can be committed extraterritorially and prosecuted domestically, but in this case I think only the MPs would have legal authority to, as provided by the NDA.


----------



## FJAG

McG said:


> SOFA applies to crew members if & when they leave the ship, but while on ship they are subject to home nation jurisdiction.



The jurisdiction is territorially based and not reliant on stepping foot on the land. Let's look at an example. Paras 1b and 2b of Article VII state:



> 1 b the authorities of the receiving State shall have jurisdiction over the members of a force or civilian component and their dependents with respect to offences committed within the territory of the receiving State and punishable by the law of that State.





> 2 b The authorities of the receiving State shall have the right to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over members of a force or civilian component and their dependents with respect to offences, including offences relating to the security of that State, punishable by its law but not by the law of the sending state.



So let's assume that it is an offence in Hawaii to kill a humuhumunukunukuāpuaʻa, the State Fish of Hawaii (I actually think it isn't but for the sake of this example let's say it is). Sailor 2nd Class (Able Seaman for DAP) Bloggins is standing on the fantail of his ship and using a speargun shoots and kills one. A US Navy sailor on the ship tied up alongside the Canadian one who happens to be a Hawaiian sees this and is deeply offended over this act and reports it to the appropriate civilian authorities.

Since Bloggins is a member of a visiting force within the territorial jurisdiction of the US and Hawaii who has committed an offence under US/Hawaiian law and which is not an offence in Canada the receiving State, (ie the US/Hawaii) has exclusive jurisdiction over this case.

🍻


----------



## FSTO

FJAG said:


> Sailor 2nd Class (Able Seaman for DAP) Bloggins is standing on the *fantail* of his ship and using a speargun shoots and kills one. 🍻


Quarter deck 😊


----------



## captloadie

There are times to stand our ground as an organization, and there are times to adapt to the changing social environment, even if it means setting precedence. I for one do not understand why the CAF continues to deal with sexual assault cases within our disciplinary system. Just because we can doesn't mean we should. And given the Fish report, it looks like we shouldn't. I don't believe we have the investigative expertise in this area to be effective. I don't think we have the prosecutorial, nor defense council, expertise to see this cases successfully prosecuted/defended within our system. Call in the RCMP to conduct the investigations, and hand over the results to the civilian court system to administer. If a defense wants to argue the jurisdiction issue at trial, let them. 

I have read through many Court Martial transcripts that have seen the original sexual assault charges withdrawn and the member found guilty/pleading guilty to a s.129. Is this because the investigations were lacking, thus leaving little chance of success on these charges? Is it because it is easy to plea bargain out to the s.129 and still feel we are bringing the guilty party to account? Is it because the victims don't want to go through the pain of reliving the assault in a court setting? 

In one transcript I read, where the description of the sexual assault in my mind constituted rape, the judge had to find the accused not guilty of the charge because the prosecutor missed proving one of the elements of the charge. The judge, in his response, stated that he had no doubt that the events occurred as described by the victim, and that her testimony was credible, and the accused testimony was not much more than convoluted statements to downplay the event. He was found guilty of the s.129 charge however. Yes, this can happen in civilian court as well, but is our judicial system less effective because we have the s.129 to fall back on?


----------



## McG

FJAG said:


> Since Bloggins is a member of a visiting force within the territorial jurisdiction of the US and Hawaii who has committed an offence under US/Hawaiian law and which is not an offence in Canada the receiving State, (ie the US/Hawaii) has exclusive jurisdiction over this case.


It would be punishable under s 130 of the NDA, so would that not mean there is no US jurisdiction granted by your second quote? And where the ship is considered sovereign to Canada, an act committed on the ship would would have been in a space excluded from US territory, which means no US jurisdiction granted by your first quote. Maybe?

But I am working with secondary references: Chapter 5: Sovereign Immunity – Law of the Sea


----------



## SeaKingTacco

captloadie said:


> There are times to stand our ground as an organization, and there are times to adapt to the changing social environment, even if it means setting precedence. I for one do not understand why the CAF continues to deal with sexual assault cases within our disciplinary system. Just because we can doesn't mean we should. And given the Fish report, it looks like we shouldn't. I don't believe we have the investigative expertise in this area to be effective. I don't think we have the prosecutorial, nor defense council, expertise to see this cases successfully prosecuted/defended within our system. Call in the RCMP to conduct the investigations, and hand over the results to the civilian court system to administer. If a defense wants to argue the jurisdiction issue at trial, let them.
> 
> I have read through many Court Martial transcripts that have seen the original sexual assault charges withdrawn and the member found guilty/pleading guilty to a s.129. Is this because the investigations were lacking, thus leaving little chance of success on these charges? Is it because it is easy to plea bargain out to the s.129 and still feel we are bringing the guilty party to account? Is it because the victims don't want to go through the pain of reliving the assault in a court setting?
> 
> In one transcript I read, where the description of the sexual assault in my mind constituted rape, the judge had to find the accused not guilty of the charge because the prosecutor missed proving one of the elements of the charge. The judge, in his response, stated that he had no doubt that the events occurred as described by the victim, and that her testimony was credible, and the accused testimony was not much more than convoluted statements to downplay the event. He was found guilty of the s.129 charge however. Yes, this can happen in civilian court as well, but is our judicial system less effective because we have the s.129 to fall back on?


With respect, which civilian court in Canada has jurisdiction over an alleged offence in Hawaii? You cannot just wave your hand and say “oh that doesn’t matter”. It matters.


----------



## Good2Golf

SeaKingTacco said:


> With respect, which civilian court in Canada has jurisdiction over an alleged offence in Hawaii? You cannot just wave your hand and say “oh that doesn’t matter”. It matters.


The flip side of that perspective is, or should be easier than many are making it to be.

Remember that part of the LOAC that says all CAF members are bound not only by the NDA but also Canadian law (which includes the CCC)? Does that not imply that any CAF member serving internationally, whether for a specific operation or as a standing force (that may be mobile by air, sea or land), is also bound by Canadian law? And aren’t we also told that where CAF members are posted outside of a Canada, that for the purposes of federal statutes, the CAF members are administratively considered to reside in the NCR/Ontario 

So, I believe it follows reasonably that the C.C.C. should also apply to all CAF members, even if not on Canadian soil/in Territorial Waters, and that as with applicability in other regards (taxation, etc.) Ontario be used as the effective jurisdiction where provincial implication to federal statues apply.


Regards
G2G


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Good2Golf said:


> The flip side of that perspective is, or should be easier than many are making it to be.
> 
> Remember that part of the LOAC that says all CAF members are bound not only by the NDA but also Canadian law (which includes the CCC)? Does that not imply that any CAF member serving internationally, whether for a specific operation or as a standing force (that may be mobile by air, sea or land), is also bound by Canadian law? And aren’t we also told that where CAF members are posted outside of a Canada, that for the purposes of federal statutes, the CAF members are administratively considered to reside in the NCR/Ontario
> 
> So, I believe it follows reasonably that the C.C.C. should also apply to all CAF members, even if not on Canadian soil/in Territorial Waters, and that as with applicability in other regards (taxation, etc.) Ontario be used as the effective jurisdiction where provincial implication to federal statues apply.
> 
> 
> Regards
> G2G


I am not sure that has ever been tested under the CCC.

I am not sure that the Supreme Court (where this would all eventually end up on appeal) would be amused with an administrative wave of the hand saying that “oh, Ontario, you are now responsible for trying all crimes committed outside of Canada by CAF members”.

Think of the implications: a CAF member posted to Halifax is accused of a crime while onboard HMCS Montreal, but on a port visit to Malta.

The court case would be held in- North Bay? Barrie? Thunder Bay?

I’m sorry, but that makes no sense.

For all of the criticism of the Court Martial system (much of it by people who have axes to grind or other agendas to serve), it actually works pretty well, in my experience.


----------



## CBH99

I had posted a reply essentially saying the same as what FJAG had posted, but without the actual quotes.  As usual, FJAG said it much more elegantly than I - and with the experience for his post to have a lot more credibility.  

Before deploying to Afghanistan, and again before our HTLA, and again before I participated in my only RIMPAC - that’s how it was explained to us.  

Screw up on ship, against a fellow Canadian?  The CO/XO would handle it harshly, and be prepared to deal with it legally upon return.  Get arrested in Honolulu for breaking the law?  It’ll be dealt with legally according to local laws & processes.   (Which makes sense.)


As for the CAF dealing with sexual assault matters internally, via military police and the court martial system… I don’t have any experience dealing with the MP’s or military judicial system.  So I have no idea.  

The Fish report does leave me thinking perhaps a civilian police agency would, at the very least, be more objective and not have to worry about the CoC muddling in things.  But I have also seen policing agencies be useless and, frankly, similar in their approach when a complaint has been made.  (Or attempted to be made.)   _Looking at you Lethbridge_

1.  Would deferring these matters to the RCMP be a big deal?  Would the odd sexual assault file overburden them?  

What investigative assets do they have that MPs do not have access to?  (Since a majority of the time, forensic evidence is lacking.)


----------



## Scott

Jesus. Is this the same DM who is a respondent in a harassment case brought by Roleau?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Scott said:


> Jesus. Is this the same DM who is a respondent in a harassment case brought by Roleau?


it would seem so, yes.


----------



## Scott

Well, if that DM wants to keep providing easily sourced proof that she doesn't respect professional boundaries and processes developed to handle these things - great. I hope that the investigator uses this. I hope someone, after reading the report, mines it to ensure there are no other potential notices of occurrence against the DM, or their staff, or anyone other arsehole involved in corrupting this process.

Amy MacPherson @MsAmyMacPherson seemed to be on to something a month ago - barely a peep since, and the "reporting" had some holes. But perhaps enough smoke generated to make wheels turn toward a deeper look.


----------



## Good2Golf

SeaKingTacco said:


> I am not sure that has ever been tested under the CCC.
> 
> I am not sure that the Supreme Court (where this would all eventually end up on appeal) would be amused with an administrative wave of the hand saying that “oh, Ontario, you are now responsible for trying all crimes committed outside of Canada by CAF members”.
> 
> Think of the implications: a CAF member posted to Halifax is accused of a crime while onboard HMCS Montreal, but on a port visit to Malta.
> 
> The court case would be held in- North Bay? Barrie? Thunder Bay?
> 
> I’m sorry, but that makes no sense.
> 
> For all of the criticism of the Court Martial system (much of it by people who have axes to grind or other agendas to serve), it actually works pretty well, in my experience.


For an incident as serious as rape, yeah, put them all on a plane back to Ottawa…if an op vessel on a SNMG for example, repatriate when it doesn’t endanger the mission. 

A significant issue with military justice would seem less so the validity/performance of Courts Martial, but getting that far…solve that first, and then the question - is NDA130 more suitable than CCC 271/273?




CBH99 said:


> Screw up on ship, against a fellow Canadian?  The CO/XO would handle it harshly, and be prepared to deal with it legally upon return.  Get arrested in Honolulu for breaking the law?  It’ll be dealt with legally according to local laws & processes.   (Which makes sense.)


…and what if it is the XO, for example, who sexually assaults a female of the Ship’s company, and the CO gives the XO a ‘mulligan’ since he’s a swell guy and the CO didn’t want to harm the XO’s career?  Where is the justice then for the assaulted member?  (more a rhetorical question CBH, not a personal jab Q to you)


Regard
G2G


----------



## CBH99

Good2Golf said:


> For an incident as serious as rape, yeah, put them all on a plane back to Ottawa…if an op vessel on a SNMG for example, repatriate when it doesn’t endanger the mission.
> 
> A significant issue with military justice would seem less so the validity/performance of Courts Martial, but getting that far…solve that first, and then the question - is NDA130 more suitable than CCC 271/273?
> 
> 
> 
> …and what if it is the XO, for example, who sexually assaults a female of the Ship’s company, and the CO gives the XO a ‘mulligan’ since he’s a swell guy and the CO didn’t want to harm the XO’s career?  Where is the justice then for the assaulted member?  (more a rhetorical question CBH, not a personal jab Q to you)
> 
> 
> Regard
> G2G


No no, I understand it wasn’t a personal jab.  It was an excellent point, and it’s because of situations like that, that we ended up here in the first place.  

Very good point, and unfortunately it’s well supported given what’s come out recently.


----------



## Blackadder1916

FJAG said:


> The offence of sexual assault is one common to the laws of both Canada and the *Hawaii* and by being on a Canadian ship in US territory would result in concurrent jurisdiction under paras 1a and b of Article VII of the NATO SOFA BUT, since the offence was against a CF member, Canada would have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction under para 3a of Article VII.



But is Hawaii (not being in North America) in the "North Atlantic Treaty area" as per the NATO SOFA and the North Atlantic Treaty?






						Agreement between the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty regarding the Status of their Forces
					






					www.nato.int
				





> Article I​
> In this Agreement the expression
> 'force' means the personnel belonging to the land, sea or air armed services of one Contracting Party when in the territory of another Contracting Party in the North Atlantic Treaty area in connexion with their official duties, provided that the two Contracting Parties concerned may agree that certain individuals, units or formations shall not be regarded as constituting or included in a 'force' for the purpose of the present Agreement;








						The North Atlantic Treaty
					






					www.nato.int
				





> Article 6​For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
> 
> 
> on the territory of any of the Parties *in Europe or North America*, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
> on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.



That's one of those trivial questions that arise from persons who have more time on their hands than sense, but it has been asked before and even to the NATO Sec Gen, whose reply was a "political" opinion rather than "legal" one.









						Remarks by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg at the Lowy Institute (Sydney)
					

(As delivered)




					www.nato.int
				





> *Question:* The United States was one of the original founding members of NATO in 1949, when there was only 48 states, and Hawaii didn’t become a state of America until 1959 and Hawaii has never been a signatory to NATO and today is separate. Therefore, if there was an attack on Hawaii, even though America is a signatory and a member of NATO, NATO couldn’t do anything… it's my understanding that NATO couldn’t do anything.
> 
> *Moderator:* Alright, that’s a very technical question. Thank you, sir.
> 
> *Jens Stoltenberg [NATO Secretary General]:* Now, if one Ally is attacked, and Hawaii is part of the United States which is part of NATO, then Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty states clearly that that should be regarded as an attack on us all and we can trigger Article 5. So, that’s in a way the answer to that.
> 
> Having said that, I think that we have to understand that, at the end of the day, this is a political issue, meaning that, at the end of the day, this is about a political commitment that we are standing up for each other and just to have the idea that one Ally should be attacked and then we not reacting will undermine the credibility of the whole of NATO. And therefore I think it's also quite interesting to think about or reflect about the fact that those who wrote the Washington Treaty back in 1949, I think when they wrote the Article 5 the idea was to protect European NATO Allies against an attack from the Soviet Union. We never invoked Article 5 addressing the Soviet Union, because the Soviet Union never attacked us, because we had credible deterrence. They knew that if they attacked one Ally, it would trigger a response from the whole Alliance, and that prevented a conflict. So, it is a paradox that the first time we invoked Article 5 was after an attack on the United States, by a terrorist organisation, by Al Qaeda. And again, it's not easy to ask those who wrote the article back in 49, but I guess none of them have thought about the idea that the first and only time we invoke that article was after an attack by a terrorist organisation on the United States.



(edited to add)
 Criminal jurisdiction when the US is the receiving state is discussed in the US Army JAG Operational Law Handbook

https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/operational-law-handbook_2018.pdf  (go to page 130 of pdf)


> e. The United States as a Receiving State.
> (1) Traditionally, the SOFA issues JAs face involve U.S. service members deployed to other countries. In the post-Cold War era, foreign forces began routinely coming to the U.S. for training. Some NATO countries have units permanently stationed in the United States.486 The status of these foreign forces in the United States depends on agreements with the sending state. Almost all U.S. SOFAs are non-reciprocal in nature. For example, the Korean SOFA only applies to U.S. armed forces in the Republic of Korea (ROK). Therefore, if ROK soldiers are present in the United States, exclusive jurisdiction would rest with the United States. On the other hand, the United States may have entered into a SOFA that is reciprocal, such as the NATO SOFA and the Partnership for Peace (PFP) SOFA.
> 
> (2) There are complicated issues with jurisdiction over foreign forces in the United States. Based on our federal system, if the international agreement under which foreign forces are seeking protection is a treaty, the provisions of the agreement are the supreme law of the land and are binding on both Federal and State jurisdictions. Conversely, international agreements that are not treaties (executive agreements) are binding on the Federal government, but not generally on the states. Absent additional legislation, a state prosecutor is free to charge a visiting service member for a crime under state law, regardless of the provisions of the executive agreement. State prosecutors are typically willing to defer a prosecution as a matter of national interest, but it can be a delicate diplomatic situation. Judge advocates must also become familiar with the option of a foreign force to impose discipline on members of their force within the United States. Just as the United States conducts courtsmartial in host nation countries, reciprocal countries may wish to do the same in the United States.487


----------



## FJAG

Good2Golf said:


> The flip side of that perspective is, or should be easier than many are making it to be.
> 
> Remember that part of the LOAC that says all CAF members are bound not only by the NDA but also Canadian law (which includes the CCC)? Does that not imply that any CAF member serving internationally, whether for a specific operation or as a standing force (that may be mobile by air, sea or land), is also bound by Canadian law? And aren’t we also told that where CAF members are posted outside of a Canada, that for the purposes of federal statutes, the CAF members are administratively considered to reside in the NCR/Ontario
> 
> So, I believe it follows reasonably that the C.C.C. should also apply to all CAF members, even if not on Canadian soil/in Territorial Waters, and that as with applicability in other regards (taxation, etc.) Ontario be used as the effective jurisdiction where provincial implication to federal statues apply.
> 
> 
> Regards
> G2G


S 130 does exactly that as far as Federal legislation goes. CF members are subject to the CCC by virtue of s 130 of the NDA regardless of where they are.



McG said:


> It would be punishable under s 130 of the NDA, so would that not mean there is no US jurisdiction granted by your second quote?



You're thinking of s 132 which makes it a service offence to break a local law in a local jurisdiction and that does raise an interesting conflict of law question as to whether s 132 meets the definition of the SOFA. If you go a bit further into the SOFA, para 3 to Article VII sorts out the priority with respect to cases where there is concurrent jurisdiction. Canada would have primary jurisdiction under para 3a if the offence is against another Canadian member or against Canadian property or out of the performance or failure to perform an official duty. Where para 3a doesn't apply (and in the fish example it doesn't) then the receiving state, i.e. the US has primary jurisdiction unless it chooses to waive that right.



> Agreement between the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty regarding the Status of their Forces
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nato.int



Just a brief point on sexual assault and the military's jurisdiction. Prior to the Somalia Inquiry, DND had significant problems in getting legislation passed in Parliament. Basically our priorities weren't the DOJ's priorities. Somalia changed all that and for several years much of the office of the JAG's primary effort was to develop a massive legislative change to the NDA and its various regulations. The first major change was Bill-C25 which implemented hundreds of changes to the laws and was enacted in 1998.

Amongst the many changes was a provision amending s 70 of the NDA (which provided for offences not triable by a military tribunal) so that it was now possible to try a service member for a sexual assault committed in Canada. Prior to this amendment only civilian courts had the jurisdiction to try someone for a sexual offence committed in Canada. Note that prior to 1998 the military did have the jurisdiction to try a member for a sexual assault offence committed outside Canada and that after 1998 the jurisdiction is a shared jurisdiction as between military and civilian tribunals. With respect to the reason for the change please note the following:



> Like the external review conducted by Deschamps, the impetus for expanding the jurisdiction of the military’s legal system to include charges of sexual assault was a response, at least in part, to mainstream media coverage documenting the prolific problem of rape in the Canadian military.(11) In 1998 Maclean’s magazine published three cover stories— “Rape in the Military,”(12) “Speaking Out on Sexual Assault in the Military,”(13) and “Of Rape and Justice”(14)—examining the horrific experiences of sexual trauma endured by women in the Canadian military.





> https://digitalcommons.schulichlaw.dal.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1446&context=dlj



I don't want to sound flippant about a serious issue, but it seems that every time that we face a problem we seem to think that the way to fix it is to change the system radically by taking the responsibility to deal with it away from the military. I generally tend to oppose fine tuning a system that is patently broken, but I'm far from convinced that our military judicial system is broken beyond repair in this particular case. The issue of sexual assault is a widespread one in our society that goes well beyond the military community. Universities have far greater problems than the military but at the present time we are the "focus de jour". I feel quite confident that the military investigation service and military prosecutors, if properly empowered, can do as good a job in these circumstances as their civilian counterparts and in all probability a better job because they have significantly lower case loads.

🍻


----------



## OldSolduer

Does the statute of limitations apply here?


----------



## Good2Golf

FJAG said:


> I feel quite confident that the military investigation service and military prosecutors, *if properly empowered*, can do as good a job in these circumstances as their civilian counterparts and in all probability a better job because they have significantly lower case loads.



So what is required to be empowered thusly?

How does that square with NIS’ recent finding, for example, of a lack of prosecutable charges in the incident of (then) Cdr MacDonald allegedly assaulting (then) Lt(N) McDonald?  Was the NIS not properly empowered, or just that with the information they collected during their investigation, that subsequent referral to DMP resulted in the recommendation not to proceed with charges against Adm MacDonald?

One can imagine that if there is a similar result in the ongoing investigation of (then) LCdr Edmundson’s alleged rape of AS Viau, with the result that no charges could be laid against VAdm Edmundson, that people would be quite justified to question whether the CAF truly was a professional, responsible and capable organization to adequately deal internally with sexual assault.

Folks keep saying that the CAF’s justice system works well on the whole, which it may, if one wants to look at things numerically/statistically, but the justice for those who were (allegedly) impacted by sexual misconduct or violence isn’t a statistically excusable issue.  Heck, the CAF can’t even get it right with a cook (allegedly) cooking marijuana into cupcakes right… 🤦🏻 

No wonder there is little trust of the CAF system where sexual misconduct and violence is concerned.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Scott said:


> Jesus. Is this the same DM who is a respondent in a harassment case brought by Roleau?


It certainly is


----------



## YZT580

In the meantime, the admiral wants his job back.  This could get very interesting


----------



## Jarnhamar

captloadie said:


> * I for one do not understand why the CAF continues to deal with sexual assault cases within our disciplinary system.* Just because we can doesn't mean we should. And given the Fish report, it looks like we shouldn't.



Mostly I'd say we just don't take sexual assault (along with harassment, inappropriate behavior etc) seriously. 

But I'd also say it's so the boys club can protect their buddies.


----------



## QV

Jarnhamar said:


> Mostly I'd say we just don't take sexual assault (along with harassment, inappropriate behavior etc) seriously.
> 
> But I'd also say it's so the boys club can protect their buddies.


It's probably in an effort to protect the institution. Having CAF personnel parade themselves in civil courts is much more visible than in CMs.


----------



## Scott

PPCLI Guy said:


> It certainly is



Wow.



YZT580 said:


> In the meantime, the admiral wants his job back.  This could get very interesting



And the result might be that DM shitting theyselves.


----------



## QV

YZT580 said:


> In the meantime, the admiral wants his job back.  This could get very interesting


This is about to get interesting.  



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/top-soldier-admiral-art-mcdonald-responds-to-investigation-1.6137439
		


"After consultation with his counsel, Admiral Art McDonald has decided return to his duties and functions
immediately," his counsel Michael Edelson and Rory Fowler wrote in a media statement.


----------



## OldSolduer

Jarnhamar said:


> Mostly I'd say we just don't take sexual assault (along with harassment, inappropriate behavior etc) seriously.
> 
> But I'd also say it's so the boys club can protect their buddies.


This is a societal issue, not just a CAF one. Look at the ridiculously low sentences rapists receive even after multiple offences.


----------



## dapaterson

Admiral McDonald has declared he will return (through counsel).



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/top-soldier-admiral-art-mcdonald-responds-to-investigation-1.6137439


----------



## dangerboy

dapaterson said:


> Admiral McDonald has declared he will return (through counsel).
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/top-soldier-admiral-art-mcdonald-responds-to-investigation-1.6137439


Waiting to see what the Government's response to this will be.


----------



## OldSolduer

dangerboy said:


> Waiting to see what the Government's response to this will be.


Pass the popcorn and beer, this could get nasty 🤮


----------



## dapaterson

dangerboy said:


> Waiting to see what the Government's response to this will be.


We need a bare metal pole, unadorned.

Then airing of grievances and feats of strength.


----------



## Weinie

dapaterson said:


> We need a bare metal pole, unadorned.
> 
> Then airing of grievances and feats of strength.


Though this will be far more entertaining, and painful, than Festivus


----------



## MilEME09

This will be good, but since he serves at the pleasure of the PM, would he even have any kind of legal recourse if the PM said no?


----------



## Jarnhamar

Not reinstating Admiral MacDonald will give the impression that he's guilty but the justice system failed. 

We better put him back at the helm. 


If we don't then maybe put Admiral Macdonald in charge of a committee to study the Third Independent Review former Justice Fish reported on.

Or just do a fourth review.


----------



## McG

MilEME09 said:


> This will be good, but since he serves at the pleasure of the PM, would he even have any kind of legal recourse if the PM said no?


He is forcing the government to take a position. Either come out and explicitly remove him, or do nothing and passively show acceptance.


----------



## MilEME09

McG said:


> He is forcing the government to take a position. Either come out and explicitly remove him, or do nothing and passively show acceptance.


Or option 3 is to public accept it and come out in support of the investigation, or they could also drag it out and tell NIS to send all evidence to the RCMP for review.


----------



## Navy_Pete

MilEME09 said:


> This will be good, but since he serves at the pleasure of the PM, would he even have any kind of legal recourse if the PM said no?


Is this the same PM that's been found guilty of 3 ethic breaches, had sexual assault allegation of his own, and also the blackface incident? Hardly a position of strength to find someone fell short on expectations of what proper behaviour is.

Unless there is some kind of follow on administrative review, they need to either reinstate him or settle something for him to retire. If the investigation doesn't support charges, but an AR merits some kind of conduct release, by all means go that route.

The entire disciplinary and administrative system is underpinned by the presumption that it's fair; if the same standard applies up the chain (which it needs to), that should include reinstatement of duties if an investigation results in no charges or administrative measures, IMHO.

No really good outcome here, but the GoC can't just stay neutral and hope it sorts itself out.


----------



## Weinie

Navy_Pete said:


> Is this the same PM that's been found guilty of 3 ethic breaches, had sexual assault allegation of his own, and also the blackface incident? Hardly a position of strength to find someone fell short on expectations of what proper behaviour is.
> 
> Unless there is some kind of follow on administrative review, they need to either reinstate him or settle something for him to retire. If the investigation doesn't support charges, but an AR merits some kind of conduct release, by all means go that route.
> 
> The entire disciplinary and administrative system is underpinned by the presumption that it's fair; if the same standard applies up the chain (which it needs to), that should include reinstatement of duties if an investigation results in no charges or administrative measures, IMHO.
> 
> No really good outcome here, but the GoC can't just stay neutral and hope it sorts itself out.


This is legal posturing,and well thought out. He has been vindicated ITO the military justice system. He voluntarily stepped aside while the investigation happened. No charges were laid,so if I were his legal team, I would demand that he be re-instated.
That is not likely to happen, and I am sure that PMO,MNDO, and PCO are scrambling right now to come up with  an answer that will not place them in serious financial jeopardy AKA Norman.


----------



## Good2Golf

…mindful that they also screwed the pooch on Dany Fortin and he’ll have a settlement coming his way as well for the_ de facto_ constructive dismissal.

Edited to add:  The truly interesting piece will be the investigation into VAdm Edmundson’s alleged rape of Ret’d LS Viau…


----------



## Navy_Pete

Weinie said:


> This is legal posturing,and well thought out. He has been vindicated ITO the military justice system. He voluntarily stepped aside while the investigation happened. No charges were laid,so if I were his legal team, I would demand that he be re-instated.
> That is not likely to happen, and I am sure that PMO,MNDO, and PCO are scrambling right now to come up with  an answer that will not place them in serious financial jeopardy AKA Norman.


Probably, but the Norman situation was a pretty excellent example of why the system has to be procedurally fair for everyone without political interference; that kicked the absolute shit out of morale.


----------



## dapaterson

He serves at pleasure. There is no statutory protection for the CDS (unlike military judges, the JAG, the Provost Marshal, the directors of prosecution and defence...)

The CDS is sui generis; a government could replace a CDS without cause and it would not give rise to any action.


----------



## Weinie

dapaterson said:


> He serves at pleasure. There is no statutory protection for the CDS (unlike military judges, the JAG, the Provost Marshal, the directors of prosecution and defence...)
> 
> The CDS is sui generis; a government could replace a CDS without cause and it would not give rise to any action.


Wait for it.


----------



## Good2Golf

Navy_Pete said:


> Probably, but the Norman situation was a pretty excellent example of why the system has to be *procedurally fair for everyone without political interference*; that kicked the absolute shit out of morale.


…you mean, other than Trudeau speculating publicly that the Norman case “will likely end up before the courts.” well before charges were laid?


----------



## dapaterson

Weinie said:


> Wait for it.


I never said he wouldn't sue.


----------



## Weinie

dapaterson said:


> I never said he wouldn't sue.
> 
> The CDS is sui generis; a government could replace a CDS without cause and it would not give rise to any action.


Suing the government is an action.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

The difference is that the PM now has to actually fire him.....just as a writ is about to drop.  So far there has only been one voluntary retirement, and of course the firing of Mr Vance.


----------



## Weinie

PPCLI Guy said:


> The difference is that the PM now has to actually fire him.....just as a writ is about to drop.  So far there has only been one voluntary retirement, and of course the firing of Mr Vance.


As I said above, brilliant maneuvring  by his legal team, given the current political environment.


----------



## dapaterson

Weinie said:


> Suing the government is an action.



The firing does not give him the right to sue.  He can try, but a court of competent jurisdiction would reject it.


----------



## Good2Golf

dapaterson said:


> The firing does not give him the right to sue.  He can try, but a court of competent jurisdiction would reject it.


Doesn’t have to be for being fired.  There’d have to be an explanation for explicitly firing him which I’m sure a good litigation lawyer could make a case for defamation of character, particularly as the Government’s own apparatus found there to be no justification to pursue charges available to it…


----------



## Haggis

PPCLI Guy said:


> The difference is that the PM now has to actually fire him.....just as a writ is about to drop.  So far there has only been one voluntary retirement, and of course the firing of Mr Vance.


"Admiral, I'd like you to retire and take the helm (pun intended) of a new crown corporation I'm starting up to manage certain endeavours of my government after the election."


----------



## dangerboy

The Minister made a statement:



> Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s office did not immediately respond to news of McDonald’s plan to take back command of the military from acting defence chief Lt.-Gen. Wayne Eyre.
> 
> But Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan said he expects McDonald to wait.
> 
> “My expectation is that Admiral McDonald will remain on leave while we while we review this situation,” he said at a news conference in Vancouver Wednesday.
> 
> “The position of chief of defence staff must always uphold the highest standard within the Canadian Armed Forces because of responsibility of that position and the weight that it holds. And also I want to say that Canadians and the Canadian Armed Forces are very well served by the current acting chief of defence staff Lt.-Gen. Wayne Eyre.”



Admiral Art McDonald says he’s returning as chief of the defence staff but minister pushes back - The Globe and Mail


----------



## FJAG

dapaterson said:


> The firing does not give him the right to sue.  He can try, but a court of competent jurisdiction would reject it.


That's kind of a yes and no thing. 

I think the better view of the law is that a pubic servant who is appointed at "pleasure" can be terminated even without cause BUT in the process of being terminated the public servant has a right of procedural fairness which at a minimum requires being advised of the reasons for the dismissal and being given an opportunity to respond to the allegations. After being given notice and having been heard the GiC can make whatever decision it wished to and will be mostly bulletproof. Failure to provide procedural fairness, however, would give a right to bring an action before the court for judicial review which might result in a quashing of the dismissal and an order for reinstatement. The government could then go through the process again this time doing it the right way.

DAP and PPCLI Guy will probably know much better than I as to whether the position as a CAF officer/GOFO is separate and apart from the appointment as CDS. In other words while the position as CDS is an "at pleasure" appointment, is there an underlying employment relationship as a CF officer which is governed by a more traditional government employment relationship. In other words could the CDS appointment be pulled but leave him with a right for further employment as a GOFO until CRA?

I find it virtually impossible to comment on the facts of the case because while their has been a conclusion that there is no likelihood of conviction (which is the prosecutorial standard for not laying and proceeding with charges) there may very well be evidence of a character which falls below that standard but is nonetheless sufficient to result in a termination of employment. The fact of the matter is that no one except the investigators and prosecutors and the appropriate superiors in the chain of command know what the extent of that evidence is.

I see many cans of worms in this scenario.

🍻


----------



## dapaterson

FJAG said:


> I see many cans of worms in this scenario.
> 
> 🍻



Enough worms to take everyone fishing for a long, long time.


----------



## Haggis

I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that LGen Allen will be appointed CDS soon.  Even though he appears to have done a good job overall, LGen Eyre is politcally tainted by the Dawe letter fiasco.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Navy_Pete said:


> Is this the same PM that's been found guilty of 3 ethic breaches, had sexual assault allegation of his own, and also the blackface incident?



That's different. That stuff is in the past.

Our senior CAF members could save a lot of time and effort if when accused of sexual assault they just explain the victims experienced it differently and tell the CAF it's time to move on.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Good2Golf said:


> …you mean, other than Trudeau speculating publicly that the Norman case “will likely end up before the courts.” well before charges were laid?


Yeah, that whole thing was a mess from start to finish. Completely undermined the perception that the military justice system is fair (which is what my personal experience is with it). So some in the 'old boys' club get protected, but if you go against the politicos, you are also screwed. It's pretty banana republic, at least for GOFOs.


----------



## brihard

Good2Golf said:


> The flip side of that perspective is, or should be easier than many are making it to be.
> 
> Remember that part of the LOAC that says all CAF members are bound not only by the NDA but also Canadian law (which includes the CCC)? Does that not imply that any CAF member serving internationally, whether for a specific operation or as a standing force (that may be mobile by air, sea or land), is also bound by Canadian law? And aren’t we also told that where CAF members are posted outside of a Canada, that for the purposes of federal statutes, the CAF members are administratively considered to reside in the NCR/Ontario
> 
> So, I believe it follows reasonably that the C.C.C. should also apply to all CAF members, even if not on Canadian soil/in Territorial Waters, and that as with applicability in other regards (taxation, etc.) Ontario be used as the effective jurisdiction where provincial implication to federal statues apply.
> 
> 
> Regards
> G2G


Just on this one from earlier- regarding LOAC specifically, the domestic criminal law governing that would be the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. For obvious reasons, it’s applicable outside of Canada. Though it’s never been applied in the case of a Canadian military member to my knowledge, that particular bit of legislation is solely investigated and enforced by the RCMP’s Extraterritorial Investigations Unit out of Ottawa. So, conceivably, they could take such an investigation. On practice, MPs would probably handle it, as was seen with Capt. Semrau. That could have been a war crimes file, but very understandably, CAF decided to keep it internal and go straight Criminal Code. The simplicity of the case and mitigating situational factors allowed for that. I don’t know how Canada would handle something on the scale of what the Aussies are dealing with right now.

Back on the main subject here, ‘normal’ criminal offences, the Crim Code is pretty simple. Most offences don’t apply outside of Canadian soil and a few specifically enumerated offences/circumstances (eg terrorism, human trafficking). The NDA extends our criminal law offshore for CAF for a reason.


----------



## MilEME09

dangerboy said:


> The Minister made a statement:
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Art McDonald says he’s returning as chief of the defence staff but minister pushes back - The Globe and Mail


Upholding the highest level of integrity is a joke for this minister, we have a CDS who was accused, investigated and not charged. Upholding the highest integrity would mean Upholding innocent until proven guilty meaning without charges the admiral did nothing criminally wrong, nor is he facing any administrative action that we know of, in essence by not being given his job back, in my not so educated position, he is bring punished for being cleared.


----------



## dapaterson

> She has now granted Global News permission to share the details of her allegation publicly, which she says pertained to unwanted touching on board HMCS Montreal in July 2010, when the ship was docked in Nuuk, Greenland.
> 
> During a party with allied military on board the ship, [the complainant] alleges McDonald shoved the face of the ship captain into her breasts after a button on her shirt popped open.
> 
> McDonald was task force commander at the time of a group made up of warships from the U.S., Denmark and Canada. The captain was [the complainant]’s commanding officer.











						Sajjan says he expects McDonald to stay on leave ‘while we review this situation’ - National | Globalnews.ca
					

Military police investigating Adm. Art McDonald, the current chief of the defence staff, for alleged sexual misconduct decided not to lay charges against him.




					globalnews.ca


----------



## OldSolduer

IMO only the Admiral has lost the moral authority to command the CAF as CDS. He needs to understand that in the court of public opinion he's guilty.


----------



## Jarnhamar

OldSolduer said:


> IMO only the Admiral has lost the moral authority to command the CAF as CDS. He needs to understand that in the court of public opinion he's guilty.




Vice-Admiral Craig Baines, commander of the Navy, lost moral authority but was kept on the job. Something about learning from mistakes, and he was guilty of what he was accused of. MacDonald wasn't.


----------



## OldSolduer

Jarnhamar said:


> Vice-Admiral Craig Baines, commander of the Navy, lost moral authority but was kept on the job. Something about learning from mistakes, and he was guilty of what he was accused of. MacDonald wasn't.


A golf game with a disgraced former CDS is far far different from sexual assault


----------



## dangerboy

Official statement from the minister : Statement from the Minister of National Defence - Canada.ca



> Statement​August 12, 2021 – Ottawa – National Defence / Canadian Armed Forces
> The Honourable Harjit S. Sajjan, Minister of National Defence, issued the following statement today:
> “Yesterday, I indicated that it was my expectation that Admiral Art McDonald would remain on leave while the Government reviews the situation.
> I am confirming today that this is the case. Admiral McDonald will be on administrative leave effective today and until further notice.
> Appointments like that of Chief of Defence Staff must meet the highest possible standards and our goal must be to create a better workplace for the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces. A workplace that ensures that complainants and survivors are treated with the utmost respect and that allegations are taken seriously in every instance.
> I have complete confidence that Canadians and our Armed Forces will continue to be very well-served by the Acting Chief of Defence Staff, Lieutenant-General Wayne Eyre, as we deal with some very complex issues – from fighting forest fires and helping Canadians battle the pandemic at home, to assisting our Afghan interpreters and locally engaged staff to come to Canada, while continuing to confront other security challenges around the world.”


----------



## OldSolduer

Adm. Art McDonald staying on leave ‘until further notice,’ Sajjan confirms  | Globalnews.ca
					

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan confirmed on Thursday that McDonald has been placed on leave and that acting chief of the defence staff Lt.-Gen. Wayne Eyre remains in the position.




					globalnews.ca
				




Here we go pass the popcorn 🍿


----------



## MilEME09

"workplace that ensures that complainants and survivors are treated with the utmost respect and that allegations are taken seriously in every instance." Thos would also imply individuals cleared by an investigation would also be treated in a respectful manner.


----------



## Good2Golf

dangerboy said:


> Official statement from the minister : Statement from the Minister of National Defence - Canada.ca


----------



## Jarnhamar

OldSolduer said:


> A golf game with a disgraced former CDS is far far different from sexual assault


True. 

But I figure moral authority is moral authority. We were told the chief of the Navy had reduced moral authority, but was still kept in place.

Is moral authority not as important for our navy I wonder?


----------



## Brad Sallows

A vexing problem.  Those appointed by others without moral authority should not be blamed for the latter's lack of moral authority.  But how can we be sure that those appointed were not selected precisely because of attributes which align with those doing the appointing?

Suppose the PM lacked moral authority.  Would you trust his appointments?  Suppose the PM appointed a MND whose moral authority you doubted?  Would you trust the MND's appointments?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Christ...I can't decide whose face should be photoshopped into this pic.  SO....MANY....CHOICES....


----------



## dapaterson

MilEME09 said:


> Upholding the highest level of integrity is a joke for this minister, we have a CDS who was accused, investigated and not charged. Upholding the highest integrity would mean Upholding innocent until proven guilty meaning without charges the admiral did nothing criminally wrong, nor is he facing any administrative action that we know of, in essence by not being given his job back, in my not so educated position, he is bring punished for being cleared.


"I was not charged" is not the same as "I was cleared."

Most of us have probably witnessed conduct that was inappropriate, but not charged; that doesn't make it right.


----------



## OldSolduer

dapaterson said:


> "I was not charged" is not the same as "I was cleared."
> 
> Most of us have probably witnessed conduct that was inappropriate, but not charged; that doesn't make it right.


Hell most of us have done inappropriate things - but you are very correct. 

"I was not charged" to me means there wasn't enough credible evidence to prosecute. "I was cleared" means there was a distinct lack of evidence to support the assertion, if y'all know what I mean.


----------



## McG

dapaterson said:


> "I was not charged" is not the same as "I was cleared."
> 
> Most of us have probably witnessed conduct that was inappropriate, but not charged; that doesn't make it right.


If you want to be CDS (again) and have your lawyers publish a statement like that, you are misrepresenting the profession’s disciplinary process and undermining the public’s confidence in the institution’s ability to police itself. Not really a great CoA.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

To touch back to some discussion 2, 3 pages back re: 'transparency of our administrative actions":

Summary Trial activity/results are often passed thru Wing-Wide emails (names, charges, findings, punishments), but not published in our "Wing newspaper".
The CAF, however, routinely publishes details on Courts Martials, both upcoming and ones that have finished.
Why not have the same model for administrative law matters?  Less severe sanctions (ICs, RWs, etc) need not be published for reasons of efficiency, but more severe administrative actions...certain types of ARs, for example Sexual Misconduct, would be published.  Why can we disclose information on CMs on the Internet to the public...but not ARs?

Administrative actions...some people seem to focus lock on "remedial measures".  Just a reminder, RMs are only one group of admin actions the CAF has in it's toolbelt.

DAOD 5019-2 refers:

*5.9* Once an AR case file has been reviewed and a decision reached, the AA [approving authority] may, under applicable regulations, policies, orders, instructions and directives, initiate an administrative action, including:

remedial measures under DAOD 5019-4;
occupational transfer;
transfer between sub-components;
posting;
an offer of terms of service in any case in which an offer has not been made by CAF authorities;
reversion in rank; or
release or recommendation for release, as applicable.
According to the table to Sect 4.6, the CMP would be the AA for an AR involving a GOFO.   If the GoC believes the Adm is not fit for the post, despite the evidence not supporting criminal charges, why not  use our well-documented AR process and, if warranted, exercise the release action IAW the DAOD that "_applies to officers and non-commissioned members of the Canadian Armed Forces (“CAF members”)?  There's even a whole para on sexual misconduct in 5019._

Adm MacDonald was not charged (criminally).  There's no disputing that.  However, that isn't the only yardstick used to measure a CAF member.  Where does his alleged conduct fall in our Statement of Defence Ethics policy?

DAOD 5019-0, Conduct and Performance Deficiencies
*3.2* CAF members are expected to:

meet established standards of behavior in applicable regulations, codes of conduct, policies, orders, instructions and directives, including the _DND and CF Code of Values and Ethics_ and _Duty with Honour: The Profession of Arms in Canada_;
meet established standards of performance in the execution of their duties, tasks and responsibilities, based on their current rank, military occupation, experience and position; and
respect the dignity and value of all persons by treating them with respect and fairness at all times and in all places in accordance with the _Canadian Human Rights Act_.
*Policy Statement*​*3.5* CAF members must be held accountable for conduct and performance deficiencies resulting from factors within their control. Hateful conduct by CAF members is prohibited.

Requirements
*3.6 *The chain of command must ensure that all CAF members are made aware of this DAOD. If the chain of command suspects that a conduct or performance deficiency by a CAF member resulting from factors within their control has occurred, the chain of command must take appropriate action. Depending on the circumstances, the appropriate action may involve administrative or disciplinary action, or both.

I don't know the details, facts, evidence in the Adm's case.  I have no clue if he is (ethically, administratively) 'guilty' or not.  Just some policy and standards to consider, whether your brandishing a pitch fork on behalf of either camp....


----------



## YZT580

When a jury reads its verdict do they say we find the defendant not guilty or do they say we find the defendant to be innocent?  I believe it is the former.  Once you have been accused, you are never again an innocent person.


----------



## hattrick72

YZT580 said:


> When a jury reads its verdict do they say we find the defendant not guilty or do they say we find the defendant to be innocent?  I believe it is the former.  Once you have been accused, you are never again an innocent person.


Which is sad for the people that have been falsely accused of murder, tried, convicted, to be exonerated years later. I would like to think they are innocent, despite losing their innocence.


----------



## brihard

Legally, unless convicted of a criminal offense, you are innocent in terms of criminal law. That doesn’t mean you didn’t do the thing, it doesn’t mean you didn’t do any harm, it just means that the state has not prosecuted you for a specific criminal offense with a guilty verdict resulting.

The space between “factually did not do the thing”, and “proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” leaves a lot of room and can be very nebulous. Many wrongs can be done that are either not criminal, or that cannot be proven to be.


----------



## MilEME09

brihard said:


> Legally, unless convicted of a criminal offense, you are innocent in terms of criminal law. That doesn’t mean you didn’t do the thing, it doesn’t mean you didn’t do any harm, it just means that the state has not prosecuted you for a specific criminal offense with a guilty verdict resulting.
> 
> The space between “factually did not do the thing”, and “proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” leaves a lot of room and can be very nebulous. Many wrongs can be done that are either not criminal, or that cannot be proven to be.


The biggest problem here is that it happened 11 years ago, at a party, where alcohol was likely served, good luck getting accurate witness statements. While I believe that all victims of crime should be able to come forward, I think we need to have a hard conversation of at what point after an incident is the likelihood of gathering accurate and credible evidence gone?  Victims deserve to be heard but I feel like sexual misconduct is a broad spectrum and that more minor offenses shouldn't be pursued after a certain amount if time, example flashing, while more major things like sexual assault including Rape should be investigated. 

NIS I believe needs its own sex crimes task force, trained by civilian police forces, both RCMP and others I'm order to cross train and increase over all passage of best practices. This task force would be fully independent, and report to the provost marshal, CDS, and MND, but only take orders from the MND or deputy minister


----------



## ModlrMike

Perhaps we need to hand investigation of sexually based offences over to the RCMP to investigate. AFAIK, the NIS has only a few (couple of) trained investigators for the whole force. The result being that it takes an excessive amount of time to complete investigations, purely from a workload perspective. This would also remove any potential command interference.


----------



## MilEME09

ModlrMike said:


> Perhaps we need to hand investigation of sexually based offences over to the RCMP to investigate. AFAIK, the NIS has only a few (couple of) trained investigators for the whole force. The result being that it takes an excessive amount of time to complete investigations, purely from a workload perspective. This would also remove any potential command interference.


RCMP might not be the best choice though, take the case right now of a CDS, being a federal police force, all would take for political interfaces would be the MND to talk to the PSM. No matter what I think we risk walking in egg shells until NIS and the CAF can rebuild its reputation


----------



## daftandbarmy

MilEME09 said:


> RCMP might not be the best choice though, take the case right now of a CDS, being a federal police force, all would take for political interfaces would be the MND to talk to the PSM. No matter what I think *we risk walking in egg shells until NIS and the CAF can rebuild its reputation*



You mean, like, when I introduce myself to new clients in civvy street I don't mind telling them that I have served in the CAF?


----------



## captloadie

Perhaps the review that the PMO is conducting should be considered as an Administrative review. Give Adm McDonald fair and due process, then make a decision. If there is adequate evidence to suspect he can no longer perform the duties of his position, come out and say that publicly.  Make a statement that although the evidence available did not meet the threshold for the laying of criminal charges, it met the lower requirement of the CAF administrative process, and thus he is being removed from the position for cause, and the process to administratively release him is underway.


----------



## PuckChaser

They won't have to. Check this crystal ball out:


No decision on Mcdonald before writ is dropped
Writ dropped, cant make a decision now
If Liberals win, cabinet is shuffled for "fresh look", but we all know it's because Sajjan has been a lame duck MND
Liberals secretly hope Mcdonald just retires so people stop asking and they don't have to actually be leaders
If he doesn't, new MND picks new CDS so they have "thier person" in the job.
If Tories win they'll want thier own choice for CDS, same as point above.


----------



## captloadie

PuckChaser said:


> They won't have to. Check this crystal ball out:
> 
> 
> No decision on Mcdonald before writ is dropped
> Writ dropped, cant make a decision now
> If Liberals win, cabinet is shuffled for "fresh look", but we all know it's because Sajjan has been a lame duck MND
> Liberals secretly hope Mcdonald just retires so people stop asking and they don't have to actually be leaders
> If he doesn't, new MND picks new CDS so they have "thier person" in the job.
> If Tories win they'll want thier own choice for CDS, same as point above.


While this is the likely political reality of the situation, it does nothing to instill any confidence in the rank and file of the CAF. There should never be any doubt that a sitting CDS may be guilty of a crime. As warfighters, it is drilled into us that we may have to sacrifice some of our members to achieve an objective, sometimes there are no other options. This should be looked at no differently, its just a different sort of battle. It might be time to sacrifice Adm McDonald to re-instill faith in the CDS position.


----------



## dapaterson

captloadie said:


> It might be time to sacrifice Adm McDonald to re-instill faith in the CDS position.



How is dumping a man who, on a balance of probabilities, assaulted a subordinate, a sacrifice?


----------



## PuckChaser

dapaterson said:


> How is dumping a man who, on a balance of probabilities, assaulted a subordinate, a sacrifice?


You've found the problem with our current way of handling sexual misconduct. If everything is sexual assault and must be investigated by CFNIS, then the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. I would argue that "gaming the system" to get the result you want because some other admin action has a lower burden of proof erodes just as much confidence in the institution (albeit a different part of the system) as being perceived to do nothing.

We are trying to balance due process for the accused, and the right for the alleged victim to be heard and believed which is incredibly difficult (look at the conviction rates for sexual assault in civilian courts, its low). We're currently swinging way past due process right now into the world where someone is guilty until they prove beyond a reasonable doubt they're innocent and that cannot possibly be sustained. That perception is already there for the summary trial system, if you bring it into the administrative and courts martial system as well you might as well kiss the CAF goodbye because nobody will want to work in a place like that, even if they're the kind of person that doesn't allegedly get shitfaced and assault a subordinate with another subordinate's face.


----------



## captloadie

dapaterson said:


> How is dumping a man who, on a balance of probabilities, assaulted a subordinate, a sacrifice?


You are correct, but some people on this forum get touchy when statements are made about an individual's likely guilt without having been through the appropriate legal process.


----------



## Good2Golf

Conduct can still be assessed without putting it on the criminally/statutorily “guilty-or-not-or-not-even-able-to-assess-guilt” spectrum.


----------



## daftandbarmy

PuckChaser said:


> They won't have to. Check this crystal ball out:
> 
> 
> No decision on Mcdonald before writ is dropped
> Writ dropped, cant make a decision now
> If Liberals win, cabinet is shuffled for "fresh look", but we all know it's because Sajjan has been a lame duck MND
> Liberals secretly hope Mcdonald just retires so people stop asking and they don't have to actually be leaders
> If he doesn't, new MND picks new CDS so they have "thier person" in the job.
> If Tories win they'll want thier own choice for CDS, same as point above.



Not making a decision prior to the election is clearly the game plan, no matter how much other people want certainty. 

More proof that purgatory is a thing.


----------



## MilEME09

When does MGen Fortin get his day in court? Is it after Sept 30th? If so that may be one factor into such a short campaign, can't have the trial play out during an election


----------



## Good2Golf

Entirely depends on whether the SQ finds anything to criminally charge him with.  Many doubt there’s anything there, other than an intent from higher to be a distraction…


----------



## Mick

dapaterson said:


> How is dumping a man who, on a balance of probabilities, assaulted a subordinate, a sacrifice?



I'm not attempting to argue, but I'm genuinely curious about the above statement.

Does the simple fact that an accusation has been made result in a person being "guilty" based on a balance of probabilities.  Or is this case unique?

Is there a similar scenario where an accused can be considered "innocent" based on a balance of probabilities?

I've found this discussion re: innocent vs exonerated vs cleared / criminal vs civil vs administrative process fascinating.


----------



## dapaterson

Sidebar: It's now General Eyre, having been promoted earlier today.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1426206198387384322





						Wayne Eyre Promoted from the rank of Lieutenant-General to General, continues to Act as Chief of the Defence Staff - Canada.ca
					

Today, Wayne Eyre was promoted from the rank of Lieutenant-General to General. The small promotion ceremony, attended by General Eyre and his spouse Jennifer, was presided over by Her Excellency the Right Honourable Mary Simon, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada.




					www.canada.ca


----------



## MilEME09

The promotion seems to indicate he is there to stay. As for Fortin, I was referring to his law suit in regards to his removal.


----------



## QV

Mick said:


> I'm not attempting to argue, but I'm genuinely curious about the above statement.
> 
> Does the simple fact that an accusation has been made result in a person being "guilty" based on a balance of probabilities.  Or is this case unique?
> 
> Is there a similar scenario where an accused can be considered "innocent" based on a balance of probabilities?
> 
> I've found this discussion re: innocent vs exonerated vs cleared / criminal vs civil vs administrative process fascinating.



Presumption of innocence is a key tenet of democracy. It is a legal and international human right. 

Today the presumption of innocence is watered down, and that is just another example of erosion in our democratic way of life.


----------



## MilEME09

Vance told woman behind sexual misconduct allegation to be ‘clear on our story’ in calls - National | Globalnews.ca
					

Gen. Jonathan Vance has denied asking Maj. Kellie Brennan to say anything untrue, and he has also denied any allegations of inappropriate behaviour.




					globalnews.ca
				




Oh boy, Vance's situation just keeps going down hill


----------



## Weinie

MilEME09 said:


> Vance told woman behind sexual misconduct allegation to be ‘clear on our story’ in calls - National | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> Gen. Jonathan Vance has denied asking Maj. Kellie Brennan to say anything untrue, and he has also denied any allegations of inappropriate behaviour.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy, Vance's situation just keeps going down hill


Dead man walking.


----------



## Good2Golf

Unless he just gets a warning from the Ethics Commissioner…


----------



## dimsum

Weinie said:


> Dead man walking.


----------



## OldSolduer

Good2Golf said:


> Unless he just gets a warning from the Ethics Commissioner…


No kidding. A stern warning perhaps?


----------



## CountDC

so... Fortin supposedly exposed himself in the quarters at RMC 30+ years ago according to one person and he gets removed.  Trudeau is accused, admits to the encounter and apologizes that the woman has a different recollection of events than he does so the whole thing goes away.    hmmmmm.


----------



## cavalryman

CountDC said:


> so... Fortin supposedly exposed himself in the quarters at RMC 30+ years ago according to one person and he gets removed.  Trudeau is accused, admits to the encounter and apologizes that the woman has a different recollection of events than he does so the whole thing goes away.    hmmmmm.


I suppose Trudeau could be using George Orwell's "Animal Farm" as a how-to manual.


----------



## OldSolduer

CountDC said:


> so... Fortin supposedly exposed himself in the quarters at RMC 30+ years ago according to one person and he gets removed.  Trudeau is accused, admits to the encounter and apologizes that the woman has a different recollection of events than he does so the whole thing goes away.    hmmmmm.


Such is the state of Canada these days. It may get worse.


----------



## Weinie

OldSolduer said:


> No kidding. A stern warning perhaps?


Maybe he will get thrown wuffly to the ground.


----------



## Jarnhamar

I bet Vance has a lot of dirt on people, including the LPC. 

And I bet David Lametti gets a call from the PMO, SNC style.


----------



## Weinie

Jarnhamar said:


> I bet Vance has a lot of dirt on people, including the LPC.
> 
> And I bet David Lametti gets a call from the PMO, SNC style.


There's dirt, and then there is shyte. At this point in time, Vance is up to his neck in shyte, and has little capacity to throw dirt.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> balance of probabilities



What is that, 50/50?  Lot of room for error.


----------



## brihard

When did Vance actually formally release from CAF? Was he still enrolled in early February?




MilEME09 said:


> When does MGen Fortin get his day in court? Is it after Sept 30th? If so that may be one factor into such a short campaign, can't have the trial play out during an election


I don’t believe a charge has even been laid. From when a charge is laid in a routine criminal matter, expect it to be over a year before going to trial. That would not be a consideration in electoral timing in this case.


----------



## MJP

Brad Sallows said:


> What is that, 50/50?  Lot of room for error.


That is an overly simplistic way of looking at it.  Balance of probabilities is a well developed methodology of determining the occurrence of the event was more likely than not. As we have hashed out a few times in this thread there is no need for a beyond a reasonable doubt outside of the courtroom despite what some people think


----------



## Eaglelord17

YZT580 said:


> When a jury reads its verdict do they say we find the defendant not guilty or do they say we find the defendant to be innocent?  I believe it is the former.  Once you have been accused, you are never again an innocent person.


And some people not proven guilty in a court of law are still criminals and guilty of the actions. I happen to know of more than a few CAF members who due to lack of evidence are walking free when they should be behind bars.


----------



## ballz

Brad Sallows said:


> What is that, 50/50?  Lot of room for error.



Besides that that is overly simplistic, who cares? We're not talking about putting people in legal jeopardy. We're talking about applying administrative action.

I wonder if you would volunteer to have your brain surgery performed by someone who more than likely killed someone out of criminal negligence, but the case couldn't be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" because the patient was near-death anyway and so it couldn't be proven that the rusty nail they accidentally left inside a guy's skull is what caused the death.

Sure, the guy shouldn't go to jail if it can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but he should lose his medical license.




QV said:


> Presumption of innocence is a key tenet of democracy. It is a legal and international human right.
> 
> Today the presumption of innocence is watered down, and that is just another example of erosion in our democratic way of life.



Are you seriously trying to argue that the balance of probabilities for administrative law is a violation of human rights?

Or do you have any evidence that suggests wrongful convictions have increased in the Canadian legal system?


----------



## Mick

ballz said:


> Besides that that is overly simplistic, who cares? We're not talking about putting people in legal jeopardy. We're talking about applying administrative action.
> 
> I wonder if you would volunteer to have your brain surgery performed by someone who more than likely killed someone out of criminal negligence, but the case couldn't be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" because the patient was near-death anyway and so it couldn't be proven that the rusty nail they accidentally left inside a guy's skull is what caused the death.
> 
> Sure, the guy shouldn't go to jail if it can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but he should lose his medical license.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you seriously trying to argue that the balance of probabilities for administrative law is a violation of human rights?
> 
> Or do you have any evidence that suggests wrongful convictions have increased in the Canadian legal system?


Has Admiral McDonald undergone an administrative review, or any civil proceedings yet?  If not, it may be too early to proclaim that he is, "on the balance of probabilities, guilty."


----------



## brihard

QV said:


> Presumption of innocence is a key tenet of democracy. It is a legal and international human right.
> 
> Today the presumption of innocence is watered down, and that is just another example of erosion in our democratic way of life.


Presumption of innocence applies when charged with an offense that carries some sort of judicial sanction. It’s not a concept that carries over the same way to administrative law matters, because administrative law doesn’t deal with ‘guilt’ in the sense of offences. Administrative law hinges on reasonableness and procedural fairness.

A person can do a thing that is both a criminal offense and also an administrative contravention of expected professional standards or employment requirements. Both processes can be applied to the same set of facts, and someone who is acquitted of a criminal offense can still be found on a balance of probabilities to have committed an act or omission that merits professional/regulatory sanction or is otherwise incompatible with continued employment. This is not a diminution of our Charter rights.


----------



## MJP

Mick said:


> Has Admiral McDonald undergone an administrative review, or any civil proceedings yet?  If not, it may be too early to proclaim that he is, "on the balance of probabilities, guilty."


Currently the way the system is set up we will never know as that is Pro B info.  Both Ballz and MCG have pointed out a professional board system might help close these gaps and provide closure and show the institution is doing its jobs managing people.  Right now anything beyond ST/CM is a black hole that can hide people

Sorry edit cause bad copy paste


----------



## MJP

brihard said:


> Presumption of innocence applies when charged with an offense that carries some sort of judicial sanction. It’s not a concept that carries over the same way to administrative law matters, because administrative law doesn’t deal with ‘guilt’ in the sense of offences. Administrative law hinges on reasonableness and procedural fairness.
> 
> A person can do a thing that is both a criminal offense and also an administrative contravention of expected professional standards or employment requirements. Both processes can be applied to the same set of facts, and someone who is acquitted of a criminal offense can still be found on a balance of probabilities to have committed an act or omission that merits professional/regulatory sanction or is otherwise incompatible with continued employment. This is not a diminution of our Charter rights.


Well said! The CAF needs to get better at saying get lost to people who don't follow our ethos and standards, not up the standard of judgment to beyond a reasonable doubt.


----------



## OldSolduer

Weinie said:


> There's dirt, and then there is shyte. At this point in time, Vance is up to his neck in shyte, and has little capacity to throw dirt.


Yes Mr Vance is up to his neck but I bet he knows where a few Liberal bodies are buried and Conservative ones too.


----------



## ballz

Mick said:


> Has Admiral McDonald undergone an administrative review, or any civil proceedings yet?  If not, it may be too early to proclaim that he is, "on the balance of probabilities, guilty."



I have never indicated I think he's guilty or not guilty (on the balance of probabilities). I've advocated for transparency. Do an admin review, and make it public. That's all I ask.

I don't even know what he's accused of, let alone what any of the evidence looks like. I cannot know, and therefore I can't have an informed opinion on whether he should or should not be fired. And that's not fair to me, or anyone on this thread, or any Canadian citizen... we live in a free and democratic country (apparently), we should be able to judge the government and the military accordingly.


----------



## Gunnar

> Such is the state of Canada these days. It WILL get worse.  ftfy


----------



## OldSolduer

Thank you Gunnar. 

For those of you who studied the old USSR and other oppressive regimes I'm sure you have all heard that to get ahead you had to "denounce" someone else. This is what its coming too.


----------



## Mick

ballz said:


> I have never indicated I think he's guilty or not guilty (on the balance of probabilities). I've advocated for transparency. Do an admin review, and make it public. That's all I ask.
> 
> I don't even know what he's accused of, let alone what any of the evidence looks like. I cannot know, and therefore I can't have an informed opinion on whether he should or should not be fired. And that's not fair to me, or anyone on this thread, or any Canadian citizen... we live in a free and democratic country (apparently), we should be able to judge the government and the military accordingly.


I fully agree that more transparency is needed - and I acknowledge that you haven't speculated on the Admiral's innocence or guilt (I didn't mean to imply that you had) ... but others have.

My original question up-thread re balance of probabilities up-thread was in response to this:



dapaterson said:


> How is dumping a man who, on a balance of probabilities, assaulted a subordinate, a sacrifice?



As you and others indicate, we just don't know the details.

Without transparency, it's equally difficult to justify removal or reinstatement.


----------



## ballz

MJP said:


> Well said! The CAF needs to get better at saying get lost to people who don't follow our ethos and standards, not up the standard of judgment to beyond a reasonable doubt.



I participated in Madam Arbour's ongoing review. One of the things I suggested was that the "bar" for kicking people out needs to get reset to a more appropriate standard. I assume it's because the military was always the place where society sent it's misfits, and part of the military's job was to discipline them and turn them into useful humans. So it seems we've got a culture where you've gotta commit numerous criminal acts to get kicked out. People can't even be arsed to try to hold people accountable because the CAF as an institution doesn't allow us to when we try.

One suggestion was the new standard be set, and that the Chain of Command should be able to appeal shitty DMCA decisions to the new L1 for Culture Change. That way the Culture Change L1 can help reset the bar, because the bar needs to be deliberately reset by the top.

Another suggestion is we need a far clearer policy for remedial measures / administrative actions. We need extensive examples of what constitutes an IC/RW/C&P, and done by rank (don't forget to include SNCOs and senior officers..................). You know... professional human resource policies.

And of course I advocated for amendments to the Privacy Act and the establishment of a transparent system for performance/conduct issues, such as we've been discussing on this thread.

If you kicked out the poor performers I would bet most of the harassment/sexual misconduct issues go away.


----------



## MJP

ballz said:


> I participated in Madam Arbour's ongoing review. One of the things I suggested was that the "bar" for kicking people out needs to get reset to a more appropriate standard. I assume it's because the military was always the place where society sent it's misfits, and part of the military's job was to discipline them and turn them into useful humans. So it seems we've got a culture where you've gotta commit numerous criminal acts to get kicked out. People can't even be arsed to try to hold people accountable because the CAF as an institution doesn't allow us to when we try.


I don't think that is true, we have at the tactical end kidded ourselves that is the case because really getting rid of people means work. I have done it for a number of people. I agree the bar is a bit high but it is doable.


ballz said:


> One suggestion was the new standard be set, and that the Chain of Command should be able to appeal shitty DMCA decisions to the new L1 for Culture Change. That way the Culture Change L1 can help reset the bar, because the bar needs to be deliberately reset by the top.


My experience is that DMCA isn't so much the problem as the policies we have are not clear on what the  progression of admin measures are and the thresholds. Case in point was a G1 that I greatly admire did not understand that one should not put someone on a RM and ask for a admin review, as the request for AR was the next logical step in the admin measures process not something that is to be done in tandem. Make the policies easier to understand and follow and we have a start.

On top of that DMCA only holds so much weight if a CO says they want to retain a member, then low and behold they are more than likely retained.  Goes back to that "reforming misfits thing"  you mentioned!  I have had a few great conversations with the DMCA 2 analysts and they have some great stories of cases that were slam dunk releases and in the end a unit said "nah brah we will keep them"! I had one where we did the release 5 years after a unit CO said member was salvageable (and then spent the next 5 years proving they weren't). 

There is also a good argument for the DMCA 2 functions to be pushed to the L2/3 level however that comes with some risk, something we are not good at taking


ballz said:


> Another suggestion is we need a far clearer policy for remedial measures / administrative actions. We need extensive examples of what constitutes an IC/RW/C&P, and done by rank (don't forget to include SNCOs and senior officers..................). You know... professional human resource policies.
> 
> And of course I advocated for amendments to the Privacy Act and the establishment of a transparent system for performance/conduct issues, such as we've been discussing on this thread.


Agreed, our current admin policies you need to mash together to make a complete coherent understanding, aligning them as one is a great first start


----------



## SeaKingTacco

MJP said:


> I don't think that is true, we have at the tactical end kidded ourselves that is the case because really getting rid of people means work. I have done it for a number of people. I agree the bar is a bit high but it is doable.
> 
> My experience is that DMCA isn't s much the problem as the policies we have are not clear on what progression of admin measures are and the thresholds. Case in point was a G1 that I greatly admire  did not understand that one should not put someone on a RM and ask for a admin review, as the request for AR was the next logical step in the admin measures process not something that is to be done in tandem. Make the policies easier to understand and follow and we have a start.
> 
> On top of that DMCA only holds so much weight if a CO says they want to retain a member, then low and behold they are more than likely retained.  Goes back to that "reforming misfits thing"  you mentioned!  I have had a few great conversations with the DMCA 2 analysts and they have some great stories of cases that were slam dunk releases and in the end a unit said nah brah we will keep them!
> 
> There is also a good argument for the DMCA 2 functions to be pushed to the L2/3 level however that comes with some risk, something we are not good at taking
> 
> Agreed, our current admin policies you need to mash together to make a complete coherent understanding, aligning them as one is a great first start


I have also seen the opposite- slam dunk cases where a misfit desperately needed to be separated from the CAF. But, apparently, a Captain staff officer can over rule a LCol CO and a Col WComd…

And no, the paperwork was not shoddy.

In fairness, most of these were training system issues and not (generally) DMCA decisions, but I did see one refusal to release recently that was…breathtaking.

The death knell for the CAF was a recent decision to retain everybody, no matter how bad their conduct.

Guess what- the good people won’t stay in a system where we cannot get rid of drug dealers, criminals or the patently incompetent.


----------



## MJP

SeaKingTacco said:


> I have also seen the opposite- slam dunk cases where a misfit desperately needed to be separated from the CAF. But, apparently, a Captain staff officer can over rule a LCol CO and a Col WComd…
> 
> And no, the paperwork was not shoddy.
> 
> In fairness, most of these were training system issues and not (generally) DMCA decisions, but I did see one refusal to release recently that was…breathtaking.
> 
> The death knell for the CAF was a recent decision to retain everybody, no matter how bad their conduct.
> 
> Guess what- the good people won’t stay in a system where we cannot get rid of drug dealers, criminals or the patently incompetent.


That is interesting and not in a good way. The training side of releases is much more frustrating IMHO as the staff(s) are not as good as what one finds at DMCA 2.  

I am certainly not defending DMCA 2 as they have made some silly decisions, funny enough the more senior the person the sillier the decision. I just find that most problems originate with the unit unwilling to do the work (albeit more work than what should be needed)


----------



## SeaKingTacco

MJP said:


> That is interesting and not in a good way. The training side of releases is much more frustrating IMHO as the staff(s) are not as good as what one finds at DMCA 2.
> 
> I am certainly not defending DMCA 2 as they have made some silly decisions, funny enough the more senior the person the sillier the decision. I just find that most problems originate with the unit unwilling to do the work (albeit more work than what should be needed)


Look, analysts are humans and have good days and bad days. I assume this one recent decision was a bad day.…


----------



## Maxman1

CountDC said:


> so... Fortin supposedly exposed himself in the quarters at RMC 30+ years ago according to one person and he gets removed.  Trudeau is accused, admits to the encounter and apologizes that the woman has a different recollection of events than he does so the whole thing goes away.    hmmmmm.



And appears in blackface more times than he can remember, but it's something _we _can learn from, as if it's somehow our fault he wears blackface.


----------



## hattrick72

OldSolduer said:


> Thank you Gunnar.
> 
> For those of you who studied the old USSR and other oppressive regimes I'm sure you have all heard that to get ahead you had to "denounce" someone else. This is what its coming too.


Mass psychosis


----------



## Weinie

ballz said:


> If you kicked out the poor performers I would bet most of the harassment/sexual misconduct issues go away.



Jon Vance was never a poor performer, nor were several other of the GOFO's who are currently in the doghouse. It is not a question of poor performance, it is a question of morals/ethics, and judgement. Included with that is a sense of entitlement and impunity. There are good GOFO's and bad ones, and good Ptes, and bad ones.


----------



## Weinie

hattrick72 said:


> Mass psychosis


QUOTE="OldSolduer, post: 1677179, member: 28243"]
Thank you Gunnar. 

For those of you who studied the old USSR and other oppressive regimes I'm sure you have all heard that to get ahead you had to "denounce" someone else. This is what its coming too.
[/QUOTE]
I denounce the guy who keeps walking his dog by my house and his dog keeps pissing on my lawn. (P.S. I may have also yelled at him)


----------



## ballz

Weinie said:


> Jon Vance was never a poor performer, nor were several other of the GOFO's who are currently in the doghouse. It is not a question of poor performance, it is a question of morals/ethics, and judgement. Included with that is a sense of entitlement and impunity. There are good GOFO's and bad ones, and good Ptes, and bad ones.



Like I said, "most." While GOFOs are in the news due to their ranks, they're an an extremely small percentage of the CAF's demographic. If GOFOs were the only people causing the problems, we wouldn't actually have that many occurrences, there just isn't enough of them.

I have no data to back it up (hence why I said I'd bet on it), but my observation is that most of the people making other people's lives miserable are also incompetent. Not a surprise if you really think it through. Someone who is incompetent lacks logic, reasoning, problem solving skills, good judgement, etc. Those things affect your ability to navigate all problems including ones of a moral or ethical nature.

It shouldn't be a surprise that when we promote someone who is in over there head as a Corporal or Captain to SNCO or senior officer, that when faced with the even more difficult problems that are inherent to more leadership responsibilities (such as moral or ethical), they end up making the wrong decision more often than someone who is competent.

So I'm not arguing that it's a question of poor performance, I'm arguing I think poor performance and toxicity are correlated. The ones who are hyper competent and toxic won't be weeded out by holding them to account for job performance but I believe they are a minority of the problem. That's where the 360 degree leadership assessments and some other methods are vital.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> That is an overly simplistic way of looking at it.  Balance of probabilities is a well developed methodology of determining the occurrence of the event was more likely than not. As we have hashed out a few times in this thread there is no need for a beyond a reasonable doubt outside of the courtroom despite what some people think



"more likely than not" is, in effect, "50/50", whether the latter is "simplistic" and the former is (somehow?) "not simplistic".

I just went through a round of reading about how some people in the business (judges and lawyers) are thinking "proof beyond reasonable doubt" needs rework (less "simplistic", I suppose), so "balance of probabilities is a well developed methodology" is a phrase that landed just a bit too late to be more than a punch line.

At the core is the assumption that, if the punishment/harm is below some threshold of severity, it's OK to have a substantial measure of doubt or a weak proof.  Needs revisiting.  I suppose the reason it passes muster for now is that the frequency of decisions at the 50/50 mark are low.

We can't undo harm to a victim (we can compensate/mitigate, somewhat).  We also can't undo harm to an innocent.  What we can do is wait until we satisfy greater weights of evidence.


----------



## PuckChaser




----------



## ballz

Brad Sallows said:


> At the core is the assumption that, if the punishment/harm is below some threshold of severity, it's OK to have a substantial measure of doubt or a weak proof. Needs revisiting.  I suppose the reason it passes muster for now is that the frequency of decisions at the 50/50 mark are low.



I don't agree that that is the core of the assumption, however, it is also absolutely ridiculous to suggest a piece of paper like an initial counselling that says "your performance is not up to standard" is punitive and should require the same standard of proof as a murder case. It's only punitive to people who are emotionally fragile and need to grow up.

If I own a business, and pay someone for their labour, I should absolutely be able to make the judgement on whether or not I want to continue that relationship. I shouldn't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this guy is defrauding my business, putting me in a place where I have to pay him a huge severance to get rid of him or potentially face legal action, just to cut ties with him. If I can establish that he is probably defrauding me, that's enough. At the core of this is freedom of association. It would violate my right to associate with whomever if I'm now going to be forced into continuing a relationship that I don't want with this person.

I should not be forced by law to let this employee ruin me, my livelihood, and my business, when all I want to do is cut ties with him. Again, it's not a punishment, I'm not "doing harm" to the guy, you're painting it that way and it's just not the case. There is nothing punitive about my choice to no longer want an employer/employee relationship with this person. Sure, it may have secondary consequences for the person, but I'm not punishing them, that's just how freedom of association works and thank god for that.

All of that is applicable whether it's a sole proprietor, corporation, or the Crown.

You were the one arguing how we don't need they additional measures forced upon COs who haven't demonstrated that they've failed to use the administrative actions / discipline appropriately. Now you're talking about removing their ability to actually use their judgement to determine what most likely occurred and dealing with it.


----------



## Weinie

PuckChaser said:


>


Sigh, but I live in Ottawa, and as satisfying as that approach would be, and likely effective, the thought of being in the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Center and having my kids visit means that my only option is yelling.


----------



## daftandbarmy

ballz said:


> Like I said, "most." While GOFOs are in the news due to their ranks, they're an an extremely small percentage of the CAF's demographic. If GOFOs were the only people causing the problems, we wouldn't actually have that many occurrences, there just isn't enough of them.
> 
> I have no data to back it up (hence why I said I'd bet on it), but my observation is that most of the people making other people's lives miserable are also incompetent. Not a surprise if you really think it through. Someone who is incompetent lacks logic, reasoning, problem solving skills, good judgement, etc. Those things affect your ability to navigate all problems including ones of a moral or ethical nature.
> 
> It shouldn't be a surprise that when we promote someone who is in over there head as a Corporal or Captain to SNCO or senior officer, that when faced with the even more difficult problems that are inherent to more leadership responsibilities (such as moral or ethical), they end up making the wrong decision more often than someone who is competent.
> 
> So I'm not arguing that it's a question of poor performance, I'm arguing I think poor performance and toxicity are correlated. The ones who are hyper competent and toxic won't be weeded out by holding them to account for job performance but I believe they are a minority of the problem. That's where the 360 degree leadership assessments and some other methods are vital.



My informal and data poor estimate is that there are alot of poor performers who are not necessarily ethically bankrupt.

On the other hand, many high performers seem to be sociopaths.

But I'm prone to making snap judgments:


----------



## McG

And other professions also use balance of probabilities to publicly administer discipline. There is nothing controversial here.



			https://www.apega.ca/docs/default-source/pdfs/discipline-decisions/discipline/2019-02-14-apega-discipline-decision-17-015-fh.pdf?sfvrsn=50369a86_2


----------



## Brad Sallows

If you own a business, you're on the hook for whatever it costs to develop and retain employees.  There's nothing wrong with a right to release anyone for no reason at all; you are responsible for the costs.  People released can apply for work elsewhere, including the same kind of work.

Those who don't own a business and have a free hand to impose discipline can create liabilities for those who do own the business.  Politicians and government employees fit that description.  Taxpayers have an arguable claim to being able to seek and retain employment in anything publicly owned.  Professional institutions are a bit different, not being directly an employer but having the power of denying someone a line of employment entirely.  People in those institutions have no right of association they may exercise against anyone they please.  So there have to be rules to prevent people who don't bear costs from imposing costs on others inappropriately.



> You were the one arguing how we don't need they additional measures forced upon COs who haven't demonstrated that they've failed to use the administrative actions / discipline appropriately.



Yes.



> Now you're talking about removing their ability to actually use their judgement to determine what most likely occurred and dealing with it.



No.  My point is that the threshold of proof should be higher (the "appropriately" condition) for exercising one side of that judgement.  I don't care if it's hard.  I don't care if the people who want to see some punishment don't get to see as much punishment.

Suppose we had a quantitative measure of proof (likelihood of guilt, as a percentage) and could measure all disputes with it.  I suspect there are trivial numbers of vexatious or ill-founded complaints that people bring to bear, and few where the evidence is really weak.   I guess that plotting many cases would produce a lopsided distribution, leaning strongly towards 100% with a rapid drop off before 50% and a very narrow tail from there down to 0%.  If the rapid drop off occurred, say, at 75%, then the burden of proof could be raised from balance of probability to 70/30 (proof/disproof) without materially benefiting most actually guilty persons.  But it would provide a lot more protection for not actually guilty persons.  It should also reduce false or contrived disputes, allowing more resources to be directed to disputes with substance (or more resources to not be expended at all).


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Brad Sallows said:


> What is that, 50/50?  Lot of room for error.



There's actually a bit of misconception in the thread of "standard of proof" in CAF Admin Law.

From A-LG-007-000/AF-010, Ch 2, Sect 4 Procedural Fairness in the CF:

Standard of proof for decision makers

52. Those CF personnel who have completed the Presiding Officer Certification Training (POCT) course have been exposed to the concept of applying a ‘standard of proof’ when making a decision with significant consequences to the subject of the decision. As emphasized in that course, an individual cannot be convicted of a criminal or service offence unless the presiding officer is convinced “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the accused committed the offence.  In civil cases, the standard is somewhat lower (i.e., the decision-maker(s) must be satisfied on a ‘balance of probabilities’ that an incident occurred). An equivalent phrase that is used is ‘based on the preponderance of evidence.’ Generally, this is the standard that is to be applied in most administrative decisions.

53. There is an intermediate standard of proof, falling between the criminal standard and the civil standard, that applies to decisions that are administrative in nature but, nevertheless, have serious implications for the individual:

The standard of proof required in cases such as this is high.  It is not the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But it is something more than a bare balance of probabilities. The authorities establish that the case against a professional person on a disciplinary hearing must be proved by a fair and reasonable preponderance of credible evidence. The evidence must be sufficiently cogent to make it safe to uphold the findings, with all of the consequences for the professional person’s career and status in the community [having been taken into account].

Certain types of CF administrative decisions with serious adverse consequences to a CF member, such as release for involvement with drugs, must be based on clear and convincing evidence.

Also, Ch 14 also states "I_n general, as the potential consequences of an administrative action become more severe, the member’s entitlement to procedural fairness increases_".  The cases with the GOFO rank mbr's in the news recently would all fall into the 'severe' category IMO.


----------



## ballz

Brad Sallows said:


> If you own a business, you're on the hook for whatever it costs to develop and retain employees.  There's nothing wrong with a right to release anyone for no reason at all; you are responsible for the costs.  People released can apply for work elsewhere, including the same kind of work.
> 
> Those who don't own a business and have a free hand to impose discipline can create liabilities for those who do own the business.  Politicians and government employees fit that description.



Glad we're on the same page so far.



Brad Sallows said:


> Taxpayers have an arguable claim to being able to seek and *retain* employment in anything publicly owned.



Here's where you lose me.

The government is no different than a corporation and Canadian citizens are shareholders who get a vote on who leads it. We elect the board (Parliament), and the Board on our behalf selects the C-suite executives (Cabinet). The board and the C-suite runs the corporation as effectively as possible. That includes hiring employees, promoting some, and discarding others who are not of net positive value.

No one, by virtue of being a shareholder, is entitled to employment with that corporation. Sure, they can seek employment there like anyone else, but if they get hired and suck, being a shareholder doesn't protect you from being fired. The government or corporation also owes it to it's shareholders not to keep dead weight or net-negative contributors around.



Brad Sallows said:


> Professional institutions are a bit different, not being directly an employer but having the power of denying someone a line of employment entirely.  People in those institutions have no right of association they may exercise against anyone they please.  So there have to be rules to prevent people who don't bear costs from imposing costs on others inappropriately.



Professional bodies are private entities. They are providing a service to their members by ensuring a certain standard of skill and conduct, which gives the member something of marketable value in the private sector. They're also providing a service to the public, but the public pays for that then pay for the services of said members.

If you want to be part of that professional body, you are choosing to meet their standards, join their organization, and adhere their standards, so that you can benefit from that marketable brand. Everyone in that profession is associated with one another. An engineer has lots to lose from being associated with, via their professional body, another engineer who has caused a bridge to collapse due to negligence.

If you are removed from that professional body, that doesn't deny you any "line of employment entirely." There are other professional bodies, and if not, you can go create your own. That some government's have legislated only certain professional bodies can perform certain work is a product of that profession's success. But there is nothing stopping anyone else from starting their own professional body and convincing voters that they, too, can provide an adequate, or the same, or better standard. And there is nothing stopping voters to choose one, some, or no professional organizations that are allowed to do certain work.

So yes, your argument that the professional body doesn't bear the costs of it's member's negligence is just wrong. If you don't like the membership's standards or the way it's governing itself, vote for new executives, or run to be an executive, or leave and start your own designation. But that professional body is governing and maintaining that standard on the membership's behalf because they all stand to lose if the standard slips and the public loses confidence in that profession. It was less than 10 years ago we had three different professional bodies for accountants in Canada, all in competition with one another. If CPA Canada sucks, it can go right back to that.

Of course, the issue the CAF has is there is no other military in Canada to compete with. If there was, the CAF would probably get its shit together and start dumping the dead weight real quick.



Brad Sallows said:


> Suppose we had a quantitative measure of proof (likelihood of guilt, as a percentage) and could measure all disputes with it.  I suspect there are trivial numbers of vexatious or ill-founded complaints that people bring to bear, and few where the evidence is really weak.   I guess that plotting many cases would produce a lopsided distribution, leaning strongly towards 100% with a rapid drop off before 50% and a very narrow tail from there down to 0%.  If the rapid drop off occurred, say, at 75%, then the burden of proof could be raised from balance of probability to 70/30 (proof/disproof) without materially benefiting most actually guilty persons.  But it would provide a lot more protection for not actually guilty persons.  It should also reduce false or contrived disputes, allowing more resources to be directed to disputes with substance (or more resources to not be expended at all).



While it'd be great to be able to quantify, we obviously can't. If you want to advocate for a different standard than balance of probabilities for administrative law issues, such as reason I dunno, "any reasonable person would conclude..." or something, still going to have subjectivity.

And then the standard that's being upheld is subjective too. You can raise the burden of proof, but if I have a different standard of what's "professional" than you do, the burden of proof. For example, the CAF's "values and expected behaviors," someone could be put on remedial measures for not meeting this: "1.4 Acting in such a way as to maintain DND’s and the CF’s trust, as well as that of their peers, supervisors and subordinates."

The evidence can be clear cut, it could be on video of someone, I dunno, publicly berating a subordinates behavior to correct it on the spot, in the moment it happened (and perhaps that was necessary), but there is a question of whether it crossed the line into belittling/bullying. You may feel that this is not a behavior undermines trust whereas I feel it does.... you may think it warrants nothing, I think IC, someone else thinks it severe enough to warrant an RW, someone else says C&P.

In any case, if you want to debate what's an appropriate burden of proof for administrative law, sure, that's a worthy debate. But people need to stop bring in nonsense such as human rights, calling things "punishments" and throwing words like "harm" around, or trying to opine that a professional body and it's membership doesn't have a vested interested in the conduct of it's membership.


I can't help but feel all the gripes in this thread and the seemingly defense of Adm McDonald despite no one knowing anything about the case are a knee-jerk reaction to wanting to fight back against cancel culture. I, too, despise cancel culture, but there's an easy solution to fight cancel culture..... a transparent process. Then we can actually judge the fairness of the process. Even if you make it "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," they could still kick out Adm McDonald and we'd still have no idea if it was fair / proper or not. So I don't even know why we're on this tangent.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> The government is no different than a corporation and Canadian citizens are shareholders who get a vote on who leads it.



Vast gulf of difference between paying taxes and owning shares.  Also, people who pay no taxes but meet other criteria may vote.



> So yes, your argument that the professional body doesn't bear the costs of it's member's negligence is just wrong.



I mean the costs imposed by people who get it into their heads that they're doing the right thing by making a judgement against someone else.  I remain unconvinced that some people today are not letting their "priors" influence decisions, including about whether to bring the weight of process against someone.  People have been using processes to f* over other people for as long as processes have existed.

When someone's employment is screwed over a questionable judgement, that's "harm".

If qualitative thresholds like "preponderance of evidence" might translate quantitatively as 70% or higher, that's a much better starting position than "more likely than not".



> So I don't even know why we're on this tangent.



Maybe because people refer to "more likely than not" as the alternative to "beyond reasonable doubt", when really the former yardstick is not in use anywhere and higher standards are customarily in use.

The essential meaning of presumed innocence is that "Avoid harm to the innocent" >> "Ensure sanction of the guilty"; it's a principle important enough to apply everywhere, not just in criminal proceedings.


----------



## ballz

Brad Sallows said:


> Vast gulf of difference between paying taxes and owning shares.  Also, people who pay no taxes but meet other criteria may vote.



Not in the context of an employer/employee relationship, which is what we're talking about.



Brad Sallows said:


> I mean the costs imposed by people who get it into their heads that they're doing the right thing by making a judgement against someone else.  I remain unconvinced that some people today are not letting their "priors" influence decisions, including about whether to bring the weight of process against someone.  People have been using processes to f* over other people for as long as processes have existed.



Oh good, now we've gone from trying to ensure fairness to demonizing the very concept of having a process. We create and improve processes and try and eliminate the opportunity for human bias to enter the equation. No, it doesn't work perfectly, it never will, but it sure is working better than when we had nothing at all. What is your alternative, or are you just yelling at the sky now?



Brad Sallows said:


> Maybe because people refer to "more likely than not" as the alternative to "beyond reasonable doubt", when really the former yardstick is not in use anywhere and higher standards are customarily in use.



The balance of probabilities is the legal standard used in many places.



Brad Sallows said:


> The essential meaning of presumed innocence is that "Avoid harm to the innocent" >> "Ensure sanction of the guilty"; it's a principle important enough to apply everywhere, not just in criminal proceedings.



And yet in your previous post you agreed someone should be able to fire someone for any reason. When you figure out what it is you actually think, let me know.

Colorless green ideas sleep furiously - that's for damn sure.


----------



## Maxman1

Weinie said:


> Sigh, but I live in Ottawa, and as satisfying as that approach would be, and likely effective, the thought of being in the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Center and having my kids visit means that my only option is yelling.



Sounds like that guy is a real


----------



## Brad Sallows

I agree that the business owner should have that right.  Always have.  And I argue for more restraints and guiderails for people who make decisions without necessarily bearing the costs of decisions.  If you weight those two sets of people equally, then I understand your confusion.  But I don't.  So I know exactly what I actually think.

Acknowledging that process can be abused isn't demonizing process.  But it's a prerequisite for understanding that process can be improved.  I suppose you've never seen people abuse process.  I have.  "Administrative burden", "problem child".  Different names.  Same general idea.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Brad Sallows said:


> If you own a business, you're on the hook for whatever it costs to develop and retain employees.  There's nothing wrong with a right to release anyone for no reason at all; you are responsible for the costs.  People released can apply for work elsewhere, including the same kind of work.
> 
> Those who don't own a business and have a free hand to impose discipline can create liabilities for those who do own the business.  Politicians and government employees fit that description.



I own a business.

If any of my employees don't want to get vaccinated, that's fine by me. And I will gladly help them to find employment elsewhere should they need assistance.

Fortunately, so far, everyone (like me) is overjoyed and being able to get a 'double shot'.


----------



## MilEME09

daftandbarmy said:


> I own a business.
> 
> If any of my employees don't want to get vaccinated, that's fine by me. And I will gladly help them to find employment elsewhere should they need assistance.
> 
> Fortunately, so far, everyone (like me) is overjoyed and being able to get a 'double shot'.


The company I work for, while respecting people's right to choose, also is in a tough spot because our clients are now requesting our specialists going into their facilities are fully vaccinated. Creates a tough spot for the company if someone doesn't want the vaccine.


----------



## daftandbarmy

MilEME09 said:


> The company I work for, while respecting people's right to choose, also is in a tough spot because our clients are now requesting our specialists going into their facilities are fully vaccinated. Creates a tough spot for the company if someone doesn't want the vaccine.



Sounds easy to me. Get vaccinated or get out. We've got clients who need us!


----------



## daftandbarmy

Weinie said:


> QUOTE="OldSolduer, post: 1677179, member: 28243"]
> Thank you Gunnar.
> 
> For those of you who studied the old USSR and other oppressive regimes I'm sure you have all heard that to get ahead you had to "denounce" someone else. This is what its coming too.


I denounce the guy who keeps walking his dog by my house and his dog keeps pissing on my lawn. (P.S. I may have also yelled at him)
[/QUOTE]

The Yard Enforcer is available at Walmart.

Just sayin' 



			Robot or human?


----------



## suffolkowner

Weinie said:


> Jon Vance was never a poor performer, nor were several other of the GOFO's who are currently in the doghouse. It is not a question of poor performance, it is a question of morals/ethics, and judgement. Included with that is a sense of entitlement and impunity. There are good GOFO's and bad ones, and good Ptes, and bad ones.


What performance metrics are we using for evaluation? I would not take an individuals promotion up a hierachy as evidence of superior performance. Is there evidence for that anywhere, from any institution? How can one possibly divorce questions of morals/ethics and judgement from a leadership and/or management position? What proportion of the Armed Forces Council has been caught under this cloud of suspicion? Not sexually abusing or harassing someone should be a very low bar and the minimum for membership. It appears to almost be the opposite where one doesn't get to be promoted unless one is an abuser/harasser.


----------



## suffolkowner

daftandbarmy said:


> Sounds easy to me. Get vaccinated or get out. We've got clients who need us!


Although this is a tangent I don't see how in the private world one can mandate vaccination, particularly of vaccines that only have approval for emergency use. We are talking about the deliberate introduction of a foreign non self biological entity into a persons body


----------



## ballz

MJP said:


> My experience is that DMCA isn't so much the problem as the policies we have are not clear on what the  progression of admin measures are and the thresholds. Case in point was a G1 that I greatly admire did not understand that one should not put someone on a RM and ask for a admin review, as the request for AR was the next logical step in the admin measures process not something that is to be done in tandem. Make the policies easier to understand and follow and we have a start.



While it seems pretty clear to me in the DAOD that this is the case, I know of one case where DMCA was asked and concurred, and then the DMCA analyst used that against them in the AR... Member had already been placed on C&P for something, then it came to light after it was over that they had in fact broken the term so of that C&P, so an AR was sent up. The analyst stated that since they didn't put the member on C&P for the latter incident, it showed the CoC obviously didn't think it was that big of a deal.... helloooooo, they initiated a f**king AR for release.

So if DMCA can't keep its story straight, how can we?


----------



## dapaterson

Almost like SSE's commitment to have pros doing HR is a good idea (as opposed to the current model of a posting message magically making someone an expert).

"To deliver dedicated professional and personalized support to all Canadian Armed Forces members, including those in transition, the Canadian Armed Forces will re-establish a Personnel Administration Branch of experts in military human resources management."


----------



## MJP

ballz said:


> While it seems pretty clear to me in the DAOD that this is the case, I know of one case where DMCA was asked and concurred, and then the DMCA analyst used that against them in the AR... Member had already been placed on C&P for something, then it came to light after it was over that they had in fact broken the term so of that C&P, so an AR was sent up. The analyst stated that since they didn't put the member on C&P for the latter incident, it showed the CoC obviously didn't think it was that big of a deal.... helloooooo, they initiated a f**king AR for release.
> 
> So if DMCA can't keep its story straight, how can we?


Yikes, that would be frustrating from a unit level.  Can say that DMCA has been consistent in it messaging for the 2ish years I dealt with them on this regard. My contention is that we can eliminate much of this by aligning all the administrative measures in one omnibus DAOD


----------



## ballz

dapaterson said:


> Almost like SSE's commitment to have pros doing HR is a good idea (as opposed to the current model of a posting message magically making someone an expert).
> 
> "To deliver dedicated professional and personalized support to all Canadian Armed Forces members, including those in transition, the Canadian Armed Forces will re-establish a Personnel Administration Branch of experts in military human resources management."



A posting message... or having them retire and them hiring them back as public servants, putting them permanently in those positions where they can continue being a plague forever. I've got a few names from DCBA in mind that seem to keep popping up in my emails that have been reinventing the English language to suit their mental gymnastics.

I'm sure now that we've now got HRAs we will magically develop HR expertise... just like it's working for the FSAs to develop financial expertise /sarcasm.



MJP said:


> Yikes, that would be frustrating from a unit level.  Can say that DMCA has been consistent in it messaging for the 2ish years I dealt with them on this regard. My contention is that we can eliminate much of this by aligning all the administrative measures in one omnibus DAOD



Would have been nice if they have some appeal route........


----------



## MJP

ballz said:


> Would have been nice if they have some appeal route........


They do, although it is via grievance which is slow and doesn't help someone that is given a release that is effective in 30/60 days (at least in the short to medium term).  It can get overturned at the IA/FA and the mbr be re-instated but that is rare.  On the other hand, it is not a fast process and the member gets procedural fairness with the ability to state their case through representation during two stages (NOI to release at unit level & during the disclosure process of the AR process)

TBH though barring huge unit fugdgery (not unknown) most files that get sent that way probably deserve to be released, we hold on to too many people that have continual conduct issues.


----------



## ballz

MJP said:


> They do, although it is via grievance which is slow and doesn't help someone that is given a release that is effective in 30/60 days (at least in the short to medium term).  It can get overturned at the IA/FA and the mbr be re-instated but that is rare.  On the other hand, it is not a fast process and the member gets procedural fairness with the ability to state their case through representation during two stages (NOI to release at unit level & during the disclosure process of the AR process)
> 
> TBH though barring huge unit fugdgery (not unknown) most files that get sent that way probably deserve to be released, we hold on to too many people that have continual conduct issues.



I meant an appeal route for the CoC to appeal DMCA's decision to retain the member, like I was talking about in my recommendations for Madam Arbour. Member had been convicted of numerous service offences plus the remedial measures that resulted.


----------



## MJP

ballz said:


> I meant an appeal route for the CoC to appeal DMCA's decision to retain the member, like I was talking about in my recommendations for Madam Arbour. Member had been convicted of numerous service offences plus the remedial measures that resulted.


Ahh sorry I am slow and maybe overly  conditioned to have to defend getting rid of people 

It would be interesting to see. The funny part is you in many cases you could just add all the transgressions from the time of initial submission (or update to DMCA 2) and likely get rid of many of people that way  On a more serious note it would mean that DMCA would have to change you adjudicates on a file if the process stays internal to them as from my understanding DMCA proper makes the final decision on each file (at least on the misconduct side). That however is from discussing with the analysts there so there may be shades of nuance to it.  Regardless, it is an interesting idea!


----------



## dapaterson

Apparently MGen Fortin is to be charged tomorrow:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1427763191942111238


----------



## brihard

Holy crap.


----------



## dapaterson

CBC story (being updated):



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/dany-fortin-sexual-assault-charge-1.6144315?__vfz=medium%3Dsharebar


----------



## dapaterson

In other news, there's an Honorary Colonel / Colonel of the Regiment credibly accused of pedophilia and sexual assault, yet no action has been taken to dismiss him...









						Queen Elizabeth Warns Press Photographers to Stay Away From Balmoral—and Prince Andrew
					

Lawyers acting for the queen wrote to major British newspapers warning them against taking or publishing pictures of the royals at Balmoral the same day that Andrew arrived there.



					www.thedailybeast.com


----------



## MilEME09

Sometime between Jan 1 and April 30th 1988? Prosecution is going to have an uphill battle with that big of a window.


----------



## dapaterson

MilEME09 said:


> Sometime between Jan 1 and April 30th 1988? Prosecution is going to have an uphill battle with that big of a window.



Those are dates as reported by the defence, in advance of the charges being formally laid.  Presumably the prosecution will be somewhat more precise.


----------



## FJAG

dapaterson said:


> Those are dates as reported by the defence, in advance of the charges being formally laid.  Presumably the prosecution will be somewhat more precise.


My guess is that the defence would report nothing more than what the prosecution has told them to date.

🍻


----------



## Jarnhamar

Lawyer questions timing of charge against Maj.-Gen. Dany Fortin​








						Lawyer questions timing of charge against Maj.-Gen. Dany Fortin
					

The senior military officer who oversaw Canada’s vaccine rollout campaign is poised to be charged with one count of sexual assault, though one of his lawyers is raising questions about the timing of that decision in relation to the federal election.




					www.nationalobserver.com
				





Come on, the LPC wouldn't politically interfere in something twice in a row.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Jarnhamar said:


> Lawyer questions timing of charge against Maj.-Gen. Dany Fortin​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lawyer questions timing of charge against Maj.-Gen. Dany Fortin
> 
> 
> The senior military officer who oversaw Canada’s vaccine rollout campaign is poised to be charged with one count of sexual assault, though one of his lawyers is raising questions about the timing of that decision in relation to the federal election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nationalobserver.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come on, the LPC wouldn't politically interfere in something twice in a row.


I don’t know how much influence the LPC has on the provincial prosecutor in Quebec…


----------



## Jarnhamar

Which makes the accusation they'd do it twice in a row all the more ridiculous


----------



## OldSolduer

SeaKingTacco said:


> I don’t know how much influence the LPC has on the provincial prosecutor in Quebec…


Politics makes strange bedfellows or MAYBE my tin foil hat is screwed on too tightly.....


----------



## Good2Golf

OldSolduer said:


> Politics makes strange bedfellows or MAYBE my tin foil hat is screwed on too tightly.....


No, it fits just right….never underestimate motivation when the Venn diagrams for two different group’s “Win” circle have enough overlap.


----------



## OldSolduer

Good2Golf said:


> No, it fits just right….never underestimate motivation when the Venn diagrams for two different group’s “Win” circle have enough overlap.


Hey INFANTREEE here wtf is a Venn diagram and red crayons please.


----------



## Good2Golf

Where a red crayon touches a blue crayon and makes a purple smudge.  LPC = red crayon. QC prosecutors = blue crayon.  Purple smudge is them jointly going after Mgen Fortin.


----------



## dimsum

OldSolduer said:


> Hey INFANTREEE here wtf is a Venn diagram and red crayons please.


----------



## YZT580

brihard said:


> When did Vance actually formally release from CAF? Was he still enrolled in early February?
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t believe a charge has even been laid. From when a charge is laid in a routine criminal matter, expect it to be over a year before going to trial. That would not be a consideration in electoral timing in this case.


But then again there is always the possibility of answering a reporter's question.


MilEME09 said:


> Sometime between Jan 1 and April 30th 1988? Prosecution is going to have an uphill battle with that big of a window.


and 33 years to boot.  How is your memory for what happened 33 years ago?  I can't see any possibility of there existing any credible evidence.  But what possible motive could there be for it happening now?


----------



## brihard

YZT580 said:


> But then again there is always the possibility of answering a reporter's question.
> 
> and 33 years to boot.  How is your memory for what happened 33 years ago?  I can't see any possibility of there existing any credible evidence.  But what possible motive could there be for it happening now?


I can’t and won’t speculate on the specific case. I will say that cases coming out of the woodwork like this are rare but not unheard of. There could be contemporaneous diary entries, a victim may have told a close friend or confidant who is still around to corroborate... there are many variables. For crown to approve charges means they believe there is a “reasonable prospect of conviction”. They will not lay charges lightly in an historical investigation such as this one.


----------



## Good2Golf

brihard said:


> I can’t and won’t speculate on the specific case. I will say that cases coming out of the woodwork like this are rare but not unheard of. There could be contemporaneous diary entries, a victim may have told a close friend or confidant who is still around to corroborate... there are many variables. For crown to approve charges means they believe there is a “reasonable prospect of conviction”. They will not lay charges lightly in an historical investigation such as this one.


Is the Crown charging him, or the Fleur de Lis?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Good2Golf said:


> Is the Crown charging him, or the Fleur de Lis?


Not sure of your distinction, but he was charged in Gatineau. This is being handled civvy side, in Quebec by the province, implying (to me, anyway) either there is no military nexus or that the law was such in 1988 that you have to roll things back to who had jurisdiction then.


----------



## brihard

It would be provincial crown who laid the charges. For normal criminal stuff, provincial crown handle it everywhere except the territories.


----------



## Good2Golf

SeaKingTacco said:


> Not sure of your distinction, but he was charged in Gatineau. This is being handled civvy side, in Quebec by the province, implying (to me, anyway) either there is no military nexus or that the law was such in 1988 that you have to roll things back to who had jurisdiction then.


Was wondering more if it’s actually called ‘The Crown’ in Quebec?


----------



## MilEME09

Defense will likely argue something over the fact Fortin has been getting more information from the media then he has the prosecution


----------



## brihard

MilEME09 said:


> Defense will likely argue something over the fact Fortin has been getting more information from the media then he has the prosecution


No, there’s nothing to argue there. It’s pure theatrics. There’s no onus of disclosure until charges are laid and that only just happened. It’s completely normal for that to still take some time, with crown being mindful of the timeline established in _Jordan_. In this case, the crown has 18 months starting with the laying of charges to move the file fully through the justice system.

it was a very... surprising, and perhaps unwise course of acting for him to begin civil proceedings before making sure there was to be nothing criminal. This just put a pin in his judicial review application. His counsel had to know this was a major risk. I’m curious as to what their rationale was.


----------



## FJAG

brihard said:


> No, there’s nothing to argue there. It’s pure theatrics. There’s no onus of disclosure until charges are laid and that only just happened. It’s completely normal for that to still take some time, with crown being mindful of the timeline established in _Jordan_. In this case, the crown has 18 months starting with the laying of charges to move the file fully through the justice system.
> 
> it was a very... surprising, and perhaps unwise course of acting for him to begin civil proceedings before making sure there was to be nothing criminal. This just put a pin in his judicial review application. His counsel had to know this was a major risk. I’m curious as to what their rationale was.


At the time that the application was filed there had been no requirement for disclosure as you rightfully point out. The application was one way to flush that disclosure out. With the criminal charges now filed, disclosure will be available and will help Fortin in the application process.

The filing of charges changes nothing vis a vis the application. He will still be able to test the case to see if he was denied due process in the decision to relieve him. The filing of charges does not strengthen the government's case in respect to Fortin's presumption of innocence.

My guess is that the application itself did nothing to hasten the laying of charges. As has been pointed out above, there are separate federal and provincial agencies involved here and should each be moving according to their own timelines ... unless there is some undue pressure going on behind the scenes. I'm not a conspiracy theorist by nature but I have little faith in the current Fed administration.

🍻


----------



## CountDC

undue pressure - conspiracy   hmmmmm   maybe someone has an eye on a liberal fed seat and this is a  big step in the door.    

Just a random thought.   ouch, tinfoil pinches.


----------



## MilEME09

Looks like Fortins civil case is going ahead as well









						Dany Fortin's lawyers cite Hajdu interview comment in court fight over his firing
					

Fortin's lawyers allege political interference by the Liberal government in the decision to remove him from his post




					nationalpost.com


----------



## dimsum

Vance will not face military service charges; source cites his four-star rank - National | Globalnews.ca
					

Former Supreme Court justice Morris Fish in June warned it is 'legally impossible' under current rules for court-martial panels to try someone of Gen. Jonathan Vance's rank.




					globalnews.ca


----------



## daftandbarmy

dimsum said:


> Vance will not face military service charges; source cites his four-star rank - National | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> Former Supreme Court justice Morris Fish in June warned it is 'legally impossible' under current rules for court-martial panels to try someone of Gen. Jonathan Vance's rank.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> globalnews.ca



Personal Injury Lawyers be like....


----------



## MilEME09

Pretty sure we collectively came to the same conclusion, but it shows how broken our system is thst if the CDS breaks the CSD, they are essentially immune


----------



## SeaKingTacco

MilEME09 said:


> Pretty sure we collectively came to the same conclusion, but it shows how broken our system is thst if the CDS breaks the CSD, they are essentially immune


So, not quite.

A CDS is essentially immune to a charge under the NDA, but I think we all sub-consciously knew that, even without Justice Fish’s help.

They are not immune to a charge under the CCC, however.

When you think about it, that is about right. Somebody has to be in Command of the CAF, which literally means that there is no one above them to either command or discipline them, from an NDA perspective.

However, it is still up to the MND and PM to not tolerate bad/unethical behaviour from a CDS and to act accordingly. The CDS serves at the pleasure of the Crown. They can be let go from the job for cause or no cause at all, at any time. Just sayin’.


----------



## dangerboy

Has the MND responded to this or is he on radio silence hoping people will not pay attention to this news? I could not see anything with his response.


----------



## OldSolduer

dangerboy said:


> Has the MND responded to this or is he on radio silence hoping people will not pay attention to this news? I could not see anything with his response.


I kinda got an answer for this. Oh before I forget I had a nice visit with our old Platoon Commander last week.

Nothing will be said by MND or anyone about this subject during last week of the election. That is my answer.


----------



## daftandbarmy

dangerboy said:


> Has the MND responded to this or is he on radio silence hoping people will not pay attention to this news? I could not see anything with his response.



The MND is otherwise engaged in something that's far more important ....

... and when did he switch his regimental allegiances to RCR? 

















						Harjit Sajjan
					

Harjit Sajjan. 232,768 likes · 3,493 talking about this. Federal Liberal Candidate for Vancouver South  Minister of National Defence/Ministre de la Défense nationale Police Officer, Soldier, OMM,...




					www.facebook.com


----------



## MilEME09

Vance is 99% match with child born after he said Brennan relationship ended: paternity test - National | Globalnews.ca
					

Military police opened an investigation into allegations against Gen. Jonathan Vance on Feb. 4, and charged him with one count of obstruction of justice on July 15.




					globalnews.ca
				




Oh boy.....


----------



## QV

MilEME09 said:


> Vance is 99% match with child born after he said Brennan relationship ended: paternity test - National | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> Military police opened an investigation into allegations against Gen. Jonathan Vance on Feb. 4, and charged him with one count of obstruction of justice on July 15.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy.....


Not merely 99%.... "Based on the analysis … the probability of paternity is *99.99991*%.”

Oh boy indeed.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

MilEME09 said:


> Vance is 99% match with child born after he said Brennan relationship ended: paternity test - National | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> Military police opened an investigation into allegations against Gen. Jonathan Vance on Feb. 4, and charged him with one count of obstruction of justice on July 15.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy.....


----------



## daftandbarmy

QV said:


> Not merely 99%.... "Based on the analysis … the probability of paternity is *99.99991*%.”
> 
> Oh boy indeed.



Only one?


----------



## Weinie

QV said:


> Not merely 99%.... "Based on the analysis … the probability of paternity is *99.99991*%.”
> 
> Oh *boy* indeed.


Or girl. Just sayin.


----------



## Navy_Pete

I'm assuming if they found evidence to support an obstruction charge on an MP investigation, that could go through the normal criminal courts no problem? My presiding officer course was a while ago, but thought the MPs have all the same powers of policing (within their defined jurisdictions), so shouldn't really matter if it's a local/provincial police, RCMP or MP investigation from a CCC perspective.

Would be great if this finally drives some changes to some of these issues; don't understand why they don't already have a mechanism to appoint a federal judge to be some kind of special authority if they need to run a trial for any of the DND judges, CDS, or any other similar high ranking person. Judges are pretty smart people, sure they can be read into the NDA considerations fairly easily, and otherwise be supported as necessary to look at things like relevant precedents in court martials.

I guess it was normally unthinkable that the big giant heads would do things that should result in charges, but no one should be above the law that covers off the rest of us.


----------



## FJAG

This frosts my gourd.

Chief Military Judge Dutil was charged in January 2018 and I don't doubt that the investigation had been ongoing for some time and undoubtedly involved military prosecutor advice. I would think that then at least the JAG would have recognized the complications involved in trying either the CMJ or the CDS and possibly even the L1s. That's over three and one half years in which something should have come down the pipe to rectify the situation. If timely action had been taken we might not have this twisted result.

I'm not sure where the hurdles are, although I can speculate with the best of them, but in any parliamentary system the buck stops with the Minister. 

I started my military career in 1965 when Hellyer was in charge and although he did a lot of things I thought were stupid, at least he was doing something which in his mind would make the service better. Today's Minister has done zip. zero. nada. He's a total waste of oxygen. Regardless of who wins the election, here's hoping the MND is changed.

🍻


----------



## Haggis

FJAG said:


> Regardless of who wins the election, here's hoping the MND is changed.


Sajjan is the incumbent in a safe Liberal stronghold.  If (when) he is re-elected he could be left in place as MND because Trudeau isn't going to want to taint anyone else with that shit-show,  accompanied by another Prime Ministerial lament of "we must do better", or he could be relegated to the back benches.


----------



## FJAG

Sadly, true.

🍻


----------



## FSTO

Haggis said:


> Sajjan is the incumbent in a safe Liberal stronghold.  If (when) he is re-elected he could be left in place as MND because Trudeau isn't going to want to taint anyone else with that shit-show,  accompanied by another Prime Ministerial lament of "we must do better", or he could be relegated to the back benches.


He's staying. In fact if the polls are to be believed, they're all staying.
The Conservatives have seemed to have crapped the bed again.


----------



## brihard

He’ll be re-elected, but a cabinet shuffle would not be a surprise. Lots of ways it could be spun as wanting to leverage his cabinet experience in a different portfolio or something like that. I would not be surprised to see MND transition to someone who… whose bed is less completely shat, I suppose? A female MND would potentially be a canny move. Not sure who would be on deck for a cabinet spot that might be a good fit for that.


----------



## Ostrozac

Navy_Pete said:


> I guess it was normally unthinkable that the big giant heads would do things that should result in charges, but no one should be above the law that covers off the rest of us.


But that’s the point. It shouldn’t have been unthinkable. We court martialled a German General for war crimes committed against Canadian troops in Normandy. In that specific case (Meyer), it was ‘only’ a 1-star, but given the scope and scale of atrocities in that war, we could have easily had to do the same to a Field Marshal. We needed, and still need, to have all the tools in the toolbox.

They found a way to put the King of England on trial in 1649. No one is above the law.


----------



## SupersonicMax

brihard said:


> Not sure who would be on deck for a cabinet spot that might be a good fit for that.


Mélanie Joly


----------



## Haggis

brihard said:


> A female MND would potentially be a canny move. Not sure who would be on deck for a cabinet spot that might be a good fit for that.


It looks like Maryam Monsef is going to lose her seat, so she's not the future MND.  But Freeland. Oh yes!  A perfect way to eliminate a potential future leadership rival.  Hang a stinking albatross around her neck and watch her fall.


----------



## OldSolduer

Haggis said:


> It looks like Maryam Monsef is going to lose her seat, so she's not the future MND.  But Freeland. Oh yes!  A perfect way to eliminate a potential future leadership rival.  Hang a stinking albatross around her neck and watch her fall.


Maybe her “brothers” will comfort her.


----------



## FJAG

Ostrozac said:


> ... . No one is above the law.


True, but when the law itself is screwed up ...  

When drafting laws one should look at weaknesses that could result in absurdities. This issue has pretty much always been there because no one contemplated that a CDS or CMJ would ever need to be tried. In retrospect, with 20/20 hindsight, that was a glaring mistake and, quite frankly, it was only a matter of time before the situation would occur. 

That it would be two this close together is a bit like a lightning strike. But generally after the first bolt, you take action to avoid a second. That's where the inaction to fix the situation in a timely way is inexcusable.

🍻


----------



## Maxman1

FJAG said:


> Today's Minister has done zip. zero. nada.



I mean, there's this thing:






And the surplus Australian Hornets.


----------



## dimsum

Maxman1 said:


> I mean, there's this thing:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the surplus Australian Hornets.


If you're talking about the CADPAT change of colours, did that even make it up to MND level?  Or was it just handled by Comd Army?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Haggis said:


> It looks like Maryam Monsef is going to lose her seat, so she's not the future MND.  But Freeland. Oh yes!  A perfect way to eliminate a potential future leadership rival.  Hang a stinking albatross around her neck and watch her fall.



But I hit CRA last year so she's safe, right?


----------



## McG

dimsum said:


> If you're talking about the CADPAT change of colours, did that even make it up to MND level?  Or was it just handled by Comd Army?


The new CADPAT was one of Vance’s babies.  He lamented in the news that troops were deploying to the Middle East in over-worn arid CADPAT and, as you know, when the supply system is failing to replace worn-out kit then you fix the problem by changing the colour.


----------



## Haggis

McG said:


> The new CADPAT was one of Vance’s babies.


I thought he was championing Multicam for everyone?


----------



## McG

Haggis said:


> I thought he was championing Multicam for everyone?


Multicam was the brand he wanted, but after gestation his new-colours came out as new CADPAT.


----------



## daftandbarmy

McG said:


> Multicam was the brand he wanted, but after gestation his new-colours came out as new  pink LGBTQ2S CADPAT.



There, FTFY


----------



## Navy_Pete

My personal favourite is people that want the blue cam pattern for sailors. Personnally think things have gone horribly wrong if I need to blend in with the ocean and want to be as visible as possible (hence the bright orange survival suits).

Personnally would be happy if we could get unsexy things like valves, hoses and other critical things that keep the ocean outside the ship and otherwise let the ship go from A to B, but guess will have to settle for a morale patch.


----------



## OldSolduer

Navy_Pete said:


> My personal favourite is people that want the blue cam pattern for sailors. Personnally think things have gone horribly wrong if I need to blend in with the ocean and want to be as visible as possible (hence the bright orange survival suits).
> 
> Personnally would be happy if we could get unsexy things like valves, hoses and other critical things that keep the ocean outside the ship and otherwise let the ship go from A to B, but guess will have to settle for a morale patch.


This made me chuckle however in today's current climate sexy trumps sensible. Just look at the PM as an example of that.


----------



## kev994

Navy_Pete said:


> My personal favourite is people that want the blue cam pattern for sailors. Personnally think things have gone horribly wrong if I need to blend in with the ocean and want to be as visible as possible (hence the bright orange survival suits).
> 
> Personnally would be happy if we could get unsexy things like valves, hoses and other critical things that keep the ocean outside the ship and otherwise let the ship go from A to B, but guess will have to settle for a morale patch.


I’ve always wondered what advantages a sea-camo outfit could possibly offer when the outfit is worn on a gigantic ship.


----------



## OldSolduer

kev994 said:


> I’ve always wondered what advantages a sea-camo outfit could possibly offer when the outfit is worn on a gigantic ship.


Zackly.

 It looks cool but has absolutely zero value.


----------



## Blackadder1916

kev994 said:


> I’ve always wondered what advantages a sea-camo outfit could possibly offer when the outfit is worn on a gigantic ship.



Paint spatter and grease stains blend in with the camo pattern?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Navy_Pete said:


> My personal favourite is people that want the blue cam pattern for sailors. Personnally think things have gone horribly wrong if I need to blend in with the ocean and want to be as visible as possible (hence the bright orange survival suits).
> 
> Personnally would be happy if we could get unsexy things like valves, hoses and other critical things that keep the ocean outside the ship and otherwise let the ship go from A to B, but guess will have to settle for a morale patch.



Dude, it's supposed to hide you from the boss, not the enemy


----------



## FSTO

kev994 said:


> I’ve always wondered what advantages a sea-camo outfit could possibly offer when the outfit is worn on a gigantic ship.


None. 
So when the Navy lost its mind. The base chiefs and the fleet chiefs were gathered together to come up with some ways to make the naval combat dress more flashy. One of the bosn chiefs in his simple mind thought. “why not put big reflective tapes on the pants and the jacket? Therefore the sailors could be seen in a smoky environment or a blackout environment when you flash them with a flashlight” he was roundly abused by the ass clowns who wanted more bling on the NCDs.


----------



## daftandbarmy

FSTO said:


> None.
> So when the Navy lost its mind. The base chiefs and the fleet chiefs were gathered together to come up with some ways to make the naval combat dress more flashy. One of the bosn chiefs in his simple mind thought. “why not put big reflective tapes on the pants and the jacket? Therefore the sailors could be seen in a smoky environment or a blackout environment when you flash them with a flashlight” he was roundly abused by the ass clowns who wanted more bling on the NCDs.


----------



## FSTO

daftandbarmy said:


>


Every day D&B, every bloody day.


----------



## dimsum

FSTO said:


> None.
> So when the Navy lost its mind. The base chiefs and the fleet chiefs were gathered together to come up with some ways to make the naval combat dress more flashy. One of the bosn chiefs in his simple mind thought. “why not put big reflective tapes on the pants and the jacket? Therefore the sailors could be seen in a smoky environment or a blackout environment when you flash them with a flashlight” he was roundly abused by the ass clowns who wanted more bling on the NCDs.


They could have said "what the RAN and French Navy did".


----------



## daftandbarmy

dimsum said:


> They could have said "what the RAN and French Navy did".



And the RN screwed up and focused on fire retardant clothing. Losers 









						Royal Navy unveils 'modern' uniform
					

The Royal Navy's first new uniform in 70 years is unveiled - and will be worn first by a crew heading from Portsmouth to the South Atlantic.



					www.bbc.com


----------



## McG

So anyway, I think this the topic of this thread was about to discuss illegitimate human babies and also the whole lot of absolutely nothing that the MND has done to ameliorate sexual misconduct or discipline systems within the CAF.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

McG said:


> So anyway, I think this the topic of this thread was about to discuss illegitimate human babies and also the whole lot of absolutely nothing that the MND has done to ameliorate sexual misconduct or discipline systems within the CAF.


What would army.ca be without plot drift?


----------



## MJP

SeaKingTacco said:


> What would army.ca be without plot drift?


See also Force 2025 thread


----------



## daftandbarmy

SeaKingTacco said:


> What would army.ca be without plot drift?


----------



## dimsum

daftandbarmy said:


>


The difference is that the car (or thread in this case) get back on track.


----------



## Navy_Pete

daftandbarmy said:


> And the RN screwed up and focused on fire retardant clothing. Losers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Royal Navy unveils 'modern' uniform
> 
> 
> The Royal Navy's first new uniform in 70 years is unveiled - and will be worn first by a crew heading from Portsmouth to the South Atlantic.
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com


To complete the thread drift, here is an example of the testing done on our old NCDs. We did the same thing for the whole mix of single layer, and double layer, with and without a tshirt underneath, and also with flash gear on. Worked really well, and ironically the extremely poor tailoring helped improve the performance as it created all kinds of air pockets that prevented any kind of burns is some areas.

Video: Flash Fire Flame Resistant Workwear | UniFirst

No idea what the new NCD clothing is tested to (or if it is), but can't see how the polymer based velcro patches would have possibly passed, as that burns/melts fairly easily.

Maybe a good example of the big giant heads interfering where they shouldn't to sort out something they want, instead of what is in their best interest, which I guess probably is kind of along the lines of all the CYA to cover up all their misdeeds and otherwise push stuff off. Really quite pissed off at the fact that they still haven't fixed the loophole allowing the big giant heads to get away with things. The ball wasn't just dropped, it was deliberately kicked into touch by the MND, PMO and the PM who had a responsibility to provide that kind of oversight and accountability.


----------



## dimsum

Navy_Pete said:


> No idea what the new NCD clothing is tested to (or if it is), but can't see how the polymer based velcro patches would have possibly passed, as that burns/melts fairly easily.


Same as flight suits.

But I digress.


----------



## kev994

dimsum said:


> Same as flight suits.
> 
> But I digress.


Woah, hey now. Colourful patches has been the focal point of our retention plan for the better part of a decade, don’t go pointing out that it could actually cause grievous bodily harm.


----------



## daftandbarmy

kev994 said:


> Woah, hey now. Colourful patches has been the focal point of our retention plan for the better part of a decade, don’t go pointing out that it could actually cause grievous bodily harm.


----------



## dimsum

kev994 said:


> Woah, hey now. Colourful patches has been the focal point of our retention plan for the better part of a decade, don’t go pointing out that it could actually cause grievous bodily harm.


----------



## Maxman1

McG said:


> The new CADPAT was one of Vance’s babies.  He lamented in the news that troops were deploying to the Middle East in over-worn arid CADPAT and, as you know, when the supply system is failing to replace worn-out kit then you fix the problem by changing the colour.



So did the new CADPAT die with Vance's career?


----------



## dangerboy

Maxman1 said:


> So did the new CADPAT die with Vance's career?


No, CADPAT (MT) has been approved for use. The MT stands for Multi-Terrain. Any future combat uniform that is procured will be in that pattern.

Military selects new uniform camo


----------



## Jarnhamar

General Dawe just landed a new job reviewing recommendations to end sexual misconduct. For some reason National Defense didn't make an announcement about his new job. Weird.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Jarnhamar said:


> General Dawe just landed a new job reviewing recommendations to end sexual misconduct. For some reason National Defense didn't make an announcement about his new job. Weird.



It's OK, the CBC is tracking 


*Military 'tone-deaf' to appoint general who supported sex offender to role reviewing sexual misconduct          *
Maj.-Gen. Peter Dawe gave positive character reference to a convicted sex offender

Survivors of sexual assault and former soldiers say the Canadian military needs to explain why it has assigned a major general who once wrote a positive reference letter for a sex offender to a role examining sexual misconduct within the armed forces.

Maj.-Gen. Peter Dawe has been tasked with reviewing recommendations from an ongoing investigation into military sexual misconduct by former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour.

In 2017, Dawe submitted positive character references to a judge ahead of the sentencing of Maj. Jonathan Hamilton, who earlier that year was found guilty of sexually assaulting a retired military officer and physically assaulting her husband.

"The main feeling behind it is just one of confusion and surprise and shock," said Annalise Schamuhn who was sexually assaulted by Hamilton.

"The people who are genuinely hurting, who have lost a lot of faith in the system, they can look at this and just see how potentially tone-deaf it comes across."



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/peter-dawe-sexual-misconduct-review-1.6199670


----------



## FJAG

Well, that's one more self inflicted wound.

🍻


----------



## suffolkowner

FJAG said:


> Well, that's one more self inflicted wound.
> 
> 🍻


It just screams give us more money in the budget since we do such a good job managing ourselves already. One thing is for sure the next MND will be someone the PM hates/fears. MND=political suicide


----------



## Good2Golf

suffolkowner said:


> …One thing is for sure the next MND will be someone the PM hates/fears. MND=political suicide


Hmmm…if only there had been an election weeks ago, where whomever would be the Prime Minister elected would have announced their cabinet and a MND who would be able to take such issues seriously and ensure that CAF members affected by sexual misconduct or assault would be supported appropriately.


----------



## brihard

Jarnhamar said:


> General Dawe just landed a new job reviewing recommendations to end sexual misconduct. For some reason National Defense didn't make an announcement about his new job. Weird.


Oof. Not a good look.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

It's as if someone was trying to burn the house down...


----------



## daftandbarmy

FJAG said:


> Well, that's one more self inflicted wound.
> 
> 🍻


----------



## Kilted

Who actually had the final say on this one? CDS or MND?


----------



## Haggis

FJAG said:


> Well, that's one more self inflicted wound.
> 
> 🍻


You're just experiencing it differently.


----------



## Halifax Tar

daftandbarmy said:


> It's OK, the CBC is tracking
> 
> 
> *Military 'tone-deaf' to appoint general who supported sex offender to role reviewing sexual misconduct          *
> Maj.-Gen. Peter Dawe gave positive character reference to a convicted sex offender
> 
> Survivors of sexual assault and former soldiers say the Canadian military needs to explain why it has assigned a major general who once wrote a positive reference letter for a sex offender to a role examining sexual misconduct within the armed forces.
> 
> Maj.-Gen. Peter Dawe has been tasked with reviewing recommendations from an ongoing investigation into military sexual misconduct by former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour.
> 
> In 2017, Dawe submitted positive character references to a judge ahead of the sentencing of Maj. Jonathan Hamilton, who earlier that year was found guilty of sexually assaulting a retired military officer and physically assaulting her husband.
> 
> "The main feeling behind it is just one of confusion and surprise and shock," said Annalise Schamuhn who was sexually assaulted by Hamilton.
> 
> "The people who are genuinely hurting, who have lost a lot of faith in the system, they can look at this and just see how potentially tone-deaf it comes across."
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/peter-dawe-sexual-misconduct-review-1.6199670


Who in the mother of sweet  baby Jesus vetted this and gave it the stamp of approval ? 

A God damn recruit could have seen this was a bad move.


----------



## dimsum

Halifax Tar said:


> Who in the mother of sweet  baby Jesus vetted this and gave it the stamp of approval ?
> 
> A God damn recruit could have seen this was a bad move.



Well...



> A spokesperson for Sajjan said he didn't make the decision, the acting chief of defence staff did.
> 
> "The Acting Chief of Defence Staff has decided that Maj.-Gen. Dawe return to work, reporting directly to the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, [Lt.-Gen.] Frances Allen," wrote Sajjan's press secretary Daniel Minden who added that the government remains committed to a complete institutional change.


----------



## Good2Golf

Maybe it’s Gen Eyre’s poison pill to get himself relieved of command so he doesn’t have to deal with the schieße show that is (still?) MND Sajjan and entourage.  We’ll know if Eyre goes golfing with Dawe and MacDonald. That something’s up.


----------



## FSTO

So, does the uniformed leadership hold the MND and the Government in so low regard that they don't care about optics? I'm sure the feeling is more than mutual within the PMO. The low regard that both the Minister of National Defence and the uniformed members of the CAF are held by the PMO.


dimsum said:


> Well...


----------



## Kilted

Good2Golf said:


> Maybe it’s Gen Eyre’s poison pill to get himself relieved of command so he doesn’t have to deal with the schieße show that is (still?) MND Sajjan and entourage.  We’ll know if Eyre goes golfing with Dawe and MacDonald. That something’s up.


Or perhaps it's his attempt to stop the media from influencing GO/FO appointments.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Halifax Tar said:


> Who in the mother of sweet  baby Jesus vetted this and gave it the stamp of approval ?
> 
> A God damn recruit could have seen this was a bad move.



Maybe whoever made the decision was out surfing with Trudeau at the time


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Perhaps its to show the "rehabilitation" of a Senior GO/FO who erred in his ways, by making him in charge of the very thing he messed up on.... 🤷 

I think I might be too naïve


----------



## Blackadder1916

> A spokesperson for Sajjan said he didn't make the decision, the acting chief of defence staff did.
> 
> "The Acting Chief of Defence Staff has decided that Maj.-Gen. Dawe return to work, reporting directly to the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, [Lt.-Gen.] Frances Allen," wrote Sajjan's press secretary Daniel Minden who added that the government remains committed to a complete institutional change.



I suppose at some point the increasing number of GOFOs on "embarrassment leave" have to be either booted or returned to duty.  It's not as if one of them can be expected to come in to straighten up the platoon cage, sweep the hangar floor, or be the Canteen Queen.  But, while evaluating outside recommendations to resolve the clusterf*** of CF misconduct is important, why are they establishing a new GOFO position *reporting directly to the VCDS* when, I assume, there is already a large and experienced staff within that organization.  And what, then, is the purpose of the recently created new three star position of "Chief, Professional Conduct and Culture"?  Sounds like staffing such an evaluation would more appropriately fall within that officer's brief.


----------



## MARS

Blackadder1916 said:


> I suppose at some point the increasing number of GOFOs on "embarrassment leave" have to be either booted or returned to duty.  It's not as if one of them can be expected to come in to straighten up the platoon cage, sweep the hangar floor, or be the Canteen Queen.  But, while evaluating outside recommendations to resolve the clusterf*** of CF misconduct is important, why are they establishing a new GOFO position *reporting directly to the VCDS* when, I assume, there is already a large and experienced staff within that organization.  And what, then, is the purpose of the recently created new three star position of "Chief, Professional Conduct and Culture"?  Sounds like staffing such an evaluation would more appropriately fall within that officer's brief.


TBH, my first thought was that this is the GOFO version of 'sweep the hangar floor'



> CBC News has also confirmed that he has returned to work and been tasked with "reviewing, collating and compiling recommendations from each of the military's external reviews.
> 
> "This work will enable decision-making and help ensure these recommendations are implemented in a timely, deliberate manner," wrote DND spokeperson Daniel Le Bouthillier in a statement.


Perhaps I am reading it wrong, but the "collating and compiling" part is what makes me think that.  This sounds like a job for a Major or a Captain, but as you mentioned, these folks who aren't booted need to be returned to duty somewhere...


----------



## daftandbarmy

Blackadder1916 said:


> I suppose at some point the increasing number of GOFOs on "embarrassment leave" have to be either booted or returned to duty. * It's not as if one of them can be expected to come in to straighten up the platoon cage, sweep the hangar floor, or be the Canteen Queen. *



Do what the Reg F like do to some of their misfits and outcasts as an SOP ...

.... post them to the Reserves


----------



## captloadie

The collating and compiling will be done by Majors, probably around six of them. The GOFO will be the talking head to report to his boss, her boss, and parliament. Also, there is an "s" and the end of reviews. I would wager that there are several external reviews that will be dealt with to ensure DND acknowledges the recommendations and devises a plan to implement those that are agreed with and doable. This isn't all about looking at sexual misconduct.

It might also be a way to get a procession of senior individuals to decide to retire rather than to that thankless job.


----------



## Haggis

daftandbarmy said:


> Do what the Reg F like do to some of their misfits and outcasts as an SOP ...
> 
> .... post them to the Reserves


Chief of Reserves and Employer Support is a Class "A" MGen position.


----------



## Ostrozac

daftandbarmy said:


> Do what the Reg F like do to some of their misfits and outcasts as an SOP ...
> 
> .... post them to the Reserves


No positions available. Besides, I did an RSS/RFC posting, and I’m not a complete outcast. So did Wayne Eyre, I believe, and it’s working out alright for him.

The other traditional options are secondment to another government department or hiding them OUTCAN. But those time-honoured options are out of favour since our OGDs and Allies have now starting calling us out on using their organizations as dumping grounds for sexual deviants.

Once every option is exhausted, and if there aren’t grounds for release, then we may have to “gasp” actually employ these officers. Either that or we create a series of ‘nothing’ staff officer positions that are understood to be a form of internal banishment. ADC to the Duke of York, Attaché-Designate to North Korea. That sort of thing.


----------



## Good2Golf

Ostrozac said:


> The other traditional options are secondment to another government department...


...like PHAC... 🤔


----------



## The Bread Guy

daftandbarmy said:


> ... Maj.-Gen. Peter Dawe has been tasked with reviewing recommendations from an ongoing investigation into military sexual misconduct by former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour ...


Two images come to my mind ....


----------



## daftandbarmy

Ostrozac said:


> No positions available. Besides, I did an RSS/RFC posting, and I’m not a complete outcast. So did Wayne Eyre, I believe, and it’s working out alright for him.
> 
> The other traditional options are secondment to another government department or hiding them OUTCAN. But those time-honoured options are out of favour since our OGDs and Allies have now starting calling us out on using their organizations as dumping grounds for sexual deviants.
> 
> Once every option is exhausted, and if there aren’t grounds for release, then we may have to “gasp” actually employ these officers. Either that or we create a series of ‘nothing’ staff officer positions that are understood to be a form of internal banishment. ADC to the Duke of York, Attaché-Designate to North Korea. That sort of thing.



All good points of course.

ADC to the Duke of York would be less awesome now that Mr. Epstein is out of the picture though ...


----------



## OldSolduer

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when we practice tomfoolery.


----------



## Navy_Pete

daftandbarmy said:


>


That was my basic response, just with a snazzier uniform and a better entrance.

Followed by....






On the plus side, really happy we can now embed gifs! That is the only suitable response for this kind of stupidity.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Investing in some teambuilding might help


----------



## suffolkowner

Since many of us have commented that there seems to be a certain top heaviness to the CAF, another year of this will go a long way to alleviating that problem


----------



## MilEME09

Haggis said:


> Chief of Reserves and Employer Support is a Class "A" MGen position.


Na you got to give the true reserve fuckery treatment, 90 Day class B over and over so that you don't get benefits.


----------



## PuckChaser

It's ok, Reg F isn't getting benefits either... try booking a dental right now unless you're deploying or your teeth are falling out...


----------



## Weinie

daftandbarmy said:


> Investing in some teambuilding might help
> 
> View attachment 66719


Yikes, I am the facilitator for a TTX tomorrow morning. Been good talking with you folks.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Weinie said:


> Yikes, I am the facilitator for a TTX tomorrow morning. Been good talking with you folks.



Top tip: text a friend to come and get you for a 'family emergency' if things are going badly


----------



## Weinie

daftandbarmy said:


> Top tip: text a friend to come and get you for a 'family emergency' if things are going badly


Doing it from home over MS Teams. I guess I could fake a fire....................


----------



## dapaterson

MGen Dawe removed from position, to undertake restorative engagement with the community, per the VCDS.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1445565219162390536


----------



## Jarnhamar

dapaterson said:


> MGen Dawe removed from position, to undertake restorative engagement with the community, per the VCDS.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1445565219162390536



Figure there's one of two explanations here.

1.  Our top leaders stupidly thought they could sneak Gen Dawe into this position without anyone noticing, and didn't think it would be a big deal if word of it did get out; or

2.  They "quietly" placed him into this position knowing full well it would come to light. And knowing full well the severe public backlash this appointment would cause, already planned for this restorative engagement.


----------



## OldSolduer

Where is the facepalm emoji?? Like really people this is what you got?? 🤯

WTF is going on in NDHQ?


----------



## Blackadder1916

I don't (or didn't) know anything about "restorative engagement"(what MGen Dawe has been assigned to do).  I assumed that it was one of those buzz phrases that is supposed to describe some process which, unless one goes through it, doesn't really mean anything to most people.  So I googled it.  Seems that there is a somewhat formal structure for restorative engagement in DND/CAF.





						Defence representatives listening and reflecting through restorative engagement - Canada.ca
					

As a Defence representative, you can help those who experienced sexual misconduct by listening to and acknowledging their experience.




					www.canada.ca
				





> What can I expect as a Defence representative participating in restorative engagement?
> You will be assigned to a cohort of 8 defence representatives, including one senior officer or senior non-commissioned officer and one current or former senior official from the Department of National Defence. Restorative practitioners will facilitate individual and collective activities with you and your cohort.
> 
> As part of a cohort, you will participate in:
> . . .



I'm not being dismissive of the practice, honestly.  But I still can't imagine how such would work in a military culture.  I know the intent is to change some aspects of military culture, but that may be easier said than done.


----------



## Good2Golf

Blackadder1916 said:


> I don't (or didn't) know anything about "restorative engagement"(what MGen Dawe has been assigned to do).  I assumed that it was one of those buzz phrases that is supposed to describe some process which, unless one goes through it, doesn't really mean anything to most people.  So I googled it.  Seems that there is a somewhat formal structure for restorative engagement in DND/CAF.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defence representatives listening and reflecting through restorative engagement - Canada.ca
> 
> 
> As a Defence representative, you can help those who experienced sexual misconduct by listening to and acknowledging their experience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.canada.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not being dismissive of the practice, honestly.  But I still can't imagine how such would work in a military culture.  I know the intent is to change some aspects of military culture, but that may be easier said than done.


As opposed to “destructive disengagement”, where someone, usually a male, assaults or mistreats another person, usually a woman, then claims that the woman “must have experienced it differently…”


----------



## Altair

OldSolduer said:


> Where is the facepalm emoji?? Like really people this is what you got?? 🤯
> 
> WTF is going on in NDHQ?


----------



## trigger324

Wouldn’t have expected anything less


----------



## Halifax Tar

dapaterson said:


> MGen Dawe removed from position, to undertake restorative engagement with the community, per the VCDS.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1445565219162390536



Is there some unique skill this guy has that is keeping him from a trip to the release center ?


----------



## CBH99

Halifax Tar said:


> Is there some unique skill this guy has that is keeping him from a trip to the release center ?


Nope.  Just a leaf on his shoulders and a rank that allows him to tell 99% of people to f**k off…

I do have a genuine question, as I have never heard the phrase “Restorative Engagement with the Community” before.  

But what the f**k does that even mean?  And is everyone in Ottawa so tone deaf that they don’t understand it isn’t possible in a case like this?

If this is being done as per the VCDS, could the VCDS not also ‘have a talk with her colleague’ about retiring in the very near future, or being given the boot for a variety of reasons?

Plenty of jobs in the military could benefit from a former SOF guy at the helm, even if he is a tone deaf dirtbag and piss poor leader.  _This isn’t one of them_


______


Reviewing sexual misconduct complaints after he wrote a reference letter for someone who broke into the home of one of his subordinates & raped her? 

If he had any professional decency or leadership skills, he would have turned down that position knowing it was inappropriate.  


______


More questions - who on Earth put him in that position in the first place?  

Between the CDS, acting VCDS, and MND - not one of them stopped and said “Given the reason for his removal of his former position, we shouldn’t have this guy anywhere near anything that has to do with the sexual assault complaints.”

Not one of them thought this was a horrible idea?

I understand the new VCDS has only been in her role for 3 months now, but she’s a good officer with a good reputation, and was selected for that position precisely because we need change at the top.  Same with Gen. Eyre.  

Why is she just removing him from the position now that this has been made public?  

As tone deaf as some in Ottawa might be, I very much doubt she is… there _has_ to be something else happening behind the scenes…???


----------



## Good2Golf

CBH99 said:


> As tone deaf as some in Ottawa might be, I very much doubt she is… there _has_ to be something else happening behind the scenes…???


Yup.  A Department running amuck…and only a limited number of people at play who can direct things to happen.  The truth will out one day on what depth of toxicity exists at the highest levels of the Department. many would be surprised and shocked, but those who’d have followed the patterns of disfunction and deduced what the source is, won’t be surprised in the least.


----------



## brihard

Let’s not lose sight of what Dawe actually did: he provided an employer character reference, knowing only what he knew at the time. I think common consensus is he could have said quite a bit less about the now former member than he did, but that this is also something that’s within the norm for chain of command engagement when a member faces a judicial process.

Dawe is NOT accused of misconduct, or criminality, of any service offence, of harassment, of HISB, or any such thing. Against this we have an officer who, by any account I’ve seen, is widely held to be pretty damned good at what he does. He’s a man who brings a considerable amount of knowledge to the table when it comes to developing, maintaining, and employing CAF’s ability to kill people and break their shit.

He showed a lapse in judgement on this one file, but it’s a situation symptomatic of the profession and the professional culture he was brought up in. There’s room for sorting him out in this (though I suspect that’s long since accomplished), but let’s maybe be careful about what we want to see our military discard here.

Just my two cents.


----------



## coolintheshade

OldSolduer said:


> Where is the facepalm emoji?? Like really people this is what you got?? 🤯
> 
> WTF is going on in NDHQ?


Pearkes or Carling Campus? Jk ...I jest.

The appointment was a bad idea from the conception, surely there must have been one 'sane' mind in the room to put their hand up and say...'but', y'all remember the 'recommendation letter by the Dawe' for the accuse in a sexual abuse case?

While I'm sure there are lots of 'clean' competent male Offrs to be part of the harassment review board, how about they just appoint if need me a higher rank, a senior female Colonel/BGen instead of these continuous old boys club from the combat arms?????


----------



## Infanteer

CBH99 said:


> even if he is a tone deaf dirtbag and piss poor leader.  _This isn’t one of them_


Bold statement - have you ever served with or under him?

Read the VCDS message.  The investigation found he did something for which he regretted and he has shown a willingness now to reach out to "stakeholders and the affected persons."

The point is good people make bad decisions - I'm not sure if a bad decision automatically makes him a dirtbag and can be used to characterize a 30-year career....



CBH99 said:


> Reviewing sexual misconduct complaints after he wrote a reference letter for someone who broke into the home of one of his subordinates & raped her?


That's not entirely accurate.  She was not his subordinate, her husband was.  Not that it changes anything, but the fact that you aren't getting basic facts right when making character assumptions leads me to question your statements.


----------



## daftandbarmy

brihard said:


> Let’s not lose sight of what Dawe actually did: he provided an employer character reference, knowing only what he knew at the time. I think common consensus is he could have said quite a bit less about the now former member than he did, but that this is also something that’s within the norm for chain of command engagement when a member faces a judicial process.
> 
> Dawe is NOT accused of misconduct, or criminality, of any service offence, of harassment, of HISB, or any such thing. Against this we have an officer who, by any account I’ve seen, is widely held to be pretty damned good at what he does. He’s a man who brings a considerable amount of knowledge to the table when it comes to developing, maintaining, and employing CAF’s ability to kill people and break their shit.
> 
> *He showed a lapse in judgement on this one file*, but it’s a situation symptomatic of the profession and the professional culture he was brought up in. There’s room for sorting him out in this (though I suspect that’s long since accomplished), but let’s maybe be careful about what we want to see our military discard here.
> 
> Just my two cents.



Was it just one file, though? And shouldn't a Senior General with alot of experience (and all his staff) know better?

That's the concern being expressed: is there an 'old boys' network' operating in the military, at the highest levels, that will excuse any ethical breach in favour of protecting each other's careers?

If I was the type to go with 'yes', then I'd be on the lookout for actions to confirm my impressions. Which seem to be plentiful.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

daftandbarmy said:


> Was it just one file, though? And shouldn't a Senior General with alot of experience (and all his staff) know better?
> 
> That's the concern being expressed: is there an 'old boys' network' operating in the military, at the highest levels, that will excuse any ethical breach in favour of protecting each other's careers?
> 
> If I was the type to go with 'yes', then I'd be on the lookout for actions to confirm my impressions. Which seem to be plentiful.


Except this did NOT protect Mr. Dawe's career, if anything all this renewed publicity stuck another nail in the coffin.      If I was looking to further sabotage someone who's pedigree actually included leading men and women, and not wielding a pen, well......


----------



## coolintheshade

Infanteer said:


> Bold statement - have you ever served with or under him?
> 
> Read the VCDS message.  The investigation found he did something for which he regretted and he has shown a willingness now to reach out to "stakeholders and the affected persons."
> 
> The point is good people make bad decisions - I'm not sure if a bad decision automatically makes him a dirtbag and can be used to characterize a 30-year career....
> 
> 
> That's not entirely inaccurate.  She was not his subordinate, her husband was.  Not that it changes anything, but the fact that you aren't getting basic facts right when making character assumptions leads me to question your statements.


Hmmmm...how about you focus on the grand picture here, the fact that this did not meet the globe and mail test from the get go. What difference does it make who the subordinate is?

I'll never associate with a person who let themselves into another person's home, and sexual assault a person. Perhaps you condone this behaviour because it didn't affect you?

It's like most things racism, sexism, etc......when you don't walk in a person's shoes, the mentality of not in my backyard, I don't care is normally in play. Good riddance of these sexual deviants and their cohorts from the CAF!

We need a civilian oversight board...something police forces around the country also need, to fix the usual cover-ups


----------



## SeaKingTacco

coolintheshade said:


> Hmmmm...how about you focus on the grand picture here, the fact that this did not meet the globe and mail test from the get go. What difference does it make who the subordinate is?
> 
> I'll never associate with a person who let themselves into another person's home, and sexual assault a person. Perhaps you condone this behaviour because it didn't affect you?
> 
> It's like most things racism, sexism, etc......when you don't walk in a person's shoes, the mentality of not in my backyard, I don't care is normally in play. Good riddance of these sexual deviants and their cohorts from the CAF!
> 
> We need a civilian oversight board...something police forces around the country also need, to fix the usual cover-ups


So…we have a civilian oversight board. It is called “the Minister” and “Parliament”. Whether they choose, collectively, to actually do their jobs and not buck pass is not for me to decide.

You have made accusations of MGen Dawe that are inaccurate and border on libellous. Are you even familiar with what transpired?

Reasonable people can disagree about the letter of reference that he wrote and to what extent he knew any or all the details, but I do not think that he can reasonably called a “sexual deviant”.


----------



## Good2Golf

coolintheshade said:


> While I'm sure there are lots of 'clean' competent male Offrs to be part of the harassment review board, how about they just appoint if need me a higher rank, a *senior female Colonel/BGen instead of these continuous old boys* club from the combat arms?????


How about a woman LGen?

…oh, wait…


----------



## coolintheshade

SeaKingTacco said:


> So…we have a civilian oversight board. It is called “the Minister” and “Parliament”. Whether they choose, collectively, to actually do their jobs and not buck pass is not for me to decide.
> 
> You have made accusations of MGen Dawe that are inaccurate and border on libellous. Are you even familiar with what transpired?
> 
> Reasonable people can disagree about the letter of reference that he wrote and to what extent he knew any or all the details, but I do not think that he can reasonably called a “sexual deviant”.


Are you able to comprehend written words? I was referring to the other member that rx'd the recommendation letter as the 'sexual deviant', not Dawe...go read again, then come back and apologize for your knee jerk reaction. Not holding my breathe though

Again, I will never associate myself with any of the following oiks regardless of work/personal life: racists, sexual perverts/deviants/sexists/xenophobes/et al


----------



## coolintheshade

Good2Golf said:


> How about a woman LGen?
> 
> …oh, wait…


Yes, we have a those.....but how many currently. If you read what I said again, I was alluding to the point of...if the powers that be are really struggling to find avail GOFOs females, many avail at the rank of Col to BGen. Context pal


----------



## SeaKingTacco

coolintheshade said:


> Are you able to comprehend written words? I was referring to the other member that rx'd the recommendation letter as the 'sexual deviant', not Dawe...go read again, then come back and apologize for your knee jerk reaction. Not holding my breathe though
> 
> Again, I will never associate myself with any of the following oiks regardless of work/personal life: racists, sexual perverts/deviants/sexists/xenophobes/et al


I apologize, so you can breathe again.

The way I read what you had wrote, you were refering to Dawe, not the Major he wrote the letter of reference for. If you go back and read your response to Infanteer, you will see that it is ambiguous, at best.

Have a great day!


----------



## Halifax Tar

I honestly thought Dawe was out or on his way...

Why keep a very senior leader who's proven to be ethically suspect, in such a manner as the incident in question provides ?

What message does this send to our juniors ?
What message does this send to the victim (s) ?

I am willing for forgive minor transgressions on the assumption that a lesson has be learned but this has directly and negatively affected our chain of command.  And I am not sure there is any lesson to be learned except release from the CAF.

I get it some have connections to Dawe and think he deserves a chance.  Ask yourself if we give him a second chance what are we now setting a precedent for ?  What could follow ?  And what will the greater impact be on the institution ?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Good2Golf said:


> How about a woman LGen?
> 
> …oh, wait…


----------



## Navy_Pete

brihard said:


> Let’s not lose sight of what Dawe actually did: he provided an employer character reference, knowing only what he knew at the time. I think common consensus is he could have said quite a bit less about the now former member than he did, but that this is also something that’s within the norm for chain of command engagement when a member faces a judicial process.
> 
> Dawe is NOT accused of misconduct, or criminality, of any service offence, of harassment, of HISB, or any such thing. Against this we have an officer who, by any account I’ve seen, is widely held to be pretty damned good at what he does. He’s a man who brings a considerable amount of knowledge to the table when it comes to developing, maintaining, and employing CAF’s ability to kill people and break their shit.
> 
> He showed a lapse in judgement on this one file, but it’s a situation symptomatic of the profession and the professional culture he was brought up in. There’s room for sorting him out in this (though I suspect that’s long since accomplished), but let’s maybe be careful about what we want to see our military discard here.
> 
> Just my two cents.



Not disagreeing with any of that, but kind of reinforces what his actual area of expertise is, and not really any overlap with what the task was. It's basically a policy wonk type job and they tried to stick a door kicker on it, despite very recent and very public demonstrations that he has some personal learning to do. Seems a bit like the approach with the old SHARP courses, where the instructors seemed to have a lot of re-courses for the SHARP course due to complaints, so eventually became experts at it.

He's got a specialized skill set and knowledge that has no real use here, so this whole thing is just bizarre, especially as there is someone else already appointed to do this specific kind of work.


----------



## Takeniteasy

Blackadder1916 said:


> I don't (or didn't) know anything about "restorative engagement"(what MGen Dawe has been assigned to do).  I assumed that it was one of those buzz phrases that is supposed to describe some process which, unless one goes through it, doesn't really mean anything to most people.  So I googled it.  Seems that there is a somewhat formal structure for restorative engagement in DND/CAF.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defence representatives listening and reflecting through restorative engagement - Canada.ca
> 
> 
> As a Defence representative, you can help those who experienced sexual misconduct by listening to and acknowledging their experience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.canada.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not being dismissive of the practice, honestly.  But I still can't imagine how such would work in a military culture.  I know the intent is to change some aspects of military culture, but that may be easier said than done.


This is part of the Class Action lawsuit the FG settled on. Aside from a compensatory award you can sign up for the Restorative Justice road where you can reveal your experience to one of these groups selected. I for one would not participate in this professional development exercise as it is 2021 and all who work for CAF should understand legislation and proper professional environment behaviors by now (Deschamp report was a start). CAF got away easy with settling the class action and we are now seeing why.

I am not one to judge on single acts but have experienced the challenges of trying to address negative attitudes within the CoC and would not wish that on anyone. I have no sympathies for these tops leaders as many subordinates have lost their careers through humiliation and lack of leadership, at least they have a hefty pension to fall on unlike many subordinates who did/do not.


----------



## brihard

Navy_Pete said:


> Not disagreeing with any of that, but kind of reinforces what his actual area of expertise is, and not really any overlap with what the task was. It's basically a policy wonk type job and they tried to stick a door kicker on it, despite very recent and very public demonstrations that he has some personal learning to do. Seems a bit like the approach with the old SHARP courses, where the instructors seemed to have a lot of re-courses for the SHARP course due to complaints, so eventually became experts at it.
> 
> He's got a specialized skill set and knowledge that has no real use here, so this whole thing is just bizarre, especially as there is someone else already appointed to do this specific kind of work.


For sure. I’m not saying he’s right for that job, just let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water.

Interestingly- I’m watching the Trudeau presser about vaccine mandate. The questions afterwards pivoted quickly to the Dawe issue, and the PM did not have kind words to say about CAF. Interestingly there was a question about replacing Sajjan. The answer was a very generic bit about how carefully they think of each cabinet appointment, but he did NOT clearly come out and defend or support him.


----------



## Good2Golf

coolintheshade said:


> Yes, we have a those.....but how many currently. If you read what I said again, I was alluding to the point of...if the powers that be are really struggling to find avail GOFOs females, many avail at the rank of Col to BGen. Context pal


We have two right at the highest levels and directly involved in things sexual-misconduct, LGen Allen - VCDS and Lgen Carignan - Chief, Professional Conduct and Culture.  One of them was intimately involved with the tasking & re-tasking of MGen Dawe. 

I read exactly what you said, and re-read it in its entirety a second time and noted that it seemed to set the scene for ignoring the involvement of even more senior women generals in the organization right now.  Let me ask you why you feel we should ignore 3-leaf generals like Allen and Carignan and focus on women Colonels and BGens?  That would imply that you are not satisfied with how, or how not these very senior women generals are contributing to the situation.

So what is it?  Ignore current involvement of a couple of woman 3-leaf generals for your desire to see women Col/BGen deal with the issues in the future?


----------



## brihard

Good2Golf said:


> We have two right at the highest levels and directly involved in things sexual-misconduct, LGen Allen - VCDS and Lgen Carignan - Chief, Professional Conduct and Culture.  One of them was intimated involved with the tasking & re-tasking of MGen Dawe.
> 
> I read exactly what you said, and re-read it in its entirety a second time and noted that it seemed to set the scene for ignoring the involvement of even more senior women generals in the organization right now.  Let me ask you why you feel we should ignore 3-leaf generals like Allen and Carignan and focus on women Colonels and BGens?  That would imply that you are not satisfied with how, or how not these very senior women generals are contributing to the situation.
> 
> So what is it?  Ignore current involvement of a couple of woman 3-leaf generals for your desire to see women Col/BGen deal with the issues in the future?


For that matter, are said female Col/BGen particularly inclined to get dragged away from their substantive roles to deal with this stuff? Is there some element of tokenism there?


----------



## Good2Golf

brihard said:


> For that matter, are said female Col/BGen particularly inclined to get dragged away from their substantive roles to deal with this stuff? Is there some element of tokenism there?


Could be. Perhaps not in the VCDS position, but maybe in the CPCC position?  I wonder if Allen conversed with Carignan in the Dawe issue?


----------



## coolintheshade

daftandbarmy said:


>


Is that coffee or wine in that cup? Either way, it will go nice with 'Coffee Time' huge donuts in Kingston, across from Regiopolis HS. LOL


----------



## coolintheshade

brihard said:


> For that matter, are said female Col/BGen particularly inclined to get dragged away from their substantive roles to deal with this stuff? Is there some element of tokenism there?


Bingo! I didn't mention these two because they're busier than Dawe in their current roles. I was recently in Baghdad with Carrigan, and what a fantastic person professionally and socially.


----------



## brihard

coolintheshade said:


> Bingo! I didn't mention these two because they're busier than Dawe in their current roles. I was recently in Baghdad with Carrigan, and what a fantastic person professionally and socially.


And don’t get me wrong. If the CDS says “your job is now this”, then… Your job is now this. I could just see this being a crappy thing for a senior female officer to get assigned to. I suspect those working at that level have little time for any appearance of advancement simply because female. I could of course be wrong, my sample size on those I know is very limited.


----------



## Brad Sallows

"Restorative Engagement with the Community"

"Submit to being passed under the harrow (repeatedly)."


----------



## Good2Golf

coolintheshade said:


> Bingo! I didn't mention these two because they're busier than Dawe in their current roles. I was recently in Baghdad with Carrigan, and what a fantastic person professionally and socially.


Then why the hesitancy to see someone like Carignan be a key player in this, and instead some Col or BGen? 🤷🏻‍♂️  Genuine question.  Doesn’t that effectively dismiss her (Carignan) potential contribution to help rectify the situation?


----------



## Brad Sallows

> Ask yourself if we give him a second chance what are we now setting a precedent for ?



Not becoming a zero-tolerance organization of wrong-think zealots.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

I must be the devil incarnate to some of you folk riding that high horse......over the last 16 years of my career I've written hundreds of referrals supporting child molesters, sex offenders, drug dealers, wife beaters, etc. as long as they showed, to myself and the social work team, that they were trying to sort themselves out.
A  letter can make the difference between help for the affliction/mental illness and rotting away to cause more havoc someday.   As for those who think they would never hang out with "these kind" of people, well guess what, you are.  You'd be amazed at the places I've seen ex-cons work once they are out.  They don't all look like they should be on "Oz".


This kind of publicity  is actually  the worst thing that could happen to the convicted, they end up getting more time/fines/ conditions and doing way more of their sentences, non-famous folk get parole waaaaaaaaaay sooner then you really want to know.
Convicts cost money.....


----------



## PPCLI Guy

coolintheshade said:


> Good riddance of these sexual deviants and their cohorts from the CAF!


You are right of course.  They didn't run for highest office in the land as a self avowed feminist after being accused of sexual assault and dismissing the viewpoint of the complainant, and so they must be released without due process.


----------



## coolintheshade

Halifax Tar said:


> *I get it some have connections to Dawe and think he deserves a chance. * Ask yourself if we give him a second chance what are we now setting a precedent for ?  What could follow ?  And what will the greater impact be on the institution ?


I wouldn't want anything to do with these namby-pamby folks......cause, it speaks volumes


brihard said:


> And don’t get me wrong. If the CDS says “your job is now this”, then… Your job is now this. I could just see this being a crappy thing for a senior female officer to get assigned to. I suspect those working at that level have little time for any appearance of advancement simply because female. I could of course be wrong, my sample size on those I know is very limited.


Ack.  No doubt


----------



## coolintheshade

Good2Golf said:


> Then why the hesitancy to see someone like Carignan be a key player in this, and instead some Col or BGen? 🤷🏻‍♂️  Genuine question.  Doesn’t that effectively dismiss her (Carignan) potential contribution to help rectify the situation?


She recently got promoted to current rank, and assigned her role. Dawe's role can be easily filled by a female of the ranks I mentioned...is my rationale on this question you ask..BOSS


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Wow, so now we can assign jobs by gender??   So the social advances of the last 40 years mean nothing??


----------



## CBH99

Infanteer said:


> Bold statement - have you ever served with or under him?
> 
> Read the VCDS message.  The investigation found he did something for which he regretted and he has shown a willingness now to reach out to "stakeholders and the affected persons."
> 
> The point is good people make bad decisions - I'm not sure if a bad decision automatically makes him a dirtbag and can be used to characterize a 30-year career....
> 
> 
> That's not entirely inaccurate.  She was not his subordinate, her husband was.  Not that it changes anything, but the fact that you aren't getting basic facts right when making character assumptions leads me to question your statements.


You are 100% right.  I have to be accountable for my own statements, and I wasn’t entirely accurate with some of the things I wrote. 

*I was also perhaps overly harsh towards him as a person, when my* *intention* *was to be harsh towards the situation.*

I wrote what I did at around 4am or so, and didn’t have Google available to quickly refresh my memory. 

Regardless, I wrote what I did shortly after reading the article, when I should have been reading other sources or reading this thread to see other posts on the matter - rather than typing out an instinctive reaction.  Now that I am on a PC and can scroll through this discussion, I can see that there were facets of this that I wasn't able to read earlier.


So on that note, I actually genuinely *Thank* *You* for calling me out.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

brihard said:


> For sure. I’m not saying he’s right for that job, just let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water.
> 
> Interestingly- I’m watching the Trudeau presser about vaccine mandate. The questions afterwards pivoted quickly to the Dawe issue, and the PM did not have kind words to say about CAF. Interestingly there was a question about replacing Sajjan. The answer was a very generic bit about how carefully they think of each cabinet appointment, but he did NOT clearly come out and defend or support him.


Of course he did.

It is right out this PMO playbook: when the PM is in trouble, throw another organization/person under the bus.


----------



## Good2Golf

coolintheshade said:


> She recently got promoted to current rank, and assigned her role. Dawe's role can be easily filled by a female of the ranks I mentioned...is my rationale on this question you ask..BOSS


With whom, specifically…2-leafs I guess we’re talking now?  You seem to think the role ‘only’ needs a 4-ring/1-leaf and that the 3-leaf women are otherwise too busy doing other things…

Then just 5d/5f Dawe?


----------



## OldSolduer

Good2Golf said:


> With whom, specifically…2-leafs I guess we’re talking now?  You seem to think the role ‘only’ needs a 4-ring/1-leaf and that the 3-leaf women are otherwise too busy doing other things…
> 
> Then just 5d/5f Dawe?


The witch hunters would love that. 
I’ve served in the same unit as MGen Dawe and his brother. Phil was the doctor who briefed us on how our son died in Afghanistan. 

It seems due process is only for salty corporals. I jest of course….


----------



## Brad Sallows

> It seems due process is only for salty corporals.



As an enlisted friend phrased it to me long ago, enlisted ranks are hooligans and (junior) officers have high spirits.


----------



## Takeniteasy

Brad Sallows said:


> "Restorative Engagement with the Community"
> 
> "Submit to being passed under the harrow (repeatedly)."


Who do you think is being harrowed, not the employed CAF members selected to sit in on this process I hope?


----------



## daftandbarmy

The PM throws the CAF under the bus. Nice arm there, Prince Justin ....


Military 'simply doesn't get it' when it comes to sexual misconduct, PM says​​Trudeau said he was "dismayed" by decision to involve Maj.-Gen. Dawe in the sexual misconduct file​Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said today the military "still doesn't get it" when it comes to sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces.

At a news conference, Trudeau reacted to the appointment of of Maj.-Gen. Peter Dawe to the sexual misconduct file and the subsequent decision to rescind his appointment. Dawe provided a positive character reference to an officer who was convicted of sexually assaulting another soldier.




			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-doesnt-get-it-sexual-misconduct-1.6201648


----------



## SupersonicMax

daftandbarmy said:


> The PM throws the CAF under the bus. Nice arm there, Prince Justin ....
> 
> 
> Military 'simply doesn't get it' when it comes to sexual misconduct, PM says​​Trudeau said he was "dismayed" by decision to involve Maj.-Gen. Dawe in the sexual misconduct file​Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said today the military "still doesn't get it" when it comes to sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces.
> 
> At a news conference, Trudeau reacted to the appointment of of Maj.-Gen. Peter Dawe to the sexual misconduct file and the subsequent decision to rescind his appointment. Dawe provided a positive character reference to an officer who was convicted of sexually assaulting another soldier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-doesnt-get-it-sexual-misconduct-1.6201648


Is he wrong?


----------



## suffolkowner

SupersonicMax said:


> Is he wrong?


no but a bit of a pot/kettle thing going on there


----------



## Jarnhamar

SupersonicMax said:


> Is he wrong?


Yes. Lots of people in the CAF just don't care/ don't think rules apply to them. I'd say they still understand its wrong.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Actually Mr. Dawe probably would have done a fantastic job just because he got so burned by this incident,......kind of like a reformed smoker, or a born-again Christian, etc.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Good2Golf said:


> Then why the hesitancy to see someone like Carignan be a key player in this, and instead some Col or BGen? 🤷🏻‍♂️  Genuine question.  Doesn’t that effectively dismiss her (Carignan) potential contribution to help rectify the situation?


This is what I don't understand, thought this review was literally her job, and why they created the position.  I thought appointing Dawe to lead this effectively undermined her primary stated purpose.



> New military lead aims to change culture of sexual misconduct​The military’s new Chief of Professional Conduct and Culture told MPs that her priorities are to review and improve the complaint system for dealing with sexual misconduct in the Forces, and to foster an environment where these abuses no longer happen.
> 
> Lieutenant-General Jennie Carignan, who began the position in April, said on Tuesday that a review of the complaint process is necessary in order to determine how things should be fixed. She said the current system that deals with sexual misconduct needs to be improved so that it is centralized, efficient and more visible, and so there’s a standard process in place to respond to such incidents.



New military lead aims to change culture of sexual misconduct


----------



## SupersonicMax

Jarnhamar said:


> Yes. Lots of people in the CAF just don't care/ don't think rules apply to them. I'd say they still understand its wrong.


Perhaps at the individual level, but at the institutional level, no, we do not get it…


----------



## Takeniteasy

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> I must be the devil incarnate to some of you folk riding that high horse......over the last 16 years of my career I've written hundreds of referrals supporting child molesters, sex offenders, drug dealers, wife beaters, etc. as long as they showed, to myself and the social work team, that they were trying to sort themselves out.
> A  letter can make the difference between help for the affliction/mental illness and rotting away to cause more havoc someday.   As for those who think they would never hang out with "these kind" of people, well guess what, you are.  You'd be amazed at the places I've seen ex-cons work once they are out.  They don't all look like they should be on "Oz".
> 
> 
> This kind of publicity  is actually  the worst thing that could happen to the convicted, they end up getting more time/fines/ conditions and doing way more of their sentences, non-famous folk get parole waaaaaaaaaay sooner then you really want to know.
> Convicts cost money.....


I have read your response a number of times and am still trying to wrap my thoughts around it. How about providing context as to what role you were engaged in and leaving out the high horse comments with regards to this discussion. We are talking about members who are all part of the CoC  (CAF is a very small institution that does big things) with one who violently attacked another member. I can only assume how you have become involved with referrals but I believe there is a big difference between what the MG did and being part of an external judicial review team that is determining mitigating factors from outside and not within. 

I do not believe the issue is his position in providing referrals but the fact that he did so without regard for the victims is telling, this is not some tiny miss step but evidence in what others who have, tried, never came forward are faced with.  When it comes down to it, is this not why the Deschamp report was given and why we are now going through a second review? If you cant address the barriers in the administrative mechanisms first then how does CAF expect to right the attitudes or perpetuation of them?

PS: I believe the victims go through further trauma when having to face justifications or mitigations from those you directly work with.


----------



## Good2Golf

SupersonicMax said:


> Is he wrong?


Yup, he sure is.

He portrays it as a CAF/them/they thing…


> "It is obvious that despite the work the military has done, despite the work that we have done, the military still doesn't get that survivors need to be at the centre, and the unique priority of everything in regards to sexual misconduct and harassment in the military," Trudeau said.
> 
> "This shows they simply still don't get it."



He forgot to include himself in the blame game.  He has done nothing to correct MND Sajjan’s horrendous, crappy negligent handling of the CAF.  His arrogance knows no bounds — so incensed at the nature of LGen Frances Allen’s recommendation to Gen Eyre for MGen Dawe’s employment — while being an anti-paragon himself.  He has absolutely zero credibility to critique anyone, from both a poor leader point of view and a sexual harasser himself.

Perhaps he should direct Sajjan to fire Eyrw and Allen whil he’s giving Sajjan his pink slip?


----------



## daftandbarmy

SupersonicMax said:


> Is he wrong?



Publicly dissing a part of his ship that he's supposed to have a grip on after being in power since 2015?

That's kind of like a CO standing up in front of the media and complaining about 'those assholes in Charlie Company who are ruining it for everyone esle.'

More like shooting himself in the foot I would say.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> Who do you think is being harrowed, not the employed CAF members selected to sit in on this process I hope?



Anyone who doesn't want to be an audience.


----------



## OldSolduer

SupersonicMax said:


> Is he wrong?


He is wrong. He's the pot calling the kettle black. He has no moral high ground here.

Most of you if not all of you understand and practice the Principles of Leadership. Maybe we're not always successful but for the most part we are. It is quite obvious the majority of the current GoC could give a sh!t about them.

The PM has no business commenting. In fact it angers me that he has commented when his government was willing to obstruct justice, award their friends with a billion dollar deal, threw an respected Admiral under the bus among other things. Yet Canadians are blinded to this.

I fervently hope a national media figure throws this in his face at the next press conference.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

SupersonicMax said:


> Is he wrong?


Tell me….what was that tenet of leadership again? You know, the part about “praise in public, correct in private”? Oh, and the other one about being careful never to generalize…


----------



## Halifax Tar

SupersonicMax said:


> Is he wrong?


I don't think it's that cut and dry. 

Putting Dawe in that position just proves that we as an institution need to further clean house.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Halifax Tar said:


> I don't think it's that cut and dry.
> 
> Putting Dawe in that position just proves that we as an institution need to further clean house.


But, are you privy to the discussions that led to that decision?


----------



## Weinie

Good2Golf said:


> With whom, specifically…2-leafs I guess we’re talking now?  You seem to think the role ‘only’ needs a 4-ring/1-leaf and that the 3-leaf women are otherwise too busy doing other things…
> 
> Then just 5d/5f Dawe?


I might get flamed here but I will accept it. I have known Pete Dawe for more than 15 years. He is one of the most forthright, honest, and practical officers I have ever met. He is also intensely loyal, to his colleagues, subordinates, and CoC.


----------



## Halifax Tar

SeaKingTacco said:


> But, are you privy to the discussions that led to that decision?



Nope, what's your point ?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Weinie said:


> I might get flamed here but I will accept it. I have known Pete Dawe for more than 15 years. He is one of the most forthright, honest, and practical officers I have ever met. He is also intensely loyal, to his colleagues, subordinates, and CoC.



Which subordinates ?  Victims or perps ?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Halifax Tar said:


> Nope, what's your point ?


My point is: are you privy to the discussions that led to this decision being made? Me neither. There could be a perfectly valid reason why Dawe was selected for this position.

Once again, Dawe has not committed, nor even been accused of committing a crime.


----------



## OldSolduer

Halifax Tar said:


> Which subordinates ?  Victims or perps ?


I’ve known him since the early 90s. Rushing to judgement is never good


----------



## Navy_Pete

What drives me especially crazy about all this is the whole review still seems to be going nowhere. The last report was pretty straightforward, we don't really need yet another judicial review to start moving out on some  of those recommendations.


----------



## Weinie

Halifax Tar said:


> Which subordinates ?  Victims or perps ?


Both. He recognizes that human beings make mistakes.


----------



## captloadie

Let's start going down the conspiracy theory route. Maybe the old boys club had become threatened that a female non operator was going to become CDS, so decisions were made behind the scenes to make her look bad and ruin her chances.


----------



## Weinie

captloadie said:


> Let's start going down the conspiracy theory route. Maybe the old boys club had become threatened that a female non operator was going to become CDS, so decisions were made behind the scenes to make her look bad and ruin her chances.


Sigh


----------



## SeaKingTacco

captloadie said:


> Let's start going down the conspiracy theory route. Maybe the old boys club had become threatened that a female non operator was going to become CDS, so decisions were made behind the scenes to make her look bad and ruin her chances.


Oh FFS. Seriously?


----------



## Good2Golf

captloadie said:


> Let's start going down the conspiracy theory route. Maybe the old boys club had become threatened that a female non operator was going to become CDS, so decisions were made behind the scenes to make her look bad and ruin her chances.


By old boys club, do you mean Trudeau & Sajjan?

If not, what old boys club do you think still exists now that politicians and senior bureaucrats haven’t de-powered, and that their own agendas are the ones being pursued and the uniformed front-window leaders are simply being given orders to follow that are designed to further erode public trust in the CAF, thus justifying defunding of the CAF and redirection to pay for the insane levels of debt the current government is amassing as a rate that would make a drunken sailor on shore leave look like a frugal hermit?

Conspiratorial enough for you?


----------



## Halifax Tar

SeaKingTacco said:


> My point is: are you privy to the discussions that led to this decision being made? Me neither. There could be a perfectly valid reason why Dawe was selected for this position.
> 
> Once again, Dawe has not committed, nor even been accused of committing a crime.





OldSolduer said:


> I’ve known him since the early 90s. Rushing to judgement is never good





Weinie said:


> Both. He recognizes that human beings make mistakes.



I don't doubt that Dawe is an accomplished and capable soldier.  And I can appreciate people have personal connections to him, but his actions on this file have stained his ability to navigate ethical dilemmas in my eyes, and would seem I'm onside with the unwashed masses doing the everyday business in the CAF.

I have had Jr's come to me since this broke asking WTF.   We don't need this, I don't need more S1s asking me "Chief, WTF ?"  They're pissed and rightfully so IMHO, I'm pissed too.

One does not have to be guilty of a crime to be ethically suspect.  

It takes decades to build an accomplished career and just a moment to destroy it.  

Give Dawe a 942 tag with BER; and a pension and let him fade into the distance.  We should have been done with this drama months ago.


----------



## Good2Golf

Halifax Tar said:


> Give Dawe a 942 tag with BER; and a pension and let him fade into the distance.  We should have been done with this drama months ago.


Should have also stuck a red 942 on the PM and MND too, but here we are…


----------



## captloadie

> Let's start going down the conspiracy theory route. Maybe the old boys club had become threatened that a female non operator was going to become CDS, so decisions were made behind the scenes to make her look bad and ruin her chances.



Well, this is speculation is no less relevant, or absurd, as trying to guess why MGen Dawe was selected for the position in the first place.

I have had a few interactions with him, and agree with Weinie's statement of his character. I think he was one of the few individuals at his rank who understands what it takes to move the institution in a positive direction, and that the CAF is more than just the Govt's means of applying lethal force. But, at his level in a Federal institution, it means that certain mistakes, those that have a societal and political nexus, aren't going to be accepted. The excuse that we all make mistakes doesn't work at that level.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Good2Golf said:


> Should have also stuck a red 942 on the PM and MND too, but here we are…


Fine, but whataboutism doesn't absolve our own transgressions.

The public spoke and elected them, case closed.  Get on with it.


----------



## Weinie

Halifax Tar said:


> Fine, but whataboutism doesn't absolve our own transgressions.
> 
> The public spoke and elected them, case closed.  Get on with it.


Then shut the whole institution down. We have a singular purpose. We also have 100000 employees. To expect Jesus from all of them is absurd.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Weinie said:


> Then shut the whole institution down. We have a singular purpose. We also have 100000 employees. To expect Jesus from all of them is absurd.


Scorched earth if you don't get what you want eh ?


----------



## Takeniteasy

Weinie said:


> Both. He recognizes that human beings make mistakes.


Your comment underpins why the CAF is in this situation. Where is the discussion thread for the victims and their loyalty, sense of duty, abilities etc...


----------



## Good2Golf

Halifax Tar said:


> Fine, but whataboutism doesn't absolve our own transgressions.
> 
> The public spoke and elected them, case closed.  Get on with it.


So what’s your plan to identify and purge the “old boys” network?  Who is in it? How are they supposed to be operating above the law and with disregard to the public’s will…as implemented through Government?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Good2Golf said:


> So what’s your plan to identify and purge the “old boys” network?  Who is in it? How are they supposed to be operating above the law and with disregard to the public’s will…as implemented through Government?



There's no purge don't be so alarmist.  

Getting rid of sexual predators and their supporters, while providing support to their victims is a good thing.  

If you don't agree with the statement above I can't help you.


----------



## captloadie

Why, after the last year, would anyone believe that there isn't some kind of old boys club? Some group of senior officers who through group think and a sense of loyalty to their peers are willing to believe many of the "mistakes" are just one time lapses in judgement.


----------



## Good2Golf

I fully agree with that goal statement.

Per your earlier statement about cashiering Dawe, where is the line to be drawn in the ID and removal of those who don’t support the goal statement?  By your post, it is not only the predators and harassers but now the one-timer indirects like Dawe.  What’s the tear-line?  Is it rank based? What burden of proof is placed on the CAF to release (vice charge, which should be accepted generally as clear-cut)?  Feel good statements of intended end-state are a start, but I’d like to see people move beyond platitudes and state clear, quantifiable actions and discriminators as to what is worthy of dismissal, where it is otherwise not clear in CAF Regulations, Orders and Directives.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Good2Golf said:


> I fully agree with that goal statement.
> 
> Per your earlier statement about cashiering Dawe, where is the line to be drawn in the ID and removal of those who don’t support the goal statement?  By your post, it is not only the predators and harassers but now the one-timer indirects like Dawe.  What’s the tear-line?  Is it rank based? What burden of proof is placed on the CAF to release (vice charge, which should be accepted generally as clear-cut)?  Feel good statements of intended end-state are a start, but I’d like to see people move beyond platitudes and state clear, quantifiable actions and discriminators as to what is worthy of dismissal, where it is otherwise not clear in CAF Regulations, Orders and Directives.



I'd say a character reference for a rapist is a good start. 

We can fiddle fart around and keep him in on admin technicalities all we want.  But we can't then be surprised when the PM says we don't get it, and we continue to bleed people. 

The CAF is at a moral crossroads here I think. 

How much of the future should we be sacrificing for this guy ?


----------



## KevinB

Halifax Tar said:


> I'd say a character reference for a rapist is a good start.
> 
> We can fiddle fart around and keep him in on admin technicalities all we want.  But we can't then be surprised when the PM says we don't get it, and we continue to bleed people.
> 
> The CAF is at a moral crossroads here I think.
> 
> How much of the future should we be sacrificing for this guy ?


Seriously?
   Look I know all the parties to that incident - and my COA would have been to toss Hamilton out of a Helo 'accidentally'.  But no one usually agrees with my recommended COA's.
  BUT MG Dawe wrote a letter - was it poorly thought out - yeah absolutely - did he realize that after the fact - absolutely.   He made a mistake that was it...


----------



## Good2Golf

Halifax Tar said:


> I'd say a character reference for a rapist is a good start.
> 
> We can fiddle fart around and keep him in on admin technicalities all we want.  But we can't then be surprised when the PM says we don't get it, and we continue to bleed people.
> 
> The CAF is at a moral crossroads here I think.
> 
> How much of the future should we be sacrificing for this guy ?


Roger.  So, we update the QR&Os to forbid the CoC from providing character refs for convicted sexual offenders, which I think we both agree should not need to explicitly captured, but perhaps so.

Crossroads indeed.  Sexual misconduct in whatever form, be it sexual harassment/misconduct/assault by senior officers, pedophelia by senior NCMs, etc. must be be dealt with quickly, completely and transparently.  Other related actions, as the reference issue for Dawe, should also be identified and addressed within the CAF’s purview. 

Now…what about LGen Allen?  She has explicitly stated her reasoning for the original assignment of Dawe and subsequent appreciation of missing the mark.  Do we fire her too?  No?  What correction should LGen Allen undertake to resolve her deficiency in judgement?  How much was her lapse in judgement less than Dawe’s…say Dawe is a 10, what was Allen? 6? 7? 4?  Enough so she doesn’t get a 5D or 5F release?  Does her gender give her a mulligan, where Dawe’s does not?  How does the CAF move forward with fairness for the victims, yet correction for those who are still able to contribute to the rebuilding of the institution’s reputation?


----------



## Halifax Tar

KevinB said:


> Seriously?
> Look I know all the parties to that incident - and my COA would have been to toss Hamilton out of a Helo 'accidentally'.  But no one usually agrees with my recommended COA's.
> BUT MG Dawe wrote a letter - was it poorly thought out - yeah absolutely - did he realize that after the fact - absolutely.   He made a mistake that was it...



MGs can't make mistakes like that.  For that matter Snr ranked people cannot make mistakes like that.  For that matter no one can make mistakes like that.  Read what Hamilton did, to a married couple also under Dawe's command.  To write that character reference is a betrayal to the innocent and the victim (s).

I get it.  He was/is popular and you guys knew him. It sucks, and maybe it was a temporary error in judgement.  Unfortunately as a GO/FO youre a face in the organization and the example to emulate. What message are we sending, and what message do we want to send ?

I say again what are we saying to the public and CAF members by keeping him around ? 



Good2Golf said:


> Roger.  So, we update the QR&Os to forbid the CoC from providing character refs for convicted sexual offenders, which I think we both agree should not need to explicitly captured, but perhaps so.
> 
> Crossroads indeed.  Sexual misconduct in whatever form, be it sexual harassment/misconduct/assault by senior officers, pedophelia by senior NCMs, etc. must be be dealt with quickly, completely and transparently.  Other related actions, as the reference issue for Dawe, should also be identified and addressed within the CAF’s purview.
> 
> Now…what about LGen Allen?  She has explicitly stated her reasoning for the original assignment of Dawe and subsequent appreciation of missing the mark.  Do we fire her too?  No?  What correction should LGen Allen undertake to resolve her deficiency in judgement?  How much was her lapse in judgement less than Dawe’s…say Dawe is a 10, what was Allen? 6? 7? 4?  Enough so she doesn’t get a 5D or 5F release?  Does her gender give her a mulligan, where Dawe’s does not?  How does the CAF move forward with fairness for the victims, yet correction for those who are still able to contribute to the rebuilding of the institution’s reputation?



Look you can chicken shit and red herring this all the way down to his cub Scout leader in 1979 if makes you feel better.  But the fact remains Dawe wrote what he did in support of that POS Hamilton (Not the city).  I'm not going to play pass the buck with you. 

Keeping him in uniform is saying something to our political masters, the public, victims and CAF members at large. 

And trust me those I talk to are getting the message loud and clear.  I get ears fulls of it from both commissioned and non.

Like I said, keep on keeping on, we will reap what we sow.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Remind me: what did Dawe know about Hamilton at the time the letter was written?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Brad Sallows said:


> Remind me: what did Dawe know about Hamilton at the time the letter was written?


My understanding is the full meal deal as the character reference was to sway the sentencing not the verdict.


----------



## Good2Golf

I get your point about Dawe. 

Now what about my question about Allen? 

It is a valid question, if the institution is being honest about judgement…

And let’s take this further, then.  If the CAF should be filtering out personnel with judgement issues or greater, related to sexual misconduct, then should it be waiting for cases to be fully investigated up to a degree of criminality?  Should they not then be immediately processed for release?  For example, should not VAdm Edmumdson be released, as many judge there to be enough credibility to numerous sexual misconducts and intransigencies in his career, that he should be released now?  I mean, if we’re going to release Dawe, then surely Edmundson must go? No?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Good2Golf said:


> I get your point about Dawe.
> 
> Now what about my question about Allen?
> 
> It is a valid question, if the institution is being honest about judgement…
> 
> And let’s take this further, then.  If the CAF should be filtering out personnel with judgement issues or greater, related to sexual misconduct, then should it be waiting for cases to be fully investigated up to a degree of criminality?  Should they not then be immediately processed for release?  For example, should not VAdm Edmumdson be released, as many judge there to be enough credibility to numerous sexual misconducts and intransigencies in his career, that he should be released now?  I mean, if we’re going to release Dawe, then surely Edmundson must go? No?



This VAdm Edmundson ?



			https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5963430
		


Who is accused of:


> "Then he turned me around and he raped me. There's no other way to say it ... My body just froze. I didn't know what to do. I was terrified."


If hes tried and found guilty yes he should be dismissed.

The only thing Dawe is guilty of, that I know of, is poor ethical behavior to the point it's effected the overall CoC and called into question the validity of our GO/FOs.

He should leave under his power and collect his pension if he cared at all about this organization and its people.  If he won't go on his own give him a mop and bucket to be in charge of until he gets bored and leaves anyways.

If I was JT I'd fire the MND and CDS.  I put Leslie in as MND and a Civil Servant in as CDS.  Send a message loud and clear, the BS is over.  

Allen you raise a good point on.  That's a solid question.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Or maybe, unlike you, she thinks human beings deserve a second chance to prove themselves.

Like I said earlier, who better to know what the line is now then one who got burned by that line.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Or maybe, unlike you, she thinks human beings deserve a second chance to prove themselves.
> 
> Like I said earlier, who better to know what the line is now then one who got burned by that line.



You're right.  And lets make sure the victims of all this continue to serve under the guy who went to the wall for her/his rapist/assailant. 

IMHO he can have his second chance with a pension and as a civilian.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Halifax Tar said:


> If I was JT I'd fire the MND and CDS.  I put Leslie in as MND and a *Civil Servant in as CDS*.  Send a message loud and clear, the BS is over.



Your frustration is understandable, however certain things cannot be done (unless the NDA is changed).  Unlike the RCMP (who once recently had a civilian commissioner) the CAF's top job is, by law, to be filled by an officer.






						National Defence Act
					

Federal laws of Canada




					laws-lois.justice.gc.ca
				





> Appointment, rank and duties of Chief of Defence Staff
> *18* (1) The Governor in Council may appoint *an officer to be the Chief of the Defence Staff*, who shall hold such rank as the Governor in Council may prescribe and who shall, subject to the regulations and under the direction of the Minister, be charged with the control and administration of the Canadian Forces.
> 
> officer means
> (a) a person who holds Her Majesty’s commission in the Canadian Forces,
> (b) a person who holds the rank of officer cadet in the Canadian Forces, and
> (c) any person who pursuant to law is attached or seconded as an officer to the Canadian Forces; (officier)



Now there are probably ways to play fast and loose with interpretation of the NDA, but politicization of the CAF (more than currently practiced) is probably not a good thing.

Ahh . . . to go back to the old, old days when an officer who was an embarrassment to the regiment received a quiet word in the mess that concluded with a veiled suggestion involving a pistol in the drawer and taking a few minutes alone.  (sarcasm)


----------



## OldSolduer

Halifax Tar said:


> You're right.  And lets make sure the victims of all this continue to serve under the guy who went to the wall for her/his rapist/assailant.
> 
> IMHO he can have his second chance with a pension and as a civilian.


Ever had a comrade or friend, co worker, fellow sailor who maybe took things a bit far? Ever cover for them?

I will admit I have. Guys late for parade, drunk on morning PT (guilty) etc. Should we be released for such actions?
He made a mistake like we all have.


----------



## Halifax Tar

OldSolduer said:


> Ever had a comrade or friend, co worker, fellow sailor who maybe took things a bit far? Ever cover for them?
> 
> I will admit I have. Guys late for parade, drunk on morning PT (guilty) etc. Should we be released for such actions?
> He made a mistake like we all have.



You're creating a false equivalency. 

Showing up for PT smelling of booze and pushing the guy to the back; and writing a character reference for a rapist and violent offender are two very different things. 

Even with the above if it's habitual it needs to be dealt with as well. 

I've never had to cover for much that I can think of and I've never covered for anything remotely close to a rapist or an assault.  And won't ever... All stop. 



Blackadder1916 said:


> Your frustration is understandable, however certain things cannot be done (unless the NDA is changed).  Unlike the RCMP (who once recently had a civilian commissioner) the CAF's top job is, by law, to be filled by an officer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> National Defence Act
> 
> 
> Federal laws of Canada
> 
> 
> 
> 
> laws-lois.justice.gc.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now there are probably ways to play fast and loose with interpretation of the NDA, but politicization of the CAF (more than currently practiced) is probably not a good thing.
> 
> Ahh . . . to go back to the old, old days when an officer who was an embarrassment to the regiment received a quiet word in the mess that concluded with a veiled suggestion involving a pistol in the drawer and taking a few minutes alone.  (sarcasm)



I stand to be corrected, my cursory Google search said cabinet ministers didn't have to be sitting MPs. 

WRT the NDA and CDS the GOC and Crown own the NDA.  They can and add and delete at their pleasure.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Halifax Tar said:


> went to the wall for her/his rapist/assailant.



Wow, you've got a turd stuck in your ass that just won't come out.

That happens in just about EVERY single case of a sentencing hearing.  The judge wants, and needs, to know previous history.

The defense could have asked him (or equivalent) for a letter saying how this has effected her work duties and may have had several letters for all we know.   It's STANDARD stuff ....

For the last time (we hope), these are not "please excuse the convicted" letters, they are to give the judge some  insight into the whole big picture.  

No one here is defending the criminal and forgetting the victim.   This moron did unforgivable crap, but he's getting out one day, the letter might be the difference between  rotting or getting mental help so he's not looking at your woman folk someday with evil intent.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Wow, you've got a turd stuck in your ass that just won't come out.
> 
> That happens in just about EVERY single case of a sentencing hearing.  The judge wants, and needs, to know previous history.
> 
> The defense could have asked him (or equivalent) for a letter saying how this has effected her work duties and may have had several letters for all we know.   It's STANDARD stuff ....
> 
> For the last time (we hope), these are not "please excuse the convicted" letters, they are to give the judge some  insight into the whole big picture.
> 
> No one here is defending the criminal and forgetting the victim.   This moron did unforgivable crap, but he's getting out one day, the letter might be the difference between  rotting or getting mental help so he's not looking at your woman folk someday with evil intent.



Reign yourself in buck-a-roo.  Act like a mature adult.  No need for your school yard style of speech.  We're allowed to disagree.

Dawe knew the details of this.  Knew Hamilton was guilty and was attempting to lessen the sentencing.  A smart MG would not have participated by providing a character reference. 

Let's not forget Hamilton's victims were also under Dawes leadership.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> My understanding is the full meal deal as the character reference was to sway the sentencing not the verdict.



So the case, plus what he personally knew.  Presumably that's the minimum to bother writing a reference.  What about prior history of wrongdoing?


----------



## Blackadder1916

Halifax Tar said:


> WRT the NDA and CDS the GOC and Crown own the NDA.  They can and add and delete at their pleasure.



At their pleasure?



			Legislative Process - Our Procedure - ProceduralInfo - House of Commons of Canada
		


Now add a minority government.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Blackadder1916 said:


> At their pleasure?
> 
> 
> 
> Legislative Process - Our Procedure - ProceduralInfo - House of Commons of Canada
> 
> 
> 
> Now add a minority government.





Halifax Tar said:


> I stand to be corrected...



But I see your point WRT the minority gov.

Having said that the Gov does own our NDA, they can certainly attempt any change they wish.  Am I wrong ?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Brad Sallows said:


> So the case, plus what he personally knew.  Presumably that's the minimum to bother writing a reference.  What about prior history of wrongdoing?



Heres a couple links for your reading pleasure:



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-sexual-assault-1.6004040
		










						Special Forces commander placed on leave for supporting soldier convicted of sex assault
					

Acting chief of the defence staff apologizes for bungling initial response to sex assault disclosures ‘causing division and anger within the CAF’




					www.theglobeandmail.com
				




And a google search:



			major. jonathan hamilton - Google Search


----------



## Brad Sallows

Neither the CBC nor G&M article answers my last question.  If there was a prior history of convictions AND Dawe knew of them, it's relevant.  But absent that, nothing wrong with writing a reference - the whole point is that it's being provided on behalf of a guilty person.  References on behalf of assholes are OK with me.


----------



## ballz

Just going to be the broken record here and point out yet again that "if only we had a properly set-up system for professional discipline that was transparent and fair" then perhaps we wouldn't need to be arguing about this and instead could judge what's going on with all these GOFOs with the actual facts, arguments, and considerations that were presented...


----------



## Halifax Tar

Brad Sallows said:


> Neither the CBC nor G&M article answers my last question.  If there was a prior history of convictions AND Dawe knew of them, it's relevant.  But absent that, nothing wrong with writing a reference - the whole point is that it's being provided on behalf of a guilty person.  References on behalf of assholes are OK with me.



Isn't freedom of expression a great thing ?  I have no issue with you having a differing opinion.

I have no problem with references for assholes, but just like choosing not to get vaccinated, some actions have reactions/consequences.



ballz said:


> Just going to be the broken record here and point out yet again that "if only we had a properly set-up system for professional discipline that was transparent and fair" then perhaps we wouldn't need to be arguing about this and instead could judge what's going on with all these GOFOs with the actual facts, arguments, and considerations that were presented...



I would love a union!  But I think you mean something more along the lines of a professional society like:



			Professional Associations | novascotia.ca
		


or






						Professional Associations | Nova Scotia Health Authority - Corporate
					






					www.cdha.nshealth.ca
				




Again, I stand to be corrected.


----------



## ballz

Halifax Tar said:


> I would love a union!  But I think you mean something more along the lines of a professional society like:
> 
> 
> 
> Professional Associations | novascotia.ca
> 
> 
> 
> or
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Professional Associations | Nova Scotia Health Authority - Corporate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cdha.nshealth.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I stand to be corrected.



Definitely not a union..... I'm talking about a system that most self-regulated professions have, such as law, medicine, accounting, etc... to handle matters of professional misconduct, which are public and transparent and allow both the public and the members of the profession to judge their leadership and the governance of their profession accordingly.

Instead, our leadership hides behind the Privacy Act.


----------



## Halifax Tar

ballz said:


> Definitely not a union..... I'm talking about a system that most self-regulated professions have, such as law, medicine, accounting, etc... to handle matters of professional misconduct, which are public and transparent and allow both the public and the members of the profession to judge their leadership and the governance of their profession accordingly.
> 
> Instead, our leadership hides behind the Privacy Act.



Who would the membership be made up of in your professional association ?  Just FYI this is genuine interest.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Infanteer said:


> Bold statement - have you ever served with or under him?
> 
> Read the VCDS message.  The investigation found he did something for which he regretted and he has shown a willingness now to reach out to "stakeholders and the affected persons."
> 
> The point is good people make bad decisions - I'm not sure if a bad decision automatically makes him a dirtbag and can be used to characterize a 30-year career....
> 
> 
> That's not entirely accurate.  She was not his subordinate, her husband was.  Not that it changes anything, but the fact that you aren't getting basic facts right when making character assumptions leads me to question your statements.



I don't even know why General Dawe is sticking around for this?  He was and still is a great soldier and officer.  One wrong decision doesn't make someone a bad person or even a bad leader.

I would get out if I were him and go put the skills he has to use for someone or an organization that actually values his contribution.

This is some real "atone for your sins or the sins of others" crap they are putting him through right now.


----------



## KevinB

Halifax Tar said:


> MGs can't make mistakes like that.  For that matter Snr ranked people cannot make mistakes like that.  For that matter no one can make mistakes like that.  Read what Hamilton did, to a married couple also under Dawe's command.  To write that character reference is a betrayal to the innocent and the victim (s).
> 
> I get it.  He was/is popular and you guys knew him. It sucks, and maybe it was a temporary error in judgement.  Unfortunately as a GO/FO youre a face in the organization and the example to emulate. What message are we sending, and what message do we want to send ?
> 
> I say again what are we saying to the public and CAF members by keeping him around ?


It is pretty common for an Commander to be asked to write a letter for a subordinate charged with a serious crime.

 Do I think he should have written the letter - no, and I offered my personal though on the best punishment option already.
   BUT since apparently no one else agrees that internally solving the issue at a low level like I suggested was acceptable - it had to go to the courts.

I also think IF he was going to write the letter he should have talked to Kevin and Annalise first, to me that is the major faux pas he made.
  The CF lost two great officers when they left - and it really shouldn't have been that way.





Halifax Tar said:


> Look you can chicken shit and red herring this all the way down to his cub Scout leader in 1979 if makes you feel better.  But the fact remains Dawe wrote what he did in support of that POS Hamilton (Not the city).  I'm not going to play pass the buck with you.
> 
> Keeping him in uniform is saying something to our political masters, the public, victims and CAF members at large.


It really doesn't do what you think it does.

I honestly think that MG Dawe was legitimately trying to do what he says below


LINK REMOVED AS PER SITE GUIDELINES

_Dawe, in an earlier statement, said he never condoned the serious offences for which Hamilton was convicted for in civilian court. His supportive letter was to highlight that soldier’s military accomplishments and his struggles, he added in a statement._




Halifax Tar said:


> And trust me those I talk to are getting the message loud and clear.  I get ears fulls of it from both commissioned and non.
> 
> Like I said, keep on keeping on, we will reap what we sow.


So we throw out an otherwise stellar officer who mostly likely wrote the letter due to guilt/sorrow/sympathy he felt about Hamiltons PTSD?
  It wasn't designed to change the outcome of the conviction - just the punishments.

I mean it isn't like he invited Hamilton to come and "co-star" a Sexual assault survivor retreat...








						Canadian doctor apologises for allowing convicted sex offender to be peer support mentor for sexual abuse survivors
					

"If I had a chance to do it all over again, this would not have happened."




					www.newshub.co.nz


----------



## dapaterson

A question: what does redemption look like?

Because right now it appears not to exist.


----------



## ballz

Halifax Tar said:


> Who would the membership be made up of in your professional association ?  Just FYI this is genuine interest.



Admittedly that's not a detail I've been able to commit a ton of bandwith to, since most of the argument has been around the merits of having one at all and plus no one is gonna listen to me anyway. In the CPA profession it's the same people who have that as a responsibility for a set period of time. They're always experienced, competent, well-respected given what it is they're being asked to do (pass judgement on others in the profession).

This would be difficult for the military, but I think we'd have to get over the idea that someone of a lower rank can't pass judgement on someone of a higher rank. I personally don't see an issue with it, but part of my personality is that I give minimal respect for ranks/titles which is not the case for everyone.

The other difficult thing is in professions, these people are often elected in some way, or appointed by someone that is elected, which gives it more credibility. I don't have enough confidence in the military leadership to pick, say 10 outstanding people to serve in this capacity. We pick a lot of garbage, this could just turn into more nepotism where Regiments are fighting for "their guy" who they want to boost the profile of, despite the fact that everyone who works with or for them thinks they're toxic and/or incompetent... or it could just become a shitty secondary duty that goes to whoever stepped on their own private parts most recently gets rewarded with.


----------



## Halifax Tar

KevinB said:


> It is pretty common for an Commander to be asked to write a letter for a subordinate charged with a serious crime.
> 
> Do I think he should have written the letter - no, and I offered my personal though on the best punishment option already.
> BUT since apparently no one else agrees that internally solving the issue at a low level like I suggested was acceptable - it had to go to the courts.
> 
> I also think IF he was going to write the letter he should have talked to Kevin and Annalise first, to me that is the major faux pas he made.
> The CF lost two great officers when they left - and it really shouldn't have been that way.



So we lost three officers when it should have only been 1.  Awful if you ask me, you seem to have known them personally. 



KevinB said:


> It really doesn't do what you think it does.
> 
> I honestly think that MG Dawe was legitimately trying to do what he says below
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> General who wrote reference letter for sex offender dumped from new job
> 
> 
> Maj.-Gen. Peter Dawe will no longer be involved in working on the military’s response to various reviews of sexual misconduct in the Canadian Forces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ottawacitizen.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Dawe, in an earlier statement, said he never condoned the serious offences for which Hamilton was convicted for in civilian court. His supportive letter was to highlight that soldier’s military accomplishments and his struggles, he added in a statement._



What struggles should mitigate what Hamilton did ? 



KevinB said:


> So we throw out an otherwise stellar officer who mostly likely wrote the letter due to guilt/sorrow/sympathy he felt about Hamiltons PTSD?
> It wasn't designed to change the outcome of the conviction - just the punishments.
> 
> I mean it isn't like he invited Hamilton to come and "co-star" a Sexual assault survivor retreat...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canadian doctor apologises for allowing convicted sex offender to be peer support mentor for sexual abuse survivors
> 
> 
> "If I had a chance to do it all over again, this would not have happened."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newshub.co.nz



Lots of people were great _fill in the blanks_ until they weren't.  Why should Dawe be any different.  He gets a second chance in civilians and with sweet sweet pension.  The victims get a life of torment and the knowledge that their boss try to lesson the blow on their nemesis.  

That retreat thing was a civilian and has been discussed here as well, dig through this thread.   Just a bonehead a move.


----------



## Halifax Tar

dapaterson said:


> A question: what does redemption look like?
> 
> Because right now it appears not to exist.



For Dawe ? 

A pension and civis ? 

I know for me I wanted blood from my abuser.  But hes dead now.  Not the same as Dawe agreed.


----------



## KevinB

Halifax Tar said:


> So we lost three officers when it should have only been 1.  Awful if you ask me, you seem to have known them personally.


agreed 


Halifax Tar said:


> What struggles should mitigate what Hamilton did ?


  Apparently some issues with PTSD from deployments to various places...


Halifax Tar said:


> Lots of people were great _fill in the blanks_ until they weren't.  Why should Dawe be any different.  He gets a second chance in civilians and with sweet sweet pension.  The victims get a life of torment and the knowledge that their boss try to lesson the blow on their nemesis.


I think he did a dumb thing - but I don't think it was something for the CF to lose another person over...


Halifax Tar said:


> That retreat thing was a civilian and has been discussed here as well, dig through this thread.   Just a bonehead a move.


----------



## Halifax Tar

ballz said:


> Admittedly that's not a detail I've been able to commit a ton of bandwith to, since most of the argument has been around the merits of having one at all and plus no one is gonna listen to me anyway. In the CPA profession it's the same people who have that as a responsibility for a set period of time. They're always experienced, competent, well-respected given what it is they're being asked to do (pass judgement on others in the profession).
> 
> This would be difficult for the military, but I think we'd have to get over the idea that someone of a lower rank can't pass judgement on someone of a higher rank. I personally don't see an issue with it, but part of my personality is that I give minimal respect for ranks/titles which is not the case for everyone.
> 
> The other difficult thing is in professions, these people are often elected in some way, or appointed by someone that is elected, which gives it more credibility. I don't have enough confidence in the military leadership to pick, say 10 outstanding people to serve in this capacity. We pick a lot of garbage, this could just turn into more nepotism where Regiments are fighting for "their guy" who they want to boost the profile of, despite the fact that everyone who works with or for them thinks they're toxic and/or incompetent... or it could just become a shitty secondary duty that goes to whoever stepped on their own private parts most recently gets rewarded with.



Ya I was thinking about this and same as you I think our rank system makes a professional association like this difficult. 

Perhaps if someday we moved to a single rank system instead of Commissioned and Non...



KevinB said:


> agreed
> 
> Apparently some issues with PTSD from deployments to various places...



I am sympathetic to PTSD but I refuse to let people hide violent and sexual crimes behind it. 



KevinB said:


> I think he did a dumb thing - but I don't think it was something for the CF to lose another person over...



Fair enough, that's your position.

Like mine, that and 2$ wont even get your large coffee at Tims anymore


----------



## Good2Golf

Halifax Tar said:


> What struggles should mitigate what Hamilton did ?



Since you asked, perhaps PTSD, such as guided the BC courts to issue an 18-month conditional community-service sentence vice jail time to a retired CWO for possession of child pornography and conspiracy to commit sexual exploitation of a 5-year old boy.


> …
> The Crown called for seven to 10 months of jail plus 12 to 18 months on probation, while the man’s lawyer argued the case involved extraordinary circumstances.
> 
> The court heard that the man witnessed the atrocities of war during seven combat tours and suffered acute PTSD. However, his caregivers believed he “simply suffered from depression,” until it was diagnosed in 2019 after the charges surfaced.
> 
> McKimm says the PTSD was the “central trigger” that caused the man to “turn briefly to this dark and sinister sexual predilection.
> 
> “It is a well-known symptom that those who suffer from PTSD often turn to dangerous- and risk-seeking behaviours to combat the awful symptoms they suffer from PTSD. I am satisfied that the accused here was seeking out this risky and deplorable sexualized behaviour to deal with his symptoms.”



For me personally, I don’t give as much weight to the PTSD let me do bad things argument as the Courts seem to do. 

In all of this, the person I empathize with the most is Annalise, followed by Kevin.  Their lives were ripped apart and the CAF did not look after them with any measurable sense of responsibility or empathy.  This, IMO, is where the CAF needs most to improve.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Good2Golf said:


> Since you asked, perhaps PTSD, such as guided the BC courts to issue an 18-month conditional community-service sentence vice jail time to a retired CWO for possession of child pornography and conspiracy to commit sexual exploitation of a 5-year old boy.
> 
> 
> For me personally, I don’t give as much weight to the PTSD let me do bad things argument as the Courts seem to do.
> 
> In all of this, the person I empathize with the most is Annalise, followed by Kevin.  Their lives were ripped apart and the CAF did not look after them with any measurable sense of responsibility or empathy.  This, IMO, is where the CAF needs most to improve.


…and both the PM and his unelected minions can, yet again claim victory.

He goes surfing, gets caught, throws the entire CAF under the bus as a distraction and we spend days arguing about a 4 year old letter.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> What struggles should mitigate what Hamilton did ?



The CAF basically follows public standards/customs.  So the CAF should contribute to whatever would mitigate sentence in any other context.


----------



## GR66

KevinB said:


> It is pretty common for an Commander to be asked to write a letter for a subordinate charged with a serious crime.
> 
> Do I think he should have written the letter - no, and I offered my personal though on the best punishment option already.
> BUT since apparently no one else agrees that internally solving the issue at a low level like I suggested was acceptable - it had to go to the courts.
> 
> I also think IF he was going to write the letter he should have talked to Kevin and Annalise first, to me that is the major faux pas he made.
> The CF lost two great officers when they left - and it really shouldn't have been that way.


To me the highlighted part is the key piece of the puzzle.  As has been mentioned by others, writing a letter on behalf of a charged subordinate is not an uncommon thing.  However, the victim was also a subordinate of MGen Dawe.  Giving consideration to the impacts of the situation on the convicted party while not giving (at the very least) equal consideration to the victimized parties is where I see the major moral failing.

That fact to me shows a serious blindness to the fundamental issues underlying sexual assault in general and within a highly structured organization like the CF in particular.  That in my mind should have disqualified MGen Dawe from any active role in the CF response to ongoing sexual misconduct issues in the military.  He clearly demonstrated the type of blindness that allows a culture of harassment and assault to fester and be tacitly accepted by a portion of the military chain of command.  

Do I believe that his actions/inactions should automatically preclude his further service in the CF?  Personally I don't think it should...provided his error was not only acknowledged by MGen Dawe (as it was), but also be seen by the community (CF and otherwise) as being addressed by the CF leadership and action taken to ensure that everyone is aware that this was an inappropriate way to deal with this kind of situation (which to my understanding it wasn't).


----------



## ModlrMike

The retired CWO who avoided jail time due to his PTSD was a POS when he worked for me 20 years ago, and he's still a POS.


----------



## KevinB

Good2Golf said:


> For me personally, I don’t give as much weight to the PTSD let me do bad things argument as the Courts seem to do.


Agreed.
  I think that is a terrible copout - PSTD can cause a lot of issues - but I don't think it makes anyone a rapist.


I have a zero tolerance level for this - and I want to be clear my personal recommend COA was to let Kevin and Annalise toss the offender from a helicopter and see if he could fly...   It would have given a very final level of closure.


----------



## Ostrozac

ModlrMike said:


> The retired CWO who avoided jail time due to his PTSD was a POS when he worked for me 20 years ago, and he's still a POS.


Yeah, but doesn’t that cut right to the chase? That specific POS had 5 separate promotion boards (and 5 separate CO’s) that signed off that he was good to go. That’s the problem — it’s not just a few bad apples, it’s systemic. There are dirtbags among us, and we have not been maintaining standards; that reflects badly on not just the scumbag individuals, but on the institution, and by extension, all of us that wear the suit.


----------



## Takeniteasy

Ostrozac said:


> Yeah, but doesn’t that cut right to the chase? That specific POS had 5 separate promotion boards (and 5 separate CO’s) that signed off that he was good to go. That’s the problem — it’s not just a few bad apples, it’s systemic. There are dirtbags among us, and we have not been maintaining standards; that reflects badly on not just the scumbag individuals, but on the institution, and by extension, all of us that wear the suit.


And by that MG Dawe has achieved a rank of exceptional responsibility and therefor the highest accountability, attaining the General ranks is a demonstration of the ethos not solely based on individual merit but of the institution as a whole. The fact the senior leaders appointed him to this position is a far greater concern, it perpetuates their inability of empathy or even see outside the institutional paternalism that negates the effects, affects of victims. 

To say we have all made mistakes is to minimize and justify the actions, its the worst response you can make as a person in a position of power.


----------



## OldSolduer

Halifax Tar said:


> WRT the NDA and CDS the GOC and Crown own the NDA.  They can and add and delete at their pleasure.


No they cannot. AFAIK the NDA is an act of Parliament, and it takes an act of Parliament to change it.


----------



## brihard

OldSolduer said:


> No they cannot. AFAIK the NDA is an act of Parliament, and it takes an act of Parliament to change it.


Correct.

As to the ‘civilian CDS’ thing, the RCMP tried that with Bill Elliot and that didn’t go well. Then again, Robert Paulson rose from Constable to Commissioner and was a flaming sack of crap... But then he was an RCAF pilot first, so who knows? 

Anyway- civilian in charge of an organization like CAF? No go. Nothing substitutes for a career in uniform, with the operational knowledge you can only gain that way. Nor can a governmental appointment confer unwanted credibility.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Even though Bruce is a crossfitter I think he brought up salient points. People change, people deserve second chances. WRT to Gen Dawe's infamous character reference I personally think the biggest issue is (arguably) less that he wrote a letter of support for someone and more that he appears to have fucked off actual victims; who happened to be subordinates/spouses of subordinates. That's the callous part, and he seemed very callous about it.



Changing the page, once again a general in the CAF does something that leaves a hell of a lot of us scratching our head over the complete lack of common sense and attention to optics. Stuff we hammer into brand new soldiers (strategic corporal).

We generally give privates (and maybe OCdts) a bit of a break because they're new to the CAF and institution. Once that pte becomes a cpl we hold them a higher level because they've been in 3-4 years. They're a JNCO in the military. We don't let them get away with "I'm just a dumb private".

Should Canada accept generals making "I'm a private I don't know any better?" levels of excuses? Are they the same level of accountability?

I'm sure Gen. Eyre and Lt.-Gen Frances Allen have 100+ IQ points on me each. _I_ realized appointing Gen Dawe to this position would create a huge backlash and shit storm. Am I smarter than these two generals? Do I have more common sense and sensitivity to public optics? I highly doubt it, but that leaves me wondering what the hell is going on then. Their apologies are about as genuine as Trudeau's IMO.


----------



## dapaterson

And then we are left with the Fortin conundrum: what do you do with a major general?  Leave them at home doing nothing, paid, while investigations etc proceed? Or find them something to do that adds some value to the institution?


----------



## ballz

Ostrozac said:


> Yeah, but doesn’t that cut right to the chase? That specific POS had 5 separate promotion boards (and 5 separate CO’s) that signed off that he was good to go. That’s the problem — it’s not just a few bad apples, it’s systemic. There are dirtbags among us, and we have not been maintaining standards; that reflects badly on not just the scumbag individuals, but on the institution, and by extension, all of us that wear the suit.



Bingo. This is exactly what I expressed in my release interview. It's a culture of zero accountability.


----------



## Edward Campbell

dapaterson said:


> And then we are left with the Fortin conundrum: what do you do with a major general?  Leave them at home doing nothing, paid, while investigations etc proceed? Or find them something to do that adds some value to the institution?


The former is safer. The latter _might_ be therapeutic and even worthwhile but the bureaucracy (civil and military) is, most often, risk averse.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

dapaterson said:


> And then we are left with the Fortin conundrum: what do you do with a major general?  Leave them at home doing nothing, paid, while investigations etc proceed? Or find them something to do that adds some value to the institution?


who is being tarred and feathered for something he is alleged to have done as a teenager 32 years ago.....

We need some perspective here folks.  Anyone remember the things they did as a teenager?  Or that the PM did in his 20s and 30s?


----------



## KevinB

Jarnhamar said:


> I'm sure Gen. Eyre and Lt.-Gen Frances Allen have 100+ IQ points on me each. _I_ realized appointing Gen Dawe to this position would create a huge backlash and shit storm. Am I smarter than these two generals? Do I have more common sense and sensitivity to public optics? I highly doubt it, but that leaves me wondering what the hell is going on then. Their apologies are about as genuine as Trudeau's IMO.


I suspect part of it is a teaching moment.
   While I am sure we all know that MG Dawe knows he F'd Up - I think that role would give him some major insights into exactly how he fucked up, the consequences and the issues surrounding that -- I also think based on my knowledge of the man, he would be 110% sure that sort of action never occurred again.


----------



## The Bread Guy

KevinB said:


> While I am sure we all know that MG Dawe knows he F'd Up - I think that role would give him some major insights into exactly how he fucked up, the consequences and the issues surrounding that -- I also think based on my knowledge of the man, he would be 110% sure that sort of action never occurred again.


Which touches on this bit exactly ...


dapaterson said:


> A question: what does redemption look like?
> 
> Because right now it appears not to exist.


... or, to bring up another term in the news recently in a different context but which could also apply in this situation, reconciliation?  Lotsa revenge & retribution out there, but not much of those other two R's that I see right now.


----------



## ModlrMike

Ostrozac said:


> Yeah, but doesn’t that cut right to the chase? That specific POS had 5 separate promotion boards (and 5 separate CO’s) that signed off that he was good to go. That’s the problem — it’s not just a few bad apples, it’s systemic. There are dirtbags among us, and we have not been maintaining standards; that reflects badly on not just the scumbag individuals, but on the institution, and by extension, all of us that wear the suit.


In this case, he kept his deviance hidden in his home until the last minute. If it's not out there for us to see, how do we know? Psychopaths typically don't get caught at the start of their careers.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Halifax Tar said:


> If I was JT I'd fire the MND and CDS. I put Leslie in as MND and a Civil Servant in as CDS. Send a message loud and clear, the BS is over.



Now here's an issue;  you suggest JT has the "morale/ethical capital" to be the person deciding things such as this...despite what the recent election results were...

I do not.  Any decisions coming from him could be classified as fruit of the poisoned tree....could they not?  
_Kobayashi Maru?_​


----------



## Happy Guy

Interesting discussion.

Full disclosure.
I worked for the Gen Vance when he was the COS at LFCA. I am acquainted with the Maj Brennan (she lived in my neighbourhood).
I worked with MGen Dawe when he was a Maj a long time ago.  He was a typical Inf Offr in terms of knowledge, bravado but also highly intelligent.
I worked with MGen Fortin's staff when he was with 1 Cdn Div.  Highly respected.
I have received counselling and support for PTSD.
I am a qualified Harassment Advisor and Harassment Investigator.

My opinions.

Gen Vance. highly respected and professional soldier.  Showed poor judgment in his sexual affair with a junior Officer.  Let the civilian investigators and courts decide his fate.

Adm McDonald. I'm surprised that the Federal Gov't didn't paint him as a perpetrator like they normally do.  He is not likely to come back as the CDS.  He is not a Liberal PM who can get away with things that normal people cannot do.  He is most likely not to come back due to being tainted by public perception.  Unfortunate for the CAF.

MGen Dawe.  I sympathize with MGen Dawe's plight but his letter showed poor judgment.  Over the past decade and more, all of us who served, have served have received in some form or another training / briefings on sexual harassment, ethics, PTSD and leadership. Any qualified mental health professional will tell you that suffering from PTSD doesn't give you the excuse to commit sexual assault or commit crimes.  MGen Dawe should have known this while writing the letter and so should have the Regiment.  All sympathies and support should have been given to the victims.  The CAF and the Regiment f@#K up on this.  I do believe in second chances and perhaps given another time and different circumstances he should be given a second chance, but not in this case.  The institution is in trouble and MGen Dawe should retire to preserve it.

MGen Fortin.  Not sure of the case or details.  All victims of sexual assault face years of suffering.  What we may consider trivial is not in the eyes of victim.  Let the judicial system do its thing.  Let us remember that there is a victim here - be it is Fortin or the alleged sexual assault victim. I do feel that MGen Fortin has been tried and convicted by the general public based upon the actions of the Federal Gov't.  Like VAdm Norman he isn't likely to come back which is great loss to the CAF, if he is indeed innocent.

Senior Officer (Col/Capt(N) and GO/FOs) and Senior NCOs (CWOs/CPO1s) are simply not allowed to make such lapses in judgment (minor or major)with respect to anything related to sexual harassment, violence in civil society or gross breaches in conduct or violations in societal norms. 
We are witnessing now the institution is now in danger because of it.  The political system will take the institution to account for itself, although the political institution itself is in dire morale shape too, but at least we can vote out them out.

The issue that society expects, and quite rightly so, great things from us, and we (those who served, have served, or supported) should step up to the plate and deliver.

Cheers


----------



## MilEME09

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/danny-croucher-new-civlian-job-misconduct-allegations-1.6205306
		


Oh FFS.... can we go a week without something new


----------



## daftandbarmy

MilEME09 said:


> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/danny-croucher-new-civlian-job-misconduct-allegations-1.6205306
> 
> 
> 
> Oh FFS.... can we go a week without something new


----------



## PuckChaser

MilEME09 said:


> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/danny-croucher-new-civlian-job-misconduct-allegations-1.6205306
> 
> 
> 
> Oh FFS.... can we go a week without something new


Strong suspicion a S1/Cpl wouldn't have been granted that Voluntary Release with a 5F pending, especially now. The nepotism is real.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

MilEME09 said:


> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/danny-croucher-new-civlian-job-misconduct-allegations-1.6205306
> 
> 
> 
> Oh FFS.... can we go a week without something new



I honestly don't know what to say anymore.  We just don't seem to get it.


----------



## The Bread Guy

PuckChaser said:


> Strong suspicion a S1/Cpl wouldn't have been granted that Voluntary Release with a 5F pending, especially now ...


I'd bet the same even before ....


----------



## brihard

At this point are we even surprised?


----------



## Jarnhamar

MilEME09 said:


> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/danny-croucher-new-civlian-job-misconduct-allegations-1.6205306
> 
> 
> 
> Oh FFS.... can we go a week without something new


More pay, not forced to work early or late, paid over time if he chooses to work late, not ordered to "burn" his vacation days when it's convenient to the organization, not posted and forced to sell his home or live away from his family, probably a union to protect him, doesn't risk a fine in the hundreds of dollars if he's late for work.  Nice score lol

So who's turn is it this time to apologize? Better come with a promise to do better!


----------



## KevinB

Halifax Tar said:


> If I was JT I'd fire the MND and CDS.  I put Leslie in as MND and a Civil Servant in as CDS.  Send a message loud and clear, the BS is over.



To jump back to this -- JT is the problem...

  I mean he a pretty good role model - if you want to have predators, fraud, etc...


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Jarnhamar said:


> More pay, not forced to work early or late, paid over time if he chooses to work late, not ordered to "burn" his vacation days when it's convenient to the organization, not posted and forced to sell his home or live away from his family, probably a union to protect him, doesn't risk a fine in the hundreds of dollars if he's late for work.  Nice score lol
> 
> So who's turn is it this time to apologize? Better come with a promise to do better!



The thing that real irks me about this is the leadership have asked a lot of rank and file NCOs and Officers at the Coal Face, especially over the past year or so.  

The expectations are high but those same members also have expectations of their leadership.  Those expectations are quite frankly, not being met, and this is EXHIBIT A!


----------



## MJP

PuckChaser said:


> Strong suspicion a S1/Cpl wouldn't have been granted that Voluntary Release with a 5F pending, especially now. The nepotism is real.


It happens more than folks think it should as the lack of understanding of our admin system is rife throughout the CAF. The funny part is is isn't in the AR DAOD but is in the  DMCA 2 AR messages that COs are not to release pers under AR w/o consulting with DMCA first.  

That said our AR processes are overly long and drawn out with too much leeway given to the mbr.  We need to get beter and faster at saying good bye to people and stop trying to save everyone when they mess up


----------



## OldSolduer

KevinB said:


> To jump back to this -- JT is the problem...
> 
> I mean he a pretty good role model - if you want to have predators, fraud, etc...


JT is the issue here. Playing politics over real life issues, then blaming everyone else for his failings. Harry S Truman had a sign on his desk "the buck stops here" that signified he was responsible for every decision made by the US government. 


Humphrey Bogart said:


> The thing that real irks me about this is the leadership have asked a lot of rank and file NCOs and Officers at the Coal Face, especially over the past year or so.
> 
> The expectations are high but those same members also have expectations of their leadership.  Those expectations are quite frankly, not being met, and this is EXHIBIT A!


I tend to agree BUT I reckon there are still many officers of the rank of Colonel or higher that still behave in an ethical and above board manner.


----------



## brihard

Jarnhamar said:


> More pay, not forced to work early or late, paid over time if he chooses to work late, not ordered to "burn" his vacation days when it's convenient to the organization, not posted and forced to sell his home or live away from his family, probably a union to protect him, doesn't risk a fine in the hundreds of dollars if he's late for work.  Nice score lol
> 
> So who's turn is it this time to apologize? Better come with a promise to do better!


Or better. If my googling is correct he was RMC class of 98, meaning he probably starting accruing pensionable service in 1994. Meaning he’s probably pulling $70k a year unreduced pension plus whatever he’s making now.


----------



## MilEME09

brihard said:


> Or better. If my googling is correct he was RMC class of 98, meaning he probably starting accruing pensionable service in 1994. Meaning he’s probably pulling $70k a year unreduced pension plus whatever he’s making now.


So someone broke the rules and allowed his Release to avoid a 5F so he could keep his pension? My eyes of suspicion go straight to his boss at this point, and I would go and correct this.


----------



## brihard

MilEME09 said:


> So someone broke the rules and allowed his Release to avoid a 5F so he could keep his pension? My eyes of suspicion go straight to his boss at this point, and I would go and correct this.


No, CAF pensions, so far as I know, are untouchable. He’s have gotten it regardless if he had enough service. But it seems he was set up for a beautiful double dip. A 5f would have precluded any further government employment.


----------



## SupersonicMax

MilEME09 said:


> So someone broke the rules and allowed his Release to avoid a 5F so he could keep his pension? My eyes of suspicion go straight to his boss at this point, and I would go and correct this.


A 5F wouldn’t take your pension away.


----------



## MJP

MilEME09 said:


> So someone broke the rules and allowed his Release to avoid a 5F so he could keep his pension? My eyes of suspicion go straight to his boss at this point, and I would go and correct this.


Nothing even being a serial killer stops the pension


----------



## Furniture

MilEME09 said:


> So someone broke the rules and allowed his Release to avoid a 5F so he could keep his pension? My eyes of suspicion go straight to his boss at this point, and I would go and correct this.


My understanding is it's more a career shop/DGMC thing... The CMs are overworked, and under appreciated, so I can see how things might slip though. That said, the CAF needs the power to go back, and amend release conditions when things slip through.


----------



## MJP

Furniture said:


> My understanding is it's more a career shop/DGMC thing... The CMs are overworked, and under appreciated, so I can see how things might slip though. That said, the CAF needs the power to go back, and amend release conditions when things slip through.


A unit can initiate and conclude a AR outside of D Mil C or DGMC control or awareness as they have no control over the day to day disposition of that person.  

I've always included the career manager when I deal with DMCA but that is not a guarantee


----------



## Halifax Tar

MilEME09 said:


> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/danny-croucher-new-civlian-job-misconduct-allegations-1.6205306
> 
> 
> 
> Oh FFS.... can we go a week without something new



We will reap what we sow.


----------



## Halifax Tar

OldSolduer said:


> JT is the issue here. Playing politics over real life issues, then blaming everyone else for his failings. Harry S Truman had a sign on his desk "the buck stops here" that signified he was responsible for every decision made by the US government.



You need to stop blaming Trudeau for everything.  He's not the devil.  He's garbage I agree, but he's not responsible for our issues.


----------



## OldSolduer

Halifax Tar said:


> You need to stop blaming Trudeau for everything.  He's not the devil.  He's garbage I agree, but he's not responsible for our issues.


I will give you that one but the MND needed to go a long time ago. Who would be responsible for that?


----------



## suffolkowner

OldSolduer said:


> I will give you that one but the MND needed to go a long time ago. Who would be responsible for that?


It's obvious the PM and MND have no shame. The volume of GOFO's that are alleged to have commited some kind of sexual misconduct is incredible. To me it points to a real issue in the quality and nature of the promotions.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

suffolkowner said:


> It's obvious the PM and MND have no shame. The volume of GOFO's that are alleged to have commited some kind of sexual misconduct is incredible. To me it points to a real issue in the quality and nature of the promotions.


As much as I would like to blame it all on the current PM and MND, this problem existed long before they came along, they have just not helped it.


----------



## Halifax Tar

OldSolduer said:


> I will give you that one but the MND needed to go a long time ago. Who would be responsible for that?



See below: 



Colin Parkinson said:


> As much as I would like to blame it all on the current PM and MND, this problem existed long before they came along, they have just not helped it.


----------



## ballz

"As this was an administrative action, results and subsequent actions (if any) are protected under the Privacy Act."

Hey look there's that line again. If not for some people in the know going to the press, this all likely would have went unnoticed and the old boys would never have to answer to it.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry anymore.


----------



## daftandbarmy

I wonder if anyone is tracking, and being held accountable for, managing these numbers down as closely as they do for the various virtue signalling reports related to 'mandatory course completion' lists. 

It's clear that the current management is failing miserably and, in any self-respecting private sector organization, would get the order of the boot. To date I've never heard of anyone being fired over this type of failure at an organizational level.

When heads start to roll for poor performance in this area you'll start to see some improvements, I'm sure:
















						The Canadian military has received more than 700 sexual assault reports since 2016: data - National | Globalnews.ca
					

There have been 726 reports of military sexual assault since 2016, which is nearly a third of the more than 2,000 total military sexual misconduct reports since then.




					globalnews.ca


----------



## FJAG

suffolkowner said:


> It's obvious the PM and MND have no shame. The volume of GOFO's that are alleged to have commited some kind of sexual misconduct is incredible. To me it points to a real issue in the quality and nature of the promotions.


I disagree with your premise although I agree that it might look that way and that there clearly are issues that need dealing with.

We'll never come to grips with sexual misconduct issues until we acknowledge that these are issues that permeate all areas of our society where a hierarchical structure exists whether it be high schools, universities, civilian businesses, or the military - anywhere where a person with some power over others can take advantage of the situation. Add to that youth, alcohol and a break down of inhibitions and you end up with situations where people test the line of what is appropriate conduct.

For every individual who one should have known would not measure up to the rank they are being promoted to there are hundreds whose indiscretions or lack of ability are not obvious. I remember once being called out as a duty officer with the MPs to a disturbance at a PMQ that belonged to one of the our most able, immaculately turned out senior NCOs only to find a falling down, violent drunk who lived in a shit pit of a home. Up until the moment I crossed the threshold to his PMQ I never would have suspected it. Some people are good at covering their problems and it would take a much greater effort of digging into their lives than is normal in a society that values freedom and personal privacy.

What bothers me most about this whole sexual misconduct issue with respect to senior leadership is that we are glossing over so many other systemic leadership issues that grip DND. We have been wrestling with various levels of a hollow force for decades. Our procurement system is a moribund. We have capability gaps that have and will result in unnecessary injury and deaths to our troops or will make it impossible to deploy on operations. We can barely maintain the equipment that we do have. Our middle leadership tiers are voting with their feet in droves. All of these issues can be easily traced back to a weak and bureaucratic civilian and military leadership that stretches from the Prime Minister on down yet there has been zero effort to come to grips with it.

There will always be disappointments with respect to the competence or conduct of some of our leadership. That's simply bound to happen. The Peter Principle is a real thing. The point is that the system ought to be self-healing and be able to deal with its mistakes and move forward. DND hasn't been that way for decades. It's in a spiral. The sooner we realize that the sexual misconduct issues, while real, are a deflection that is keeping us from focusing on the wider leadership failings that permeate the defence structure, the sooner we'll be able to deal with all of it.

🍻


----------



## The Bread Guy

Colin Parkinson said:


> As much as I would like to blame it all on the current PM and MND, this problem existed long before they came along, they have just not helped it.


Fair is fair - it is the current PM's problem to deal with since it's coming out on his watch, and he is in an ironic/hypocritical space, and he has shown poor leadership re:  denouncing faults/pouring blame downwards publicly, but how many promotions happened under how many other governments to get to this place if the top politicians are to be blamed?


----------



## ballz

In general terms, I agree. The sexual misconduct crisis is just a symptom, the disease has been a lack of accountability for Lord knows how long. It was obvious to me as a 2Lt, as it was for most of my peers, although most join and learn through osmosis where "the line" is, and few at such a junior rank are willing to go against the grain and those who are, are skewered.


FJAG said:


> and you end up with situations where people test the line of what is appropriate conduct.



And leadership has failed to establish a line at all. The only line appears to be the Criminal Code and in many cases we've even failed to hild that line.



FJAG said:


> For every individual who one should have known would not measure up to the rank they are being promoted to there are hundreds whose indiscretions or lack of ability are not obvious.



This I disagree with, but we're opining withoht any empirical data as an unfortunate caveat. You may have been unable to see it from your specific chair in that case, but I doubt his various immediate supervisors and peers were unaware. The vast majority of "creatures" are fairly visible. Maybe not from a criminal lens but most people who can't keep their house/life in order also can't perform at work. I maintain that if you attack performance issues, most our issues go away. But we are utterly unwilling to attack performance issues, we'd rather hold out until APS.



FJAG said:


> There will always be disappointments with respect to the competence or conduct of some of our leadership. That's simply bound to happen. The Peter Principle is a real thing. The point is that the system ought to be self-healing and be able to deal with its mistakes and move forward. DND hasn't been that way for decades. It's in a spiral. The sooner we realize that the sexual misconduct issues, while real, are a deflection that is keeping us from focusing on the wider leadership failings that permeate the defence structure, the sooner we'll be able to deal with all of it.
> 
> 🍻


 
The Peter Principle would suggest someone gets promoted to MCpl/Maj, is recognized as not capable, and then no longer gets promoted since they suck at their current rank. Yes, it sucks that you have someone not capable of performing as expected, but that's not nearly as damaging as continuing to promote them many many ranks beyond their capability. It seems the only thing stopping our members that are incapable of even writing a coherant email from becoming CDS is the compulsory retirement age.


----------



## MilEME09

Part of the issue is we have long since stopped being an organization dedicated to being a lean, efficient fighting force. Instead we have become a bureaucratic bloat like the rest of government, not capable of even deploying a brigade or anything more then a company + for any significant length of time.

As much as this is destroying our Morale, and the institution, we need to utilize this to learn, reorganize, and become a efficient force. This will mean hard choices, and likely more civilian oversight in the coming years.


----------



## daftandbarmy

MilEME09 said:


> Part of the issue is we have long since stopped being an organization dedicated to being a lean, efficient fighting force. Instead we have become a bureaucratic bloat like the rest of government, not capable of even deploying a brigade or anything more then a company + for any significant length of time.
> 
> As much as this is destroying our Morale, and the institution, we need to utilize this to learn, reorganize, and become a efficient force. This will mean hard choices, and likely more civilian oversight in the coming years.



I dunno.... looks like we have about a thousand folks in Latvia, for starters: 


At any time, there can be up to 915 CAF members deployed on Operation REASSURANCE, making it Canada’s largest current international military operation. This includes:

approximately 240 sailors onboard a frigate, operating with NATO
540 soldiers leading a NATO enhanced Forward Presence Battle Group in Latvia
135 members of the Royal Canadian Air Force and approximately 5 CF-188 Hornet aircraft participating in NATO enhanced Air Policing





__





						Operation REASSURANCE - Canada.ca
					

Canadian Armed Forces support to NATO’s assurance and deterrence measures to promote security and stability in Central and Eastern Europe




					www.canada.ca


----------



## ballz

daftandbarmy said:


> I dunno.... looks like we have about a thousand folks in Latvia, for starters:
> 
> 
> At any time, there can be up to 915 CAF members deployed on Operation REASSURANCE, making it Canada’s largest current international military operation. This includes:
> 
> approximately 240 sailors onboard a frigate, operating with NATO
> 540 soldiers leading a NATO enhanced Forward Presence Battle Group in Latvia
> 135 members of the Royal Canadian Air Force and approximately 5 CF-188 Hornet aircraft participating in NATO enhanced Air Policing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Operation REASSURANCE - Canada.ca
> 
> 
> Canadian Armed Forces support to NATO’s assurance and deterrence measures to promote security and stability in Central and Eastern Europe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.canada.ca



Of those 540 soldiers that are part of the Army's contribution, I believe its one actual fighting sub-unit, a BG HQ, and the rest are supporters or an L3 HQ (i.e. there is a J8 over there).

Don't get me wrong I think we can deploy a Battalion but Op REASSURANCE is hardly proof of that. To deploy 3 rifle companies, a combat support coy, an admin coy, and a Bn HQ, we'd probably use up all the operational ready pers from 3 Battalions in a Regiment.

When 2 RCR had to deploy for the Syriam refugee crisis, once we had 3x green platoons (a Pl Comd, Pl 2IC, and 3x sections of Sgt, MCpl, 6x Cpl/Ptes) the entire Battalion rear-party could only scrape together 2 more Platoons to be ready for follow-on forces and that included pulling pers from Combat Support and Admin Coys.... and we're in worse shape now than we were in 2015.


----------



## daftandbarmy

ballz said:


> Of those 540 soldiers that are part of the Army's contribution, I believe its one actual fighting sub-unit, a BG HQ, and the rest are supporters.
> 
> Don't get me wrong I think we can deploy a Battalion but Op REASSURANCE is hardly proof of that. To deploy 3 rifle companies, a combat support coy, an admin coy, and a Bn HQ, we'd probably use up all the operational ready pers from 3 Battalions in a Regiment.
> 
> When 2 RCR had to deploy for the Syriam refugee crisis, once we had 3x green platoons (a Pl Comd, Pl 2IC, and 3x sections of Sgt, MCpl, 6x Cpl/Ptes) the entire Battalion rear-party could only scrape together 2 more Platoons to be ready for follow-on forces and that included pulling pers from Combat Support and Admin Coys.... and we're in worse shape now than we were in 2015.



I'm no expert in these matters, apart from a guy who was at the FG end, but it seems this would be a great opportunity to funnel reservists in to beef up a BGp in Latvia. 

Class A soldiers would give their eye teeth for a chance to deploy there. Committing enough Reg F leadership to frame out a couple of rifle companies/batteries/squadrons might pay dividends for both our international commitments and increasing reserve capabilities and retention.


----------



## MilEME09

daftandbarmy said:


> I'm no expert in these matters, apart from a guy who was at the FG end, but it seems this would be a great opportunity to funnel reservists in to beef up a BGp in Latvia.
> 
> Class A soldiers would give their eye teeth for a chance to deploy there. Committing enough Reg F leadership to frame out a couple of rifle companies/batteries/squadrons might pay dividends for both our international commitments and increasing reserve capabilities and retention.


From what I am seeing, upcoming rotos have significant reserve augmentation, double digit percentages, ditto for other operations, CAF is learning to utilize the ARes a lot more it seems. Though with our attrition rate, and margins of troops awaiting training, it may be out of necessity rather than a desire to truly use the ARes more.


----------



## ballz

daftandbarmy said:


> I'm no expert in these matters, apart from a guy who was at the FG end, but it seems this would be a great opportunity to funnel reservists in to beef up a BGp in Latvia.
> 
> Class A soldiers would give their eye teeth for a chance to deploy there. Committing enough Reg F leadership to frame out a couple of rifle companies/batteries/squadrons might pay dividends for both our international commitments and increasing reserve capabilities and retention.



You and I would need to crush a lot of beers to get to the bottom of the PRes integration problem. From my lens the Reg Force continually bends over backwards to try and get PRes to supplement manpower and it always fails or underdelivers at best. There's no shortage of demand for PRes supplementation on our end.


----------



## Harris

daftandbarmy said:


> Class A soldiers would give their eye teeth for a chance to deploy there. Committing enough Reg F leadership to frame out a couple of rifle companies/batteries/squadrons might pay dividends for both our international commitments and increasing reserve capabilities and retention.


Just out of curiosity, why would we need to have Reg Force leaderships for these Res Force troops?  Why not allow the Res Force leadership to deploy with their own soldiers?  I realize a single Unit providing a sub-unit is likely not feasible, but we do/have created Companies complete for DOMOPS from units.  One of the chief complaints I hear from my soldiers is that they are tired of being "hole fillers".  Maybe that's more of a 5XX thing, but we've got quite a few Company level leaders who would do an outstanding job if given the chance.  I would suggest the any Reg force pers tasked to these elm be there more as mentors for the work up period than CoC.


----------



## trigger324

The Bread Guy said:


> Fair is fair - it is the current PM's problem to deal with since it's coming out on his watch, and he is in an ironic/hypocritical space, and he has shown poor leadership re:  denouncing faults/pouring blame downwards publicly, but how many promotions happened under how many other governments to get to this place if the top politicians are to be blamed?


Had O’Toole won the election would all this not be his problem?


----------



## brihard

Harris said:


> Just out of curiosity, why would we need to have Reg Force leaderships for these Res Force troops?  Why not allow the Res Force leadership to deploy with their own soldiers?  I realize a single Unit providing a sub-unit is likely not feasible, but we do/have created Companies complete for DOMOPS from units.  One of the chief complaints I hear from my soldiers is that they are tired of being "hole fillers".  Maybe that's more of a 5XX thing, but we've got quite a few Company level leaders who would do an outstanding job if given the chance.  I would suggest the any Reg force pers tasked to these elm be there more as mentors for the work up period than CoC.


Tough, but it could be done. I think the Calgary Highlanders filled an entire platoon for one of the Kandahar rotos, if I heard right. I think the Loyal Eddies and I know the Camerons (Ottawa, not Winnipeg) deployed a platoon + of bodies simultaneously, though at least in the latter case, spread out through a TF.

More realistically, each PRes CBG should be able to FG a decent light rifle platoon or two. Mechanizing PRes augmented platoons would mostly be a matter of running the necessary courses on workup, and probably sowing a few experienced mech RegF infanteers throughout.

Attention would need to be paid to make sure PRes platoons within integrated Coys, or sections within platoons, don’t become Leper Det and catch all the shit jobs, or PRes buy in would be lost. But Afghanistan proved that with adequate preparation, reservists can be effectively used up to composite platoons.


----------



## Kilted

trigger324 said:


> Had O’Toole won the election would all this not be his problem?


His problem, but not his fault.


----------



## trigger324

So this is all Prime Minister Trudeau’s fault?

That’s kinda what all this boils down to. One story after another about who did what to who?

Don’t get me wrong. Harj is a tool. Should he be canned? Absolutely. Is The PM the reason for all these offences, perceived, alleged, or proven? No


----------



## MilEME09

brihard said:


> Tough, but it could be done. I think the Calgary Highlanders filled an entire platoon for one of the Kandahar rotos, if I heard right. I think the Loyal Eddies and I know the Camerons (Ottawa, not Winnipeg) deployed a platoon + of bodies simultaneously, though at least in the latter case, spread out through a TF.
> 
> More realistically, each PRes CBG should be able to FG a decent light rifle platoon or two. Mechanizing PRes augmented platoons would mostly be a matter of running the necessary courses on workup, and probably sowing a few experienced mech RegF infanteers throughout.
> 
> Attention would need to be paid to make sure PRes platoons within integrated Coys, or sections within platoons, don’t become Leper Det and catch all the shit jobs, or PRes buy in would be lost. But Afghanistan proved that with adequate preparation, reservists can be effectively used up to composite platoons.


Cal highs and the Eddie's combined to form a mortor platoon recently as well. If every ARes unit actually met their STARS objectives we would be in a much better position. Example all three ARes Service battalions I'm three div are suppose to be able to field a Company combined with each one expected to field different parts, example 41 svc should field the maintenance platoon hq element plus 3 sections.

Unfortunately I have heard of little desire to reach the goals, instead I've heard push back that they are unrealistic.


But back on topic, with allegations having hit every branch and command, what is the next step for the CAF?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Harris said:


> Just out of curiosity, why would we need to have Reg Force leaderships for these Res Force troops?  Why not allow the Res Force leadership to deploy with their own soldiers?  I realize a single Unit providing a sub-unit is likely not feasible, but we do/have created Companies complete for DOMOPS from units.  One of the chief complaints I hear from my soldiers is that they are tired of being "hole fillers".  Maybe that's more of a 5XX thing, but we've got quite a few Company level leaders who would do an outstanding job if given the chance.  I would suggest the any Reg force pers tasked to these elm be there more as mentors for the work up period than CoC.



If they have the qualified people available, who can deploy for a year, then sure. But, in reality, 90% of the reservists will be Cpl/Ptes and we would need to plan on that basis IIRC.

Now, if we hd a proper 'supply chain' properly constructed to regularly feed reservists into the machine, as opposed to our current hand to mouth approach ...


----------



## OldSolduer

trigger324 said:


> So this is all Prime Minister Trudeau’s fault?
> 
> That’s kinda what all this boils down to. One story after another about who did what to who?
> 
> Don’t get me wrong. Harj is a tool. Should he be canned? Absolutely. Is The PM the reason for all these offences, perceived, alleged, or proven? No


You're correct HOWEVER his "leadership" is conspicuous.....by its absence. 

NO Prime Minister should have to deal with this and yes its not all JTs fault.


----------



## trigger324

OldSolduer said:


> You're correct HOWEVER his "leadership" is conspicuous.....by its absence.
> 
> NO Prime Minister should have to deal with this and yes its not all JTs fault.


Well, IMHO we ve got a pretty good PM. Mind you I was rather disappointed when I donned an orange shirt last week and did my best to learn more about truth and reconciliation and he didn’t. He screwed up that one big time. But I can forgive.


----------



## The Bread Guy

trigger324 said:


> Had O’Toole won the election would all this not be his problem?


Same rationale would apply:  it is the current PM's problem to deal with since it's coming out on his watch (with caveats removed because we don't know how he would have initially handled it re:  laying blame/taking responsiblity) but how many promotions happened under how many other governments to get to this place if the top politicians are to be blamed?

Or, put another way (and this can apply, say, to VAC issues, given the long track record there under multiple team jerseys, too), even if O'Toole was in play as PM ...


Kilted said:


> His problem, but not his fault.


----------



## Weinie

Kilted said:


> His problem, but not his fault.


Or put another way. Not his fault, *but his problem.*


----------



## Jarnhamar

trigger324 said:


> Well, IMHO we ve got a pretty good PM.


That's quite the opinion.


----------



## Jarnhamar

MilEME09 said:


> But back on topic, with allegations having hit every branch and command, what is the next step for the CAF?



Bare minimum to appear to be doing something. Buddies covering for buddies. CAF tries to move on as quick as possible. 

Crouchers case is a perfect example that the CAF writ large doesn't give a fuck and you can either accept it or quit if you don't like it.


----------



## trigger324

Jarnhamar said:


> That's quite the opinion.


This time, like the last, glad it wasn’t the alternative


----------



## MilEME09

Jarnhamar said:


> Bare minimum to appear to be doing something. Buddies covering for buddies. CAF tries to move on as quick as possible.
> 
> Crouchers case is a perfect example that the CAF writ large doesn't give a fuck and you can either accept it or quit if you don't like it.


Cynical but likely true unfortunately


----------



## daftandbarmy

Jarnhamar said:


> Bare minimum to appear to be doing something. Buddies covering for buddies. CAF tries to move on as quick as possible.
> 
> Crouchers case is a perfect example that *the CAF writ large doesn't give a fuck and you can either accept it or quit if you don't like it.*



Kind of like our unofficial motto, right?


----------



## FJAG

ballz said:


> You and I would need to crush a lot of beers to get to the bottom of the PRes integration problem. From my lens the Reg Force continually bends over backwards to try and get PRes to supplement manpower and it always fails or underdelivers at best. There's no shortage of demand for PRes supplementation on our end.


I take it that your lens is a regular force lens.

During Afghanistan the reserves consistently deployed double digit augmentation. In total, I believe, 4,642 reservists deployed.

The problem from the regular force's point of view is that they want reservists for full tours which usually totals almost a year long commitment by the time predeployment training etc etc is taken into consideration. Much of the reserve force that is available on that basis is already filling thousands of Class B jobs in Ottawa and around the country.

If, for example, the regular force was to set more limited objectives, such as augmenting a rotation for a three-week exercise with a rifle company to augment a battalion or several recce troops to augment a squadron or a troop of artillery to an artillery battery, especially during summer vacation periods, I would suspect that a much greater level of participation would result.

One always has to remember that the vast bulk of the reserve force are only part-timers in the sense of the Army. In reality they are full-timers at civilian jobs and in schools who dedicate their spare time to military service. The key to the issue -- and it only takes a couple of beers to see that -- is that the regular force needs to set achievable goals and create the circumstances that will facilitate achievement. It does happen but, unfortunately, is the exception rather than the rule.

🍻


----------



## brihard

FJAG said:


> I take it that your lens is a regular force lens.
> 
> During Afghanistan the reserves consistently deployed double digit augmentation. In total, I believe, 4,642 reservists deployed.
> 
> The problem from the regular force's point of view is that they want reservists for full tours which usually totals almost a year long commitment by the time predeployment training etc etc is taken into consideration. Much of the reserve force that is available on that basis is already filling thousands of Class B jobs in Ottawa and around the country.
> 
> If, for example, the regular force was to set more limited objectives, such as augmenting a rotation for a three-week exercise with a rifle company to augment a battalion or several recce troops to augment a squadron or a troop of artillery to an artillery battery, especially during summer vacation periods, I would suspect that a much greater level of participation would result.
> 
> One always has to remember that the vast bulk of the reserve force are only part-timers in the sense of the Army. In reality they are full-timers at civilian jobs and in schools who dedicate their spare time to military service. The key to the issue -- and it only takes a couple of beers to see that -- is that the regular force needs to set achievable goals and create the circumstances that will facilitate achievement. It does happen but, unfortunately, is the exception rather than the rule.
> 
> 🍻



My observation from 14 years in the army reserve in an urban regiment was that we had generally three categories of troops:

1. The dabblers, who would give it a whirl, finish basic, do maybe a year to a year and a half in the company, then get out.

2. The “School and a bit” crowd who would join either late in high school or early in college/university, and get out within a couple years of graduating once life got busy. Call it 5-7 years.

3. The “Long haulers” who would stick it out into their professional adult lives for as long as they’re able.

Anecdotally, most of us who deployed were younger- Cpl/MCpl. Most of us were either taking a break from or done school, or were not yet settled into a career or a marriage. There were of course plenty of exceptions, but generally very few would deploy in their first decade of a professional career. There were also quite a few who were living the Class B life.

May - August is the big window for students, of course- shorter stuff is easily fit in there, and the FTSE targets this window. For a full deployment though, we’re talking a year and a half to two years. In my case I took two years off after my second year of university. That was a year of workup then six months in theatre. Arguably, our pre deployment time was quite inefficient. We could have done the real work in maybe 6 or 7 months inclusive of our month in Ft Bliss and our month in Wainwright- both of which were also inefficient for my platoon. We sat on our thumbs a lot.

There will always be a lot of young reservists who don’t really have much direction in life yet who will happily grab a tour of any length. For anything lengthy, good NCOs in particular will be harder.


----------



## FJAG

brihard said:


> My observation from 14 years in the army reserve in an urban regiment was that we had generally three categories of troops:
> 
> 1. The dabblers, who would give it a whirl, finish basic, do maybe a year to a year and a half in the company, then get out.
> 
> 2. The “School and a bit” crowd who would join either late in high school or early in college/university, and get out within a couple years of graduating once life got busy. Call it 5-7 years.
> 
> 3. The “Long haulers” who would stick it out into their professional adult lives for as long as they’re able.
> 
> Anecdotally, most of us who deployed were younger- Cpl/MCpl. Most of us were either taking a break from or done school, or were not yet settled into a career or a marriage. There were of course plenty of exceptions, but generally very few would deploy in their first decade of a professional career. There were also quite a few who were living the Class B life.
> 
> May - August is the big window for students, of course- shorter stuff is easily fit in there, and the FTSE targets this window. For a full deployment though, we’re talking a year and a half to two years. In my case I took two years off after my second year of university. That was a year of workup then six months in theatre. Arguably, our pre deployment time was quite inefficient. We could have done the real work in maybe 6 or 7 months inclusive of our month in Ft Bliss and our month in Wainwright- both of which were also inefficient for my platoon. We sat on our thumbs a lot.
> 
> There will always be a lot of young reservists who don’t really have much direction in life yet who will happily grab a tour of any length. For anything lengthy, good NCOs in particular will be harder.


I think that you are bang on with your assessment. I've always felt that we should hit the "school and a bit" crowd with as much training and opportunity as we can while we can to get them to get them as fully qualified as possible while they are accessible. They can afford to take a gap year if necessary to make some money and see the world. We should be subsidizing their education as much as possible to keep them bought in.

It's at that 5-7 year point that they settle down and have a family and a job and competing interests. To keep them on as "long haulers" (and we need quite a few of those if we ever want to have a force that can mobilize if needed) we need to make ongoing commitments both as easy and as meaningful as possible. I've always believed in making unit Class A training as just one weekend a month and a couple of weeks in the summer but making those really good events (to make them desirable if not obligatory).

That leads to one conclusion that the regular force doesn't want to face. You can't expect the bulk of the "long haulers" to be the trainers of the "school and a bit" crowd. Much of your summer training has to be conducted by the regular force. And therein lies the problem.

🍻


----------



## Jarnhamar

MilEME09 said:


> Cynical but likely true unfortunately


I apoloigize I should use more appropriate language. It's really sad caring so much about the CAF and the people in the CAF and realizing this is the standard.  I've literally been punished more severely for walking across grass (that I was doing PT on hours earlier).


----------



## Good2Golf

MilEME09 said:


> Part of the issue is we have long since stopped being an organization dedicated to being a lean, efficient fighting force. Instead we have become a bureaucratic bloat like the rest of government, not capable of even deploying a brigade or anything more then a company + for any significant length of time.
> 
> As much as this is destroying our Morale, and the institution, we need to utilize this to learn, reorganize, and become a efficient force. This will mean hard choices, and likely more civilian oversight in the coming years.


MilEME09, this is actually relatively profound yet deceptively simple. Stay true to core values (Integrity, Loyalty. Courage, Stewardship (leadership & accountability), Excellence) and don’t let the ‘flavour of the day’ (talking the same hip bureaucrat ‘speak’ as the civil servants across the table from you) compromise your  conduct or comportment - be proud, be competent, be accountable…lead…at all levels.


----------



## Haggis

trigger324 said:


> Well, IMHO we ve got a pretty good PM. Mind you I was rather disappointed when I donned an orange shirt last week and did my best to learn more about truth and reconciliation and he didn’t. He screwed up that one big time. But I can forgive.


So, you're okay that he created a national commemorative day with much fanfare and apology, promised to do right by first nations peoples, even shed a tear or three, then skipped it altogether to hit the beach and also had his office lie to Canadians about his activities on that day?

Will you forgive his next big lie?  And the next one?  And the one after that?


----------



## YZT580

As an outside and retired observer for many years I would suggest the one thing you don't want is more civilian oversight.  The process of hiring in the civil service, which is where the oversight will originate, does not look for the best person for the task at hand.  Senior positions are filled by friends or by people who know how to punctuate their statements correctly (dot their I's). Finding the right people to reduce the bloat and re-create a proud and efficient fighting unit won't be achieved via a competition board.  In my work area, when we wanted to get something done we often would choose a rookie (i.e. one with less than 5 years service) a senior jaded type who had seen it all but whose record showed that he had contributed a number of ideas in the past and head it up with a recently appointed operational supervisor who was still current in all aspects of the work and had demonstrated their competency in the past.  That is all, just 3 but for whatever reason it worked.  The big thing was giving them the authority to actually implement their ideas after completing a safety analysis of course but without trying to change things in their plan.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Haggis said:


> So, you're okay that he created a national commemorative day with much fanfare and apology, promised to do right by first nations peoples, even shed a tear or three, then skipped it altogether to hit the beach and also had his office lie to Canadians about his activities on that day?
> 
> Will you forgive his next big lie?  And the next one?  And the one after that?



But Trudeau just wants us to believe him:

"Anyone who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”

Voltaire


----------



## trigger324

Haggis said:


> So, you're okay that he created a national commemorative day with much fanfare and apology, promised to do right by first nations peoples, even shed a tear or three, then skipped it altogether to hit the beach and also had his office lie to Canadians about his activities on that day?
> 
> Will you forgive his next big lie?  And the next one?  And the one after that?


I’m okay with it? Didn’t I say I was disappointed? 

I tend to forgive many people for many things. It’s my nature. 

Will I forgive his next lie? All depends. Hasn’t told that lie yet so I guess I’ll cross that bridge when I come to it.


----------



## Haggis

trigger324 said:


> I’m okay with it? Didn’t I say I was disappointed?


Forgiving it means you're okay with it.


trigger324 said:


> I tend to forgive many people for many things. It’s my nature.


Did they lie to an entire country?  I tend to hold my leadership, both uniformed and civilian, to a higher standard of integrity and morality.


trigger324 said:


> Will I forgive his next lie? All depends. Hasn’t told that lie yet so I guess I’ll cross that bridge when I come to it.


Are you sure he hasn't told another lie yet?  Or has he just not been caught yet?


----------



## Jarnhamar

trigger324 said:


> I’m okay with it? Didn’t I say I was disappointed?
> 
> I tend to forgive many people for many things. It’s my nature.
> 
> Will I forgive his next lie? All depends. Hasn’t told that lie yet so I guess I’ll cross that bridge when I come to it.


Pretty heavy condemnation, you're clearly very troubled by his behavior.


----------



## trigger324

Jarnhamar said:


> Pretty heavy condemnation, you're clearly very troubled by his behavior.


Surely you jest


----------



## ballz

FJAG said:


> I take it that your lens is a regular force lens.



Yes, I thought that was clear given the context.



FJAG said:


> The problem from *the regular force's point of view is* *that* they want reservists for full tours which usually totals almost a year long commitment by the time predeployment training etc etc is taken into consideration. Much of the reserve force that is available on that basis is already filling thousands of Class B jobs in Ottawa and around the country.



Well, we certainly aren't going to have a useful conversation with you telling me what my point of view is. It's actually exact opposite of what you just said. We generally don't want to give up deployment positions (we get told to by Army), but we continually try to get PRes out on exercises and it leads to a mountain of effort for like 1 or 2 extra people in the end, if any at all.... unless it's something that would be considered a "good go" (i.e. international travel) and then they're coming out in droves....


----------



## Kilted

brihard said:


> There will always be a lot of young reservists who don’t really have much direction in life yet who will happily grab a tour of any length. For anything lengthy, good NCOs in particular will be harder.


There will likely be more MCpl's and Sgt's available considering how fast they are pushing people through the training and that there is now one course for MCpl/Sgt.  Granted you will not get the same calibre coming out that you did a few years ago, for if nothing else, lack of experience.  My unit recently had a Sgt qualified Pte, I believe that he has since been promoted to Cpl.


----------



## Kilted

PuckChaser said:


> Strong suspicion a S1/Cpl wouldn't have been granted that Voluntary Release with a 5F pending, especially now. The nepotism is real.


I knew a Cpl who was allowed to VR instead of being 5F'd.  It wasn't related to a sexual misconduct issue.  I was also staff on a course where a PteR was allowed to VR instead of being charged for assaulting an instructor.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

I don't even know why we are talking about Justin Trudeau or Harjit Sajjan?

Did Trudeau give Peter Dawe a new position?
Did Trudeau give Croucher a "job for the boys" in Halifax?
Did Trudeau treat Kevin and Annalise Schamuhn badly?
Did Trudeau allow Flight attendants and Military Members to be assaulted by Dignitaries at their own work place and do nothing about it?
Was Trudeau responsible for this little gem I'm surprised nobody has talked about:





__





						Page Not Found / Page non trouvée
					






					www.mpcc-cppm.gc.ca
				




This isn't a political issue.  It's an issue with the way the Canadian Armed Forces Officer Corps runs the bloody department.  The buck stops at the Officer Corps.  Officers are the ones with the legal authority to give orders, we are the ones with bloody commissioning scroll for gods sake.

People make mistakes, everyone has made one before, goodness knows I've made a few but what I see over and over is a failure to firstly, correct those mistakes and then not hold people accountable for not correcting them.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I don't even know why we are talking about Justin Trudeau or Harjit Sajjan?
> 
> Did Trudeau give Peter Dawe a new position?
> Did Trudeau give Croucher a "job for the boys" in Halifax?
> Did Trudeau treat Kevin and Annalise Schamuhn badly?
> Did Trudeau allow Flight attendants and Military Members to be assaulted by Dignitaries at their own work place and do nothing about it?
> Was Trudeau responsible for this little gem I'm surprised nobody has talked about:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Page Not Found / Page non trouvée
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.mpcc-cppm.gc.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't a political issue.  It's an issue with the way the Canadian Armed Forces Officer Corps runs the bloody department.  The buck stops at the Officer Corps.  Officers are the ones with the legal authority to give orders, we are the ones with bloody commissioning scroll for gods sake.
> 
> People make mistakes, everyone has made one before, goodness knows I've made a few but what I see over and over is a failure to firstly, correct those mistakes and then not hold people accountable for not correcting them.


I generally agree with you except for one, pedantic, correction. Canadian Armed Forces Officers do not run the Department. That is the purview of  MND and DM. The CDS commands the CAF, which is a part of DND. Make of that what you will.


----------



## dapaterson

The CAF is not part of DND.  They are legally distinct entities, with different CoC and different regulatory and policy frameworks.

Management of DND is the responsibility of the DM.  Command of the CAF is the responsibility of the CDS.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

dapaterson said:


> The CAF is not part of DND.  They are legally distinct entities, with different CoC and different regulatory and policy frameworks.
> 
> Management of DND is the responsibility of the DM.  Command of the CAF is the responsibility of the CDS.


Thank-you for the correction, which highlights my point: People even in the CAF/DND do not understand the legal distinction, which leads to both sides frequently going outside their swim lanes. Or pundits suggesting solutions that are legally impossible (ie appointing a civilian as CDS to “sort out the CAF”).


----------



## daftandbarmy

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I don't even know why we are talking about Justin Trudeau or Harjit Sajjan?
> 
> Did Trudeau give Peter Dawe a new position?
> Did Trudeau give Croucher a "job for the boys" in Halifax?
> Did Trudeau treat Kevin and Annalise Schamuhn badly?
> Did Trudeau allow Flight attendants and Military Members to be assaulted by Dignitaries at their own work place and do nothing about it?
> Was Trudeau responsible for this little gem I'm surprised nobody has talked about:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Page Not Found / Page non trouvée
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.mpcc-cppm.gc.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't a political issue.  It's an issue with the way the Canadian Armed Forces Officer Corps runs the bloody department.  The buck stops at the Officer Corps.  Officers are the ones with the legal authority to give orders, we are the ones with bloody commissioning scroll for gods sake.
> 
> People make mistakes, everyone has made one before, goodness knows I've made a few but what I see over and over is a failure to firstly, correct those mistakes and then not hold people accountable for not correcting them.



Exactly. Well said.

Unfortunately, this seems to be the prevailing culture:


----------



## PPCLI Guy

dapaterson said:


> Management of DND is the responsibility of the DM.  Command of the CAF is the responsibility of the CDS.


Hmm.  Not seen.


----------



## Navy_Pete

dapaterson said:


> The CAF is not part of DND.  They are legally distinct entities, with different CoC and different regulatory and policy frameworks.
> 
> Management of DND is the responsibility of the DM.  Command of the CAF is the responsibility of the CDS.


And both report to the MND, so there is a common point of accountability there.

All kinds of weird reporting chains though; the ADMs aren't part of the CAF, but still have a mix of military/civilian employees. Some things are reported to the DM, some to VCDS (then the DM/CDS) and then some odd dotted line reporting to the CAF side. Gets confusing sometimes because the operational side issues orders which actually don't apply to you, but you follow anyway (sometimes). The PaCE training CANFORGEN was a good example, as a lot of it applied to DND civilians that don't fall anywhere under the CDS command line.

Here's an older org chart, but still valid;
DND/CAF Organizational Chart - Canada.ca


----------



## McG

Could the system be more clear if there were a CFHQ separate and distinct from civilian structures of DND?


----------



## dapaterson

Pre-unification, the head of CAF infrastructure was a BGen.

Today, that's a civilian role, but with a MGen working under him.

Rank bloat plus the CAF's desire to keep its fingers in non core business contribute to the confusion.

I have commented a non zero number of times that the CAF suffers from a uniform fetish - a constant desire to have roles filled by uniformed personnel.  With a hard cap on the size of the CAF, sticking uniformed personnel in roles because "generals trust uniforms" suggests a need for better generals.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

So.


I am not sure that having two war losing capabilities (information and Cyber) "under command" of civilians ADMs and hence the DM is the right  approach for a country that is serious about defending itself.


----------



## Good2Golf

PPCLI Guy said:


> So.
> 
> 
> I am not sure that having two war losing capabilities (information and Cyber) "under command" of civilians ADMs and hence the DM is the right  approach for a country that is serious about defending itself.


Not sure that’s what Paul Hellyer had in mind in Canada, but that’s what it has degraded into.  DND is not like DoD, the levels of interweaving of statutory and operational responsibilities is staggering.  A responsible minister would conduct a Departmental and CAF assessment as to the best organization.  Uniforms, aside from a minimal yet sufficient amount of liaison within a statutorily managed non-operational Department element that is clearly defined and separate while being supportive of the CAF, should stay in the CAF, and be held accountable by a responsible MND.


----------



## FJAG

McG said:


> Could the system be more clear if there were a CFHQ separate and distinct from civilian structures of DND?


When I went Reg F is 1969 that's what we had. A NDHQ and a CFHQ. CFHQ grew out of the integration of the three services (Army Navy and Air Force) into one service. I'm not sure exactly when it was but the headquarters were merged into NDHQ - I think it might have been in 1972. They are still separate entities created under Parts I and II of the NDA performing different but compatible functions.

🍻


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Of course the Vice is supposed to be the COS of NDHQ (and hence both the Chief and the DM), but in recent times that position has eroded..  it feels like I have briefed at least 5 VCDS in the last 3 years.

When a Vice tries to retake that position, they are taken down.

And now I will have a quiet whiskey,


----------



## Infanteer

FJAG said:


> When I went Reg F is 1969 that's what we had. A NDHQ and a CFHQ. CFHQ grew out of the integration of the three services (Army Navy and Air Force) into one service. I'm not sure exactly when it was but the headquarters were merged into NDHQ - I think it might have been in 1972. They are still separate entities created under Parts I and II of the NDA performing different but compatible functions.
> 
> 🍻


Yes, 1972.  After a senior Trudeau Sr-era report on Management.


----------



## Journeyman

daftandbarmy said:


> "Anyone who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”
> 
> Voltaire


Was that Voltaire or QAnon? 



Good2Golf said:


> .... and be held accountable by a responsible MND.


Which would require a government (of any party) with any interest in defence and security issues, appointing a competent Minister into the position. Defence is nothing more than a source for regional pork-belly spending and rewarding safe political ridings; the actual military aspects are merely distracting nuisances.


----------



## Good2Golf

PPCLI Guy said:


> Of course the Vice is supposed to be the COS of NDHQ (and hence both the Chief and the DM), but in recent times that position has eroded..  it feels like I have briefed at least 5 VCDS in the last 3 years.
> 
> When a Vice tries to retake that position, they are taken down.
> 
> And now I will have a quiet whiskey,


DM John Forster and VCDS Guy Thibault was the last time that DND/NDHQ was firing on all cylinders. Mark Norman followed Guy Thibault in 2016 with a view to further tidying the DND/CAF admin lines, and the mandarins got uncomfortable and OP KNOW YOUR PLACE kicked off and the work to remove VAdm Norman as a thorn in the side of those in various places in Govt kicked into high gear.

Forster, as a career Defence/security-savvy civil-servant (he was head of Communications Security Establishment of Canada - CSEC, the Canadian equivalent of the US’ National Security Agency - NSA) prior to being appointed DMND,  retired and was replaced with the operations-focused (career essential split between Passport Canada and the Coast Guard) Jody Thomas, daughter of past VCDS VAdm Chuck Thomas (VCDS 1989-1991).  The government’s intentions by those in various circles was clear: leverage the DM position to expand its administration of DND to now include control of the CAF operationally not only with the MND, but the DM as well (which otherwise had been limited to limited to statutory administrative management of the predominantly (but not exclusively) civilian DND.

For whatever reason, the Govt of the day chose to retain Gen Jon Vance as CDS, perhaps knowing his background…which was not really secret to most, certainly in the Army and arguably fairly widely in the CAF (heck, even NATO), and appeared to endorse the newly appointed DM’s expansions in influence/pseudo-command over some of the CAF’s daily operations and command and control elements.

Why the Govt didn’t remove Vance earlier and replace him with a CDS who would exercise command of the CAF in a manner that aligned more closely with its wishes, is hard to fathom, instead developing the strange hybrid of assumption of some command function over the CAF by the DM blended with CDS full-command of the CAF.  At this point, it’s still an experiment by the Govt to see how it’s hybrid command of the CAF is working out, but on the surface, current CAF command seems chaotic at best.  The MND seems absent and the CDS (and VCDS ) seem to be making some questionable decisions of late, and we hear nary a word of what one of the most powerful Deputy Minsters in the Government of Canada is doing to manage the Department and whatever CAF command actions the MND has assigned to her.

Puzzling indeed.


----------



## Happy Guy

I think that the current discussion has veered away from the original topic of sexual misconduct. Perhaps the moderators would consider splitting this off into another discussion regarding NDHQ?

I have worked at ADM(MAT), CANOSCOM and CJOC and as of them can be labelled as NDHQ.  I have never been quite comfortable with the NDHQ organization as it confuses the civilian and military lines especially in the area of operations.  I remember having a rather heated discussion with a colleague of mine (LCol) arguing about the role of ADM(MAT).  He was saying it was the equivalent of the J4 and I was saying "NO!".  It was more like the American Defense Logistics Agency.  No civilian should ever be in control of the operational logistics / support services system. Thankfully SJS was formed with a J4.

As I am retired now all I can say it do not let civilians ever control operational logistics / support services.  Logistics is one of fundamental stones that you need to conduct CAF operations.  The CDS does not have authority over the ADMs and if the CDS cannot command and control logistics you might as well lose the ability to fight a war effectively and in the way you want it.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Happy Guy said:


> I think that the current discussion has veered away from the original topic of sexual misconduct. Perhaps the moderators would consider splitting this off into another discussion regarding NDHQ?
> 
> I have worked at ADM(MAT), CANOSCOM and CJOC and as of them can be labelled as NDHQ.  I have never been quite comfortable with the NDHQ organization as it confuses the civilian and military lines especially in the area of operations.  I remember having a rather heated discussion with a colleague of mine (LCol) arguing about the role of ADM(MAT).  He was saying it was the equivalent of the J4 and I was saying "NO!".  It was more like the American Defense Logistics Agency.  No civilian should ever be in control of the operational logistics / support services system. Thankfully SJS was formed with a J4.
> 
> As I am retired now all I can say it do not let civilians ever control operational logistics / support services.  Logistics is one of fundamental stones that you need to conduct CAF operations.  The CDS does not have authority over the ADMs and if the CDS cannot command and control logistics you might as well lose the ability to fight a war effectively and in the way you want it.


I do not think this should be split off from the main discussion. Someone earlier brought the point that the CAF lacks accountability for various sexual misconduct issues. These are the systemic reason why there is a lack of accountability- muddled chains of command;  civil service over reach into what should be purely military domains.

Some have posited that this is a deliberate attempt to destroy the CAF as anything more than an ability to deliver pork barrel contracts to friends of the Government. Others suggest it is just organizational drift under a disinterested MND/PMO.

Point being- where no one knows who is accountable, bad things will happen.


----------



## Happy Guy

Refs: A.  DAOD 9005-1, Sexual Misconduct Response
B.  Sexual Misconduct Incident Management Decision Tree


Accountability for sexual misconduct is outlined in ref A, and decision tree for Sexual Misconduct Incident Management and ref B (Dummies guide to sexual misconduct incident management).

As I see it, the primary issues are: the Chain of Command interference with investigations, lack of compliance with the regulations and plain ignorance.  I think that any sexual misconduct investigation should not be handled by the CAF but assigned to an outside professional agency.  The C of C should abide by the regulations to respect the privacy and security of both the respondent and complainant and they must be followed up by the outside agency to confirm that the policies and regulations are being followed.  It is clear, in my mind, that military cannot be trusted to handle any sexual misconduct investigations.  Perhaps this outside agency should belong to the DM vice the CAF.

The fact of the matter is that the senior C of C cannot be trusted to handle such matters especially when the respondent is a Sr Offr.  Too often the respondant is able to influence the C of C because of their close friendship or they hold "dirt" on the reviewing officer which they will wield to save themselves.  We tend to frame the issues within our own context because we are honourable and ethical people, but the predators are.

We need to restore confidence in the institute and airing of our dirty laundry and the fall out will restore it.  I remember the Somalia Affair having being involved with it from my own end.  The CAF endured significant negative reputation but it revealed severe problems that the Army Sr Ldrship all knew but didn't act upon to correct it.  The CAF did rebound back and institute changes for the better.  As a side note, I received a posting message to the CAR but I was taken aside by a Sr RCR Offr who warned me not to go there.  I didn't get to go because I was posted to another priority position in the end.

Cheers


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Happy Guy said:


> Refs: A.  DAOD 9005-1, Sexual Misconduct Response
> B.  Sexual Misconduct Incident Management Decision Tree
> 
> 
> Accountability for sexual misconduct is outlined in ref A, and decision tree for Sexual Misconduct Incident Management and ref B (Dummies guide to sexual misconduct incident management).
> 
> As I see it, the primary issues are: the Chain of Command interference with investigations, lack of compliance with the regulations and plain ignorance.  I think that any sexual misconduct investigation should not be handled by the CAF but assigned to an outside professional agency.  The C of C should abide by the regulations to respect the privacy and security of both the respondent and complainant and they must be followed up by the outside agency to confirm that the policies and regulations are being followed.  It is clear, in my mind, that military cannot be trusted to handle any sexual misconduct investigations.  Perhaps this outside agency should belong to the DM vice the CAF.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that the senior C of C cannot be trusted to handle such matters especially when the respondent is a Sr Offr.  Too often the respondant is able to influence the C of C because of their close friendship or they hold "dirt" on the reviewing officer which they will wield to save themselves.  We tend to frame the issues within our own context because we are honourable and ethical people, but the predators are.
> 
> We need to restore confidence in the institute and airing of our dirty laundry and the fall out will restore it.  I remember the Somalia Affair having being involved with it from my own end.  The CAF endured significant negative reputation but it revealed severe problems that the Army Sr Ldrship all knew but didn't act upon to correct it.  The CAF did rebound back and institute changes for the better.  As a side note, I received a posting message to the CAR but I was taken aside by a Sr RCR Offr who warned me not to go there.  I didn't get to go because I was posted to another priority position in the end.
> 
> Cheers


You place a lot of trust in the DM and the civil service side of DND. Tell me, what in your experience, gives you that trust that they will do any better in handling sexual misconduct issues than the CAF has?


----------



## Happy Guy

I had whole heartedly placed my trust in the CAF while on operations and it never let me down - I'm still alive.  In my years of service I have learned much about human beings and it is that we are fallible.  I have seen some things in which the CAF C of C took some actions that were morally questionable and in hind sight, if I was more worthy, I should have spoken up.

The DM is not in the direct C of C as the CAF and hence theoritically not suspectible to its "influences."  Of course this outside agency doesn't have to be even a DND entity at all, but the reporting of such incidents and its handling shouldn't be the CAF.  There has to be an organization in which we must report these incidents to. We can always say no because of this or that, but the fact of the matter is we must place faith in an institute at some time or we will not get anything done.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Happy Guy said:


> I had whole heartedly placed my trust in the CAF while on operations and it never let me down - I'm still alive.  In my years of service I have learned much about human beings and it is that we are fallible.  I have seen some things in which the CAF C of C took some actions that were morally questionable and in hind sight, if I was more worthy, I should have spoken up.
> 
> The DM is not in the direct C of C as the CAF and hence theoritically not suspectible to its "influences."  Of course this outside agency doesn't have to be even a DND entity at all, but the reporting of such incidents and its handling shouldn't be the CAF.  There has to be an organization in which we must report these incidents to. We can always say no because of this or that, but the fact of the matter is we must place faith in an institute at some time or we will not get anything done.


Right, but what makes you think a DM is necessarily morally superior to a CDS and/or free from agendas other than the combat readiness of the CAF and the wellbeing of CAF members?

I am not trolling you. Serious question- what makes a senior civil servant automatically more morally culpable than a flag officer?


----------



## Happy Guy

ACK. I understand.

As I mentioned before, we must place faith and trust in an institution not the person.  The CAF has not met the expectations of its members, the Gov't or the general public in its handling of sexual misconduct incidents.  A senior public servant, especially one who is not ex-CAF, and their their TEAM are not likely to be susceptible to "influences" from the CAF. 

No institution is morally superior compared to another nor is one person more "pure" than another.  I suggested the DM side simply because we can keep it within the Department and the MND can manage it.  We can play the game forward and say can we trust the DM? Can we trust the MND? Can we trust the PM?  When do we stop?  This circular arguement / logic must stop somewhere.

I am open for suggestions for how we can better manage this.

Got to go and get some exercise before the I stuff myself tonight!

Cheers


----------



## McG

Good2Golf said:


> Not sure that’s what Paul Hellyer had in mind in Canada, but that’s what it has degraded into.


The integrated NDHQ is actually a post Hellyer monstrosity that, as Infanteer notes, came about from a separate report on management efficiency.



Happy Guy said:


> I think that the current discussion has veered away from the original topic of sexual misconduct.


The two are actually linked. A lot of analysis in the late 90’s & early 2000’s identified that the integrated NDHQ was part of the problem in eroding the military identity of NDHQ staff officers and eventually contributing to disciplinary breakdowns in Somalia and Croatia. Today that blurring of military identity again is contributing to the problem. Look at how we are treating it like a civilian HR problem (remedial measures that are private) and not as an affront to the profession (which should be corrected in publicly observable proceedings).


----------



## Navy_Pete

Happy Guy said:


> ACK. I understand.
> 
> As I mentioned before, we must place faith and trust in an institution not the person.  The CAF has not met the expectations of its members, the Gov't or the general public in its handling of sexual misconduct incidents.  A senior public servant, especially one who is not ex-CAF, and their their TEAM are not likely to be susceptible to "influences" from the CAF.
> 
> No institution is morally superior compared to another nor is one person more "pure" than another.  I suggested the DM side simply because we can keep it within the Department and the MND can manage it.  We can play the game forward and say can we trust the DM? Can we trust the MND? Can we trust the PM?  When do we stop?  This circular arguement / logic must stop somewhere.
> 
> I am open for suggestions for how we can better manage this.
> 
> Got to go and get some exercise before the I stuff myself tonight!
> 
> Cheers



On the flip side, the DM is far more swayed by political concerns vice operational effectiveness, and doesn't have any 'skin in the game' as an outsider to the CAF.

I think it all really depends on the people; there are a lot of really dedicated, very skilled career public servants, and also some very petty, career focused clowns, both in and out of uniform.  A lot of the big strategic efforts on the CAF side that took 5-10 years to get to were driven by civilians (usually retired CAF but not always), not military members, which is really just due to our posting cycle.

From what I've been hearing, sounds like LGen Carignan is the right person to due this review and put some changes in place, if people would just stay out of her swimlane and give her the necessary authority to get things done. This rapidly seems to be turning into too many cooks in the kitchen, which never works (see DPS).


----------



## Ostrozac

Happy Guy said:


> I think that the current discussion has veered away from the original topic of sexual misconduct. Perhaps the moderators would consider splitting this off into another discussion regarding NDHQ?


I for one would fully support such a split thread. In over 30 years of service, I’ve never really understood what NDHQ is. Is it a building? A command and control concept? A term that refers to all Command HQ and ADMs that happen to be in the NCR — Air Command in Winnipeg seemed pretty clear as not NDHQ, but when it moved to Ottawa, did it become part of NDHQ? What about people that work for an ADM but are located outside the NCR, are they part of NDHQ? Is SJS a part of NDHQ, the personal staff of the CDS, or something else entirely?

I don’t think this has been well covered in our internal PME.


----------



## brihard

Ostrozac said:


> I for one would fully support such a split thread. In over 30 years of service, I’ve never really understood what NDHQ is. Is it a building? A command and control concept? A term that refers to all Command HQ and ADMs that happen to be in the NCR — Air Command in Winnipeg seemed pretty clear as not NDHQ, but when it moved to Ottawa, did it become part of NDHQ? What about people that work for an ADM but are located outside the NCR, are they part of NDHQ? Is SJS a part of NDHQ, the personal staff of the CDS, or something else entirely?
> 
> I don’t think this has been well covered in our internal PME.


It's best understood as where happiness and good ideas go to die.


----------



## MilEME09

Reading the past few pages it sounds like over the years the lines between the CAF and DND, administration wise have been blured and as a result also hamper our efforts to have accountability. After all if everyone has their hands in the cookie jar, who do you blame when the last cookie is gone? Sounds like our back end needs an overhaul to get us back in shape.


----------



## OldSolduer

MilEME09 said:


> Reading the past few pages it sounds like over the years the lines between the CAF and DND, administration wise have been blured and as a result also hamper our efforts to have accountability. After all if everyone has their hands in the cookie jar, who do you blame when the last cookie is gone? Sounds like our back end needs an overhaul to get us back in shape.


I have long said we have uniformed members who try to act like bureaucrats with poor success.


----------



## Good2Golf

McG said:


> The integrated NDHQ is actually a post Hellyer monstrosity that, as Infanteer notes, came about from a separate report on management efficiency.


But not unrelated…indeed it was a direct result in response to issues identified with CFHQ post-unification.  Yes, Donald MacDonald was MND, not Paul Hellyer, and yes Trudeau was PM, not Pearson, but I think it fair to consider that Hellyer’s (and Pearson’s) intention was to increase the effectiveness of the armed services…hence why CFHQ was deemed outside of desired characteristics. 


McG said:


> The two are actually linked. A lot of analysis in the late 90’s & early 2000’s identified that the integrated NDHQ was part of the problem in eroding the military identity of NDHQ staff officers and eventually contributing to disciplinary breakdowns in Somalia and Croatia. Today that blurring of military identity again is contributing to the problem. Look at how we are treating it like a civilian HR problem (remedial measures that are private) and not as an affront to the profession (which should be corrected in publicly observable proceedings).


Funny how many people slam Hillier’s efforts to try and created a CFHQ-like construct in 2005, but he got tarred and feathered quite effectively by the senior mandarins and press as simply trying to stack more GOFOs into NDHQ, not trying to gain some more command ownership within the DND framework.


----------



## McG

The integrated NDHQ did not even come around as a “good idea” until after Hellyer was gone. A lot of analysis by Granatstein and Morton acknowledges a tendency for people to associate Hellyer’s efforts with integration but dismisses this association as inaccurate.

While the integrated NDHQ lives on, Hellyer’s unified HQ died when his operational commands reverted to being environmental commands in the image of the former services. Hillier was trying to de-integrate and re-unify CFHQ, and the self-perceived service chiefs gave at least as much push-back as the public service mandrins.


----------



## Good2Golf

McG said:


> The integrated NDHQ did not even come around as a “good idea” until after Hellyer was gone. A lot of analysis by Granatstein and Morton acknowledges a tendency for people to associate Hellyer’s efforts with integration but dismisses this association as inaccurate.


I suppose you can believe that anything Granatstein and Morton say is gospel, but to believe that CFHQ > NDHQ was entirely unrelated to unification and its follow-on effects, and only to a different MND commencing action 36-months later, is a rather facile argument to make.  Passage of three years and a bit to recognize perceived organizational deficiencies arising from unification, does not seem like a sound case for arguing two mutually exclusive circles on a Venn diagram. 


While the integrated NDHQ lives on, Hellyer’s unified HQ died when his operational commands reverted to being environmental commands in the image of the former services. Hillier was trying to de-integrate and re-unify CFHQ, and the self-perceived service chiefs gave at least as much push-back as the public service mandrins.

So which is it?  I thought you said Hellyer had nothing to do with NDHQ?  So it would follow that Hellyer’s ‘unified’ command, as you call it, was indeed still CFHQ in 1968…through two (3 for a few days) more MNDs.


----------



## FJAG

For me the whole problem was a vicious circle. We started of with essentially four headquarters: NDHQ, the Army, the Navy and the Air Force.

Hellyer's unification/integration merged the last three in order to create efficiencies by reducing duplicated/triplicated functions. In large part that worked but simply created another layer of a headquarter in the form of CFHQ. Yes we eliminated three different police forces and three different logistics branches etc but by the time we were done we had created a number of purple agencies from what before had been relatively small staff branches in the three services. It was a time of empire building.

I could easily understand, especially in the eyes of someone as disinterested as Trudeau I, that having two separate headquarters - NDHQ and CFHQ - was one too many. I presume that they saw redundancies that were more apparent than real. Again it was a period of extreme austerity for the CF (but not other departments which rolled in cash with all the borrowing the Liberals did in those days to generate new social programs) and cutting costs was a really big deal. The late sixties, early seventies were their own version of a "decade of darkness".

The trouble that exists is that we truly needed four headquarters which were based on NDHQ and the three services. The services were distinct with different functions. While there were efficiencies to be garnered by unification/integration, the same could probably have been done through joint working groups to standardize trades, systems etc where appropriate. While we ended up shoehorning things together in a new unified/integrated structure, we learned over the next few decades that as far as staff for the Army, Navy and Air Force were concerned that, other than changing names, nothing substantial had really been reduced (other than fighting equipment and troops in the field which were steadily eroded.)

The trouble with it was that it was all so predictable. Unlike many of you who work within the heart of the beast, I have only a limited understanding of NDHQ's operations these days, however, the basic division as between the overarching management function of NDHQ and the overarching leadership and direction of the Forces is both logical and replicated throughout the western world. The lines of authority are clear(ish) on the left and right of arcs but, to me, are muddled in the middle.







“No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other." Matthew 6.24 (I left out the money part)

🍻


----------



## McG

Good2Golf said:


> I suppose you can believe that anything Granatstein and Morton say is gospel, but to believe that CFHQ > NDHQ was entirely unrelated to unification and its follow-on effects, and only to a different MND commencing action 36-months later, is a rather facile argument to make.


If it helps, Bercuson’s work also supports the conclusion that integration was MacDonald’s work and not Hellyer’s. In fact, it this “facile argument” seems to be generally accepted by every researcher who’s looked at unification and integration.  Check this article on CAF transformation initiatives: Information archivée dans le Web | Information Archived on the Web



Good2Golf said:


> So which is it? I thought you said Hellyer had nothing to do with NDHQ? So it would follow that Hellyer’s ‘unified’ command, as you call it, was indeed still CFHQ in 1968…through two (3 for a few days) more MNDs


Which is what? I don’t understand where you are coming from here. Yes, Hillier created a unified CFHQ. No, he did not create NDHQ. MacDonald integrated CFHQ with the civilian bureaucracy to make an integrated NDHQ.

Really though, this genesis story does not matter to the current impacts of an integrated NDHQ on our faltering identity as a military profession. Too many officers doing jobs that should be civilians in DND, and too many civilians overseeing things that should be owned by the CAF. Suites and uniforms have become interchangeable in many work places. We need to bring back those boundaries.


----------



## dapaterson

Hillier tried to create a CFHQ and was fought tirelessly by the Navy, Army and Air Force over fear of losing their own power.


----------



## FJAG

dapaterson said:


> Hillier tried to create a CFHQ and was fought tirelessly by the Navy, Army and Air Force over fear of losing their own power.


IMHO, Hillier created far too many headquarters as it is.


----------



## MilEME09

dapaterson said:


> Hillier tried to create a CFHQ and was fought tirelessly by the Navy, Army and Air Force over fear of losing their own power.


Sounds like we need a CDS with the testinal fortitude to say STFU this is how it's going to be, get with it or have your VR on my desk.


----------



## Weinie

FJAG said:


> “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other." Matthew 6.24 (I left out the money part)
> 
> 🍻


I have served under two masters since 2008, and I equally despise or hate, or love and am devoted, to each, based on their response to issues.


----------



## dapaterson

FJAG said:


> IMHO, Hillier created far too many headquarters as it is.


Once undermined by the ECSes, who refused to downsize and provide staff to man the new operational HQs, he tried instead a failed picket and bypass.


----------



## McG

McG said:


> Yes, Hillier created a unified CFHQ. No, he did not create NDHQ. MacDonald integrated CFHQ with the civilian bureaucracy to make an integrated NDHQ.


Crap, that should have been “Hellyer” not “Hillier” in there …
Hillier tried to roll back the command structure to that brief window between Hellyer and MacDonald.


----------



## Good2Golf

dapaterson said:


> Once undermined by the ECSes, who refused to downsize and provide staff to man the new operational HQs, he tried instead a failed picket and bypass.


MacLean was outright hostile and Caron was MacLean’s lackey, backing MacLean’s ‘FU’ to Hillier with an “Army agrees”.  Pennie supported Hillier, noting the RCAF had already significantly down ranked its structure with a single op Div and no more multitude of BGen Group Comd’s.



McG said:


> f it helps, Bercuson’s work also supports the conclusion that integration was MacDonald’s work and not Hellyer’s. In fact, it this “facile argument” seems to be generally accepted by every researcher who’s looked at unification and integration.  Check this article on CAF transformation initiatives: Information archivée dans le Web | Information Archived on the Web


Ah yes, another of the “every officer should have a degree to professionalize the Officer Corps” crowd.  That was clearly a great idea because there are no issues with the old boys/ring knocker network, right?


McG said:


> Which is what? I don’t understand where you are coming from here. Yes, Hillier created a unified CFHQ. No, he did not create NDHQ. MacDonald integrated CFHQ with the civilian bureaucracy to make an integrated NDHQ.



This   V


McG said:


> While the integrated NDHQ lives on, Hellyer’s unified HQ died when his operational commands reverted to being environmental commands in the image of the former services. Hillier was trying to de-integrate and re-unify CFHQ, and the self-perceived service chiefs gave at least as much push-back as the public service mandrins.


You said Hellyer’s integrated HQ died when the “operational” commands died long before the renaming of RCN/CA/RCAF, and even at that, one could argue that the smattering of functional commands from Hellyer’s Unification was very scatter, to with 1 Cdn Air Div in Europe
Including the Cf-104 nuclear strike force , Air Transport Command and Trainkmg Command…I won’t delve into the Army but suffice to say, I think things were far from the rosy “Op Commands” bliss you describe.  And still to the point that Hellyet retained CFHQ, so MacDonald’s NDHQ if anything, was subservience to PET to ‘admimisterize’ the military into de facto just one more department. 

Much of this reinforces that it was a ‘team effort’ that led to where the CAF is now.  Again I ask generally, which is it? The problem being senior officers trying to be something they’re not (uniformed bureaucrats) or perhaps some culpability on the part of government that deliberated blurred the lines of military command and civilian administration to creat a more
Civil-service like armed forces within government.  Yes indeed, today’s situation literally took decades to devolve to what it is today, however, for civilian leaders to be so shocked at how could this happen (when they’re whistling past the graveyard with their own less than morally upright behaviour) is more than a wee bit disingenuous.

Perhaps this whole sordid situation needs, as some have suggested, an Independent agency that reports to PARLIAMENT, not JUST the Govt of the day.?


----------



## Happy Guy

While over simplifying it, the blame must be laid at the CDS / VCDS who allowed this process of civilianization of the military.  In the ideal world our political masters would ask for the desired effect(s) and the CAF provides it.

I do not know enough about how other countries deal with civilianization of their respective HQs since my experience has only been with the Cdns and the Americans.  Perhaps a look at how the UK, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea and other modern develop countries deal with it can help us.  Yes I know that every nation's situation is unique, but there are lessons to be gleaned from it.

​ 
​


----------



## daftandbarmy

MilEME09 said:


> Sounds like we need a CDS with the testinal fortitude to say STFU this is how it's going to be, get with it or have your VR on my desk.


----------



## ballz

I don't really understand why the continental staff system can't work at L0, most of the crap going on with the "departmental" stuff is just the Department doing stuff we already have uniformed people for / a system in place at every other level to manage. You can still have each J-staff supported by a host of bureaucrats as required. For example, obviously the CAF J1 is going to need an executive-level bureaucrat to support them in Civ HR.

MND
Internal Assurance [in other words, ADM(RS)]
External Military Grievance Committee
Ombudsman

CDS
J1 - CMP + ADM(HR)
J2 - Chief of Defence Intelligence + CFINTCOM
J3 - SJS et al
J4 - ADM(Mat) + ADM(IE) +some others I'm sure
J5 - Not sure who falls under here since we seem to lack both plans and strategy
J6 - Cyber + Info Management
J7 - MPGG, CDA / Purple-type things, etc.
J8 - Basically all of ADM(Fin)... Put the MGen in charge (CFO) and the civilian (perhaps replace what we currently have with a qualified one) as the CAF Comptroller.
J9 - ADM(PA)

Other advisors
JAG
Surgeon-General
MPG

I'm sure I missed a lot (i.e. Chief Military Judge) but you know, KISS principles and all, seems pretty stupid to have 4-staff at each L1, working for their Commander who works for the CDS, but yet ADM(Mat) just yipping from the DM's office.

MND tells the CDS what effects the government wants and the CDS makes it happen.


As for the Deputy Minister, all she seems to care about is the National Defence Workplace Charity Campaign. Those kinda influences are not helpful and take attention away from important issues.


----------



## OldSolduer

MilEME09 said:


> Sounds like we need a CDS with the testinal fortitude to say STFU this is how it's going to be, get with it or have your VR on my desk.


Outsider's opinion here so take it with a grain of salt. The CAF needs to regain the trust of its members and Canadians. 

How does it go about this is the problem.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

OldSolduer said:


> Outsider's opinion here so take it with a grain of salt. The CAF needs to regain the trust of its members and Canadians.
> 
> How does it go about this is the problem.


Right. And what a number of us are saying is that trust comes from accountability. Accountability comes from knowing who you work for and who works for you.

Having a bugger‘s muddle of a CAF/DND chain of command did not cause some people to commit acts of sexual harassment/assault and sometimes escape consequences for years, but it sure did contribute to the failure to both investigate and to enforce discipline.

If we have cleans lines of responsibility, there is no ducking when it comes time enforce discipline, or to being found culpable if an officer fails to enforce discipline and generally take care of the welfare of subordinates- see QR&O Vol 1 chapter 4.02.


----------



## McG

Good2Golf said:


> … I think things were far from the rosy “Op Commands” bliss you describe.


I never described anything as rosy or bliss. I noted that Hellyer made the joint operational commands and that he made a unified CFHQ (to which those commands reported). But I have also pointed out that. Hellyer was not responsible for the integrated NDHQ, which was done by MND MacDonald a few years later.

I feel you are very emotionally invested in Hellyer being responsible for integration, but the evidence does not support that. Further, blaming MacDonald for “civilianization” & integrating NDHQ does nothing in anyway to absolve Hellyer of the faults in his unification efforts. But they were distinctly different transformations imposed by different MNDs.



Good2Golf said:


> Much of this reinforces that it was a ‘team effort’ that led to where the CAF is now. Again I ask generally, which is it? The problem being senior officers trying to be something they’re not (uniformed bureaucrats) or perhaps some culpability on the part of government that deliberated blurred the lines of military command and civilian administration to creat a more Civil-service like armed forces within government.


If we are looking for blame, it starts with Donald MacDonald and his civilianizing integration of NDHQ. But the list goes longer than him. Who was the recruiting team that made the magazine add that depicted an officer with a briefcase and presented the officer corps as just like any industry executive class? They fed the problem.

We can also blame a great host of senior officers and GOFO who preferred pursuing the functions of bureaucrats - the ones who wanted to do capital project management, major procurements, or policy as opposed to managing the force, controlling operations, or stewarding the profession. There is a similar host of bureaucrats who wrongly decided their area of responsibility was in the CAF fields that our officers were ignoring. There is also the current MND for whom the position has been more an imagined continuation of his reserve identity than any actual effort to keep the CAF accountable.

 And, as you note, the problem is decades in the making. Where originally people strayed from their lanes, everyone around today has been exposed to it through our whole careers to the point that many believe this is what right looks like.

We now have a culture where orders are for corporals not colonels, and too many are ready to ignore orders when they think they know better than the guy in charge. We are not going t fix that so long as suits and uniforms are interchangeable in all the various ADMs.

… and since we are in the process of calling out relevant points of failure, let’s not forget whatever team has been responsible for (though still has not yet) done the work to implement transition from summary trials to hearings.



SeaKingTacco said:


> Having a bugger‘s muddle of a CAF/DND chain of command did not cause some people to commit acts of sexual harassment/assault and sometimes escape consequences for years, but it sure did contribute to the failure to both investigate and to enforce discipline.


This. This is the right answer.


----------



## daftandbarmy

McG said:


> We can also blame a great host of senior officers and GOFO who preferred pursuing the functions of bureaucrats - the ones who wanted to do capital project management, major procurements, or policy as opposed to managing the force, controlling operations, or stewarding the profession. There is a similar host of bureaucrats who wrongly decided their area of responsibility was in the CAF fields that our officers were ignoring. *There is also the current MND for whom the position has been more an imagined continuation of his reserve identity than any actual effort to keep the CAF accountable.*



As far as I could tell, his 'Reserve identity' was about as self-servingly political as his _other _political career


----------



## FJAG

McG said:


> I feel you are very emotionally invested in Hellyer being responsible for integration, but the evidence does not support that.


Actually it does but you have to properly define what "Integration" is.

"Integration" took place under Hellyer with a 1964 amendment to the National Defence Act. This amendment got rid of the three "service chief" in favour of one Chief of Defence Staff. At the same time the three service headquarters were "integrated" into one headquarters CFHQ. Subordinate to CFHQ there now were six commands: Maritime, Mobile, Air Defence, Air Transport, Materiel and Training.

Prior to that, and through it, NDHQ existed and continued to exist as a separate entity.

In 1966, "unification" took place as the result of The Canadian Forces Reorganization Act (still under Hellyer). This legislation was responsible for getting rid of the three services themselves and abolishing the titles Royal Canadian Navy, Royal Canadian Air Force and Canadian Army and replacing then with ones service, the Canadian Armed Forces. This was accompanied by the adoption of a single uniform and rank structure and a reorganization of commands and people and base structures etc etc.

Again, NDHQ stood separate as an entity.

The subsequent merging of NDHQ and CFHQ in 1972 was "an integration" of sorts but not "THE INTEGRATION" which had happened 8 years earlier under Hellyer.

🍻


----------



## MilEME09

McG said:


> There is also the current MND for whom the position has been more an imagined continuation of his reserve identity than any actual effort to keep the CAF accountable.


So he is only MND one evening a week, and one weekend a month? That explains so much as to why it seems like it doesn't get much done ...


----------



## KevinB

McG said:


> If we are looking for blame, it starts with Donald MacDonald and his civilianizing integration of NDHQ. But the list goes longer than him. Who was the recruiting team that made the magazine add that depicted an officer with a briefcase and presented the officer corps as just like any industry executive class? They fed the problem.
> 
> We can also blame a great host of senior officers and GOFO who preferred pursuing the functions of bureaucrats - the ones who wanted to do capital project management, major procurements, or policy as opposed to managing the force, controlling operations, or stewarding the profession. There is a similar host of bureaucrats who wrongly decided their area of responsibility was in the CAF fields that our officers were ignoring. There is also the current MND for whom the position has been more an imagined continuation of his reserve identity than any actual effort to keep the CAF accountable.


I believe that occurred under PET's watch with the Civil Service - and tying salaries to equivalent positions etc.
    Effectively bureaucratizing the CAF.

While I love to demonize PET, and I won't mis an opportunity to throw him under the bus, you cannot overlook the fact that in 50 years no one GOFO or MDN has managed to solve it.
   That is a fail, and a major one.





McG said:


> And, as you note, the problem is decades in the making. Where originally people strayed from their lanes, everyone around today has been exposed to it through our whole careers to the point that many believe this is what right looks like.
> 
> We now have a culture where orders are for corporals not colonels, and too many are ready to ignore orders when they think they know better than the guy in charge. We are not going t fix that so long as suits and uniforms are interchangeable in all the various ADMs.


The crux of the matter is exactly the above -- civilian staff are there to administrate - not command, and to provide continuity as the "green suiters" rotate in and out.
    I also believe that the Military (not just the CF, as I see it down here too) does a piss poor job of delineating lines of responsibilities in projects and even commands between soldiers and civilians.


McG said:


> … and since we are in the process of calling out relevant points of failure, let’s not forget whatever team has been responsible for (though still has not yet) done the work to implement transition from summary trials to hearings.
> 
> This. This is the right answer.



We don't expect anything from politicians or civilian employees - but we do have a right to expect things from Commissioned Officers, an oath is taken - and expectations and promises exchanged.


----------



## Blackadder1916

_"Through his application for judicial review, Fortin was asking the Federal Court to order the government to reinstate him to his former job at PHAC or for the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) to *assign him a post of equivalent military grade*."_

Well. there is that recently created position reviewing recommendations about something or other under the VCDS that became vacant even before another MGen settled his backside into the chair.










						Judge throws out Maj.-Gen. Dany Fortin’s bid to reverse firing, says must go through grievance process first
					

Fortin must go through the military grievance process first, federal court justice Ann Marie McDonald has concluded




					nationalpost.com
				





> Judge throws out Maj.-Gen. Dany Fortin’s bid to reverse firing as head of COVID-19 vaccine rollout​Federal Court Justice Ann Marie McDonald wrote in a 20-page decision that Fortin must go through the military grievance process first
> 
> OTTAWA – A judge has thrown out Maj.-Gen. Dany Fortin’s attempt to have the Federal Court reverse his firing as head of Canada’s COVID-19 vaccine rollout, saying he needs to go through the military grievance process first.
> 
> “MGen Fortin has not demonstrated that the decision to remove him from his PHAC position cannot be redressed through the CAF grievance process. Therefore, he must avail himself of the grievance process before proceeding on judicial review,” Justice Ann Marie McDonald wrote in a 20-page decision released Tuesday.
> 
> In the spring, Fortin asked the federal court to judicially review the government’s decision to remove him from his secondment as vice president logistics and operations at the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) in May.
> 
> Maj.-Gen. Fortin was removed from his post back in May, months after he was informed that he was under investigation by military policy for alleged sexual misconduct.
> 
> Through his application for judicial review, Fortin was asking the Federal Court to order the government to reinstate him to his former job at PHAC or for the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) to assign him a post of equivalent military grade.
> 
> But lawyers for the attorney general replied by asking the federal court to throw out the application, arguing that his lawsuit was premature because he had not filed a military grievance first.
> 
> In her decision, Justice McDonald agreed with government lawyer Elizabeth Richards.
> 
> “In my view, the high-profile nature of MGen Fortin’s position and the allegations of political interference are not exceptional circumstances that allow him to bypass the internal grievance process,” reads the decision.
> 
> “Similarly, the reinstatement request made by MGen Fortin is more properly considered by the CAF and not by the Courts. MGen Fortin is and has always been a member of the CAF and the essential nature of the issues he raises are clearly service-related matters that should be addressed internally.”


----------



## Happy Guy

KevinB said:


> I believe that occurred under PET's watch with the Civil Service - and tying salaries to equivalent positions etc.
> Effectively bureaucratizing the CAF.


The movement to tie in the military pay to the civil service commenced in the 1960s.  Back then the military trades were dissatisfied with their pay in comparison with their civil service and private sector counterparts.  The dissatisfied highly trained military technicians were leaving and joining the civil service or the commercial sector - sounds familiar?  The military initiated a study into this with the aim of improving the military pay with the hopes of reaching near parity with the civil service.  One of the recommendations of the study was to link military pay with the civilian service and one of the other recommendations was the creation of specialist pay which ended having the following pay categories for all NCMs : 
Standard.  80% of the population.
Spec 1. 15% of the population
Spec 2. 5% of the population.
The % were dictated by Treasury Board and remains in effect today.

I won't go into the assessment of the trades as this is will take some time and the information is considered sensitive. I will add that all NCM trades are assessed on a regular basis and the board consists of a representative (CWO/CPO1 or MWO/CPO2) from each of the environments, the Board Chairman and an independent observer (civilian).  Having participated in these assessments I will tell you that everyone tries to be fair. It is up to the individual trades to present their case to the board to justify spec pay.


----------



## Good2Golf

Blackadder1916 said:


> _"Through his application for judicial review, Fortin was asking the Federal Court to order the government to reinstate him to his former job at PHAC or for the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) to *assign him a post of equivalent military grade*."_
> 
> Well. there is that recently created position reviewing recommendations about something or other under the VCDS that became vacant even before another MGen settled his backside into the chair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judge throws out Maj.-Gen. Dany Fortin’s bid to reverse firing, says must go through grievance process first
> 
> 
> Fortin must go through the military grievance process first, federal court justice Ann Marie McDonald has concluded
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nationalpost.com


I guess we’ll see November 5 whether the Fed Govt, through its QC Courts proxy, will double-down on Fortin, or we’ll see charges dropped due to “a more recent assessment as to the likelihood of prosecution, indicating that said likelihood of prosecution is not as strong as it was before the Federal election previously.”

So, Fortin will grieve to the Initial Authority (the guy who removed him) and if told to keep pounding sand, then to the Final Authority…as yet untested beyond CDS, but one would assume the MND, because if the FA remained the CDS, could one expect fair consideration by the FA if they were the same as the IA to find against Fortin’s grievance.


----------



## Blackadder1916

And the Federal Court ruling re Fortin





__





						Fortin v. Canada (Attorney General) - Federal Court
					






					decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca


----------



## Haggis

Blackadder1916 said:


> And the Federal Court ruling re Fortin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fortin v. Canada (Attorney General) - Federal Court
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca


No one should be suprised by this.


----------



## ballz

Haggis said:


> No one should be suprised by this.



He must be.... what an insanely expensive way to get a grievance submitted.

Either he ignored his lawyer's advice, or he should sue his lawyer for negligence for taking him down this path. And in saying that, "I'm too special to follow the normal procedure" is a pretty bad look to boot.


----------



## daftandbarmy

ballz said:


> He must be.... what an insanely expensive way to get a grievance submitted.
> 
> Either he ignored his lawyer's advice, or he should sue his lawyer for negligence for taking him down this path. And in saying that, *"I'm too special to follow the normal procedure" is a pretty bad look to boot*.



 “What you do speaks so loudly I cannot hear what you are saying."

- Ralph Waldo Emerson


----------



## OldSolduer

SeaKingTacco said:


> If we have cleans lines of responsibility, there is no ducking when it comes time enforce discipline, or to being found culpable if an officer fails to enforce discipline and generally take care of the welfare of subordinates- see QR&O Vol 1 chapter 4.02.


What you say is correct. There is way too much "commanding by committee" with no one taking responsibility for poor decisions.

Victory has many parents but defeat is an orphan - or words to that effect.


----------



## Edward Campbell

FJAG said:


> Actually it does but you have to properly define what "Integration" is.
> 
> "Integration" took place under Hellyer with a 1964 amendment to the National Defence Act. This amendment got rid of the three "service chief" in favour of one Chief of Defence Staff. At the same time the three service headquarters were "integrated" into one headquarters CFHQ. Subordinate to CFHQ there now were six commands: Maritime, Mobile, Air Defence, Air Transport, Materiel and Training.
> 
> Prior to that, and through it, NDHQ existed and continued to exist as a separate entity.
> 
> In 1966, "unification" took place as the result of The Canadian Forces Reorganization Act (still under Hellyer). This legislation was responsible for getting rid of the three services themselves and abolishing the titles Royal Canadian Navy, Royal Canadian Air Force and Canadian Army and replacing then with ones service, the Canadian Armed Forces. This was accompanied by the adoption of a single uniform and rank structure and a reorganization of commands and people and base structures etc etc.
> 
> Again, NDHQ stood separate as an entity.
> 
> The subsequent merging of NDHQ and CFHQ in 1972 was "an integration" of sorts but not "THE INTEGRATION" which had happened 8 years earlier under Hellyer.
> 
> 🍻


I'm going to disagree. There are and were, in the 1960s, precise (and agreed) definitions of "*unification*" and "i*ntegration*." Many countries, led by the USA but including the UK had already *unified* their armed forces: they had a single Chief of the Defence Staff (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff), they had *unified* joint staffs; some had *unified* commands like the US' EuropeanCommand, Atlantic Command and Pacific Command within which there were single service components like US Army Europe (USAREUR) and US Air Force Europe (ASAFE). Canada went one (quite large) step in that direction with commands like Maritime Command within which there were two fleets and a Maritime Air Group with units in support of each fleet. Mobile Command had army brigades (in Canada and in Germany) and a mix of tactical (fixed wing) fighter and transport squadrons and rotary wing squadrons, too. 

The big problem with a *unified* force for Canada was that Canada lacked navy admirals and army generals with enough vision to understand that their air assets were as important as their ships and tanks and bayonets. Canada had equally weak air force generals but they saw an opportunity and, in 1975, they executed a nonsensical military travesty of the highest order: Air Command.

I was told, by which I am 99% certain is an unimpeachable source that when Mr Hellyer and his CoS, Group Captain Bill Lee, an RCAF Public Relations specialist, went to Washington in the mid 1960s the Americas said" "*Unify *the bejeezus out of your navy, army and air force but be very, Very, VERY carful about* integration* 'cause we've tried it, with a few organizations like the Defence Communications Agency and an integrated Transport Command, and it ~ putting people from quite different backgrounds into the same units ~ is more trouble than it's worth."

But we did try it; i*ntegration* ~ one single, service, the "jolly green jumper" and all that ~ was the sizzle that Mr Hellyer and GC Lee were selling to the public; *unification* was the steak which Mike Pearson, the bureaucrats and the admirals and generals all wanted because, US and UK experience suggested, *unified* forces could do more with less. We threw out the baby in 1975, the bathwater didn't follow until the 2000s.


----------



## KevinB

Edward Campbell said:


> I'm going to disagree.


snip


Edward Campbell said:


> We threw out the baby in 1975, the bathwater didn't follow until the 2000s.


So you have an empty rusty tub?


----------



## dapaterson

KevinB said:


> snip
> 
> So you have an empty rusty tub?


We call those "the Halifax class".


----------



## Edward Campbell

KevinB said:


> snip
> 
> So you have an empty rusty tub?


Royal "we," Kevin.


----------



## MilEME09

dapaterson said:


> We call those "the Halifax class".


I thought it was our subs


----------



## FJAG

Edward Campbell said:


> I'm going to disagree. There are and were, in the 1960s, precise (and agreed) definitions of "*unification*" and "i*ntegration*." Many countries, led by the USA but including the UK had already *unified* their armed forces: they had a single Chief of the Defence Staff (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff), they had *unified* joint staffs; some had *unified* commands like the US' EuropeanCommand, Atlantic Command and Pacific Command within which there were single service components like US Army Europe (USAREUR) and US Air Force Europe (ASAFE). Canada went one (quite large) step in that direction with commands like Maritime Command within which there were two fleets and a Maritime Air Group with units in support of each fleet. Mobile Command had army brigades (in Canada and in Germany) and a mix of tactical (fixed wing) fighter and transport squadrons and rotary wing squadrons, too.


I'm going to disagree with you in turn.

The terminology that needs to be looked at is the one in context to the Canadian experience.

The US for example is a completely different one. The key element is that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff does not command anything and his role is not to lead either an integrated or a unified command. The Chairman is simply the principle military advisor to the president and is, by law, prohibited from exercising operational command over any part of the armed forces although he assists the President and Secretary of Defence in the exercise of their powers. On the other hand, the CDS is charged under the NDA with "control and administration of the Canadian Forces" and commands in the true sense of the word.

Commanders of US Unified Combatant Commands, on the other hand, have a unified headquarters but have no troops assigned to them. They have command and control only over those forces from the separate services assigned to the Component Commands affiliated with the specific UCC. For example ARCENT, NAVCENT, AFCENT etc with CENTCOM. The services remain separate and independent under the US military and departmental structure. The nearest equivalent we would have to a UCC would be CJOC but without the component command element.

Even the US Marines are not a comparison as they have air and land elements but not naval. The Marines are their own service but belong to the Department of the Navy.

In short unification and integration are flexible terms and need to be looked at in context.

In Canada's case Hellyer's plan worked on a continuum from his 1964 White Paper with two key stages. 1) The creation of a CDS and integration of the three services command structures in 1964; and 2) unification of the three services into one service in 1968.

Here's a short excerpt from a CFC staff paper.


> The White Paper on Defence published in March 1964 set the final stage for unification of the Canadian Army, RCN and RCAF into the Canadian Armed Forces. The time involved significant US and Soviet tension, an increased demand for domestic social programmes, increased cost of a military which was in need of modern equipment, and an entrenched alliance system whose focus and potential action was across the Atlantic.66 The document stands out as important with respect to civil-military relations in Canada. It was to reaffirm all the existing roles in NORAD and NATO, but sought ways to make a more identifiable and economical contribution by the armed forces.67 Canada, with its proximity to the US, a country which would act unilaterally to defend itself with or without Canada’s participation, enjoyed the fringe benefit of being largely defended itself due to the unique geography of the continent. Canada was also a founding member of NATO and thus enjoyed a collective defence arrangement, allowing its own individual contribution to wane as allies were obliged to respond. This afforded Ottawa the luxury of pursuing idealistic notions such diplomacy and peacekeeping while seeking a more economical approach to defence. Hellyer felt the time was right for starting his changes to the functioning structure of the military.
> Shortly after the White Paper was published, Bill C-90 became law creating a. “single Chief of Defence Staff and a functional structure for National Defence Headquarters.”68 This development effectively became known as integration and was a continuation of Claxton’s vision of integration within the department. After little debate, the minister announced his solution for the actual command structure of the military. Hellyer’s unification agenda was a break from what had come before, as he was effectively changing the inner-working of the armed forces. These changes would lead towards the creation of a truly unified force in theory, if not in practice.69 Once Bill C-243 passed in Parliament, unification came into effect on February 1, 1968.





> https://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/259/290/295/286/casey.pdf



And this from that font of all knowledge, Wikipedia


> On 4 November 1966, Bill C-243, _The Canadian Forces Reorganization Act_, was introduced to amend the _National Defence Act_. The aim of the bill was to reorganize the Canadian Army, the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal Canadian Air Force, previously separate and independent services, under one umbrella. Following the debate in the House of Commons and further examination by the Defence Committee, the Bill was given a third and final reading in April 1967, clearing the way for unification. The _Canadian Forces Reorganization Act_ came into effect on 1 February 1968, creating one organization responsible for the defence of Canada, the Canadian Forces, and amending the _National Defence Act_.



And then there is Hellyer's 1964 White Paper itself which clear that initial integration and total unification is a two step process:


> Following the most careful and thoughtful consideration, the government has decided that there is only one adequate solution. It is the integration of the Armed Forces of Canada under a single Chief of Defence Staff and a single Defence Staff. This will be the first step toward a single unified defence force for Canada.





> https://walterdorn.net/pdf/DefenceWhitePaper-1964_D3-6-1964-eng_ReducedSize-OCR.pdf



The biggest problem with the entire process was Hellyer not having laid enough ground work to get consensus by the service chiefs and their staffs. Transformation of the military has been ongoing since day one and WW2 taught many lessons. The new Cold War was a financial shock for everyone in government who had expected a long peace dividend after 1945 and then had been disappointed with Korea and the Missile Crisis and the Berlin Wall etc etc. Basically the services were feeling their oats after the austerity that was imposed in the initial post war period when the total authorized strength of the full time military was 53,000. By 1963 that had grown to 120,871 and cost ballooned exponentially. Something needed doing and it was quite clear that there was much disagreement and hostility. Whether senior military leadership at the time was myopic or clairvoyant is a matter of much debate.

🍻


----------



## The Bread Guy

dapaterson said:


> Admiral McDonald has declared he will return (through counsel).
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/top-soldier-admiral-art-mcdonald-responds-to-investigation-1.6137439


Latest variation on this theme ....


> Canada’s top military commander wants his job back, saying he retains the moral authority to once again lead the Canadian forces after an investigation into a sexual-misconduct allegation cleared him of any charges.
> 
> The federal government, however, has placed him on administrative leave pending its own review after a probe by military police was concluded.
> 
> “I’ve been exonerated,” Admiral Art McDonald said in his first interview since he stepped aside from his position early this year when the investigation began.
> 
> “It is now time for the institution to step up, accept the results of the investigation, return me to my duties – or at least start a dialogue around an alternative approach,” he said ...


Archived link here if link posted above doesn't work.


----------



## Happy Guy

I worked directly for LGen Cadieux while on an ops tour.  From what I've seen working with him he is a morally straight up outstanding example of what an Officer and human being should be.  I sincerely hope that this allegation is proven to be untrue and that he is allowed to command the Canadian Army.  If we lose him, like the CAF lost Adm McDonald (the investigation exonerated him), then the CAF will be losing one of the most gifted leaders we have in recent times.

I'm surprised that the PM himself did not honourably step aside when allegations of sexual harassment were made public ('I am confident that I did not act inappropriately,' Trudeau says of groping allegation).  Based on the actions on our military leaders, the PM should step aside now and his replacement be named shortly.

Yeah - I'm pissed!

Mod edit - link removed.


----------



## MilEME09

Another casualty, incoming army commander now under investigation


----------



## Infanteer

FJAG said:


> Commanders of US Unified Combatant Commands, on the other hand, have a unified headquarters but have no troops assigned to them. They have command and control only over those forces from the separate services assigned to the Component Commands affiliated with the specific UCC. For example ARCENT, NAVCENT, AFCENT etc with CENTCOM. The services remain separate and independent under the US military and departmental structure. The nearest equivalent we would have to a UCC would be CJOC but without the component command element.


Not entirely accurate.

Combatant Commanders have forces assigned to them, and US Doctrine actually has a command relationship for this: combatant command (COCOM).  This USAF link is helpful - note the United States does not use the myriad of NATO command relationships that we use in Canada.  They've simplified it to three.  COCOM, OPCON, TACON.



			https://www.doctrine.af.mil/Portals/61/documents/AFDP_3-30/3-30-D60-C2-Appendix-ComRels-Overview.pdf
		


Forces are assigned COCOM to combatant commands through the Global Force Management Implementation Guidance (GFMIG) which assigns, allocates, or apportions (these are three distinct relationships) formations from Services to the Combatant Commanders.  For example, 2 Cavalry Regiment is a US Army unit, but is assigned COCOM to Cdr EUCOM.  The Chief of Staff of the Army still retains Title 10 responsibilities to man, train, and equip the unit, but operational tasks belong to the Combat Commander.

Also, as I have stated before, there is no equivalency between a UCC and CJOC.  A Combatant Commander answers directly to SECDEF/POTUS (national command authority) and is thus directly charged with strategic decision making.  Comd CJOC has no such access, and conducts operational tasks and management based on strategic directives from the CDS, through the Strategic Joint Staff.  The Canadian equivalent to a UCC is the CDS, served by the SJS.


----------



## McG

Happy Guy said:


> the investigation exonerated [Adm McDonald]


Do we know that? The investigation did not find enough evidence that a criminal or CSD conviction was deemed likely, but that is not the same as exoneration. Unfortunately we don’t have a true professional disciplinary system to look at the circumstances and render a public decision on balance of probabilities. The CSD is modelled to be a criminal code lite, while remedial measures are basically a civilian HR approach.


----------



## OldSolduer

Remedial measures are handy if they are applied correctly and with the intent of salvaging someone before they are completely fubarred. I seem to recall routine orders regularly published the names and punishments that were the results of orders parades. The ROs also published those that were released including those who were cashiered. 
Personally I’d love to see the stocks and pillories returned.


----------



## SupersonicMax

OldSolduer said:


> Remedial measures are handy if they are applied correctly and with the intent of salvaging someone before they are completely fubarred. I seem to recall routine orders regularly published the names and punishments that were the results of orders parades. The ROs also published those that were released including those who were cashiered.
> Personally I’d love to see the stocks and pillories returned.


Are you talking about summary trials or remedial measures (IC, RW, C&P)?


----------



## OldSolduer

SupersonicMax said:


> Are you talking about summary trials or remedial measures (IC, RW, C&P)?


Summary trials. Remedial measures weren’t in vogue in the 70s other than C&P at least not that I was aware. 
We had one soldier spend 200 days on confinement to barracks in a calendar year in 1976


----------



## SupersonicMax

OldSolduer said:


> Summary trials. Remedial measures weren’t in vogue in the 70s other than C&P at least not that I was aware.
> We had one soldier spend 200 days on confinement to barracks in a calendar year in 1976


Summary Trials results are still published.


----------



## FJAG

Infanteer said:


> Not entirely accurate.
> 
> Combatant Commanders have forces assigned to them, and US Doctrine actually has a command relationship for this: combatant command (COCOM).  This USAF link is helpful - note the United States does not use the myriad of NATO command relationships that we use in Canada.  They've simplified it to three.  COCOM, OPCON, TACON.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.doctrine.af.mil/Portals/61/documents/AFDP_3-30/3-30-D60-C2-Appendix-ComRels-Overview.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> Forces are assigned COCOM to combatant commands through the Global Force Management Implementation Guidance (GFMIG) which assigns, allocates, or apportions (these are three distinct relationships) formations from Services to the Combatant Commanders.  For example, 2 Cavalry Regiment is a US Army unit, but is assigned COCOM to Cdr EUCOM.  The Chief of Staff of the Army still retains Title 10 responsibilities to man, train, and equip the unit, but operational tasks belong to the Combat Commander.
> 
> Also, as I have stated before, there is no equivalency between a UCC and CJOC.  A Combatant Commander answers directly to SECDEF/POTUS (national command authority) and is thus directly charged with strategic decision making.  Comd CJOC has no such access, and conducts operational tasks and management based on strategic directives from the CDS, through the Strategic Joint Staff.  The Canadian equivalent to a UCC is the CDS, served by the SJS.


All true and correct. My comments were simply to disagree with the comparison of the unified structure of the CF to UCCs for the clear reason that you point out that each of the Army, Navy and Air Force retain service responsibilities for the tasked elements.

I wasn't stating an equivalency as between the CJOC and a UCC merely saying the nearest equivalency by virtue of the fact that UCCs, like CJOC, are joint force employers, and not generators. In fact one could say that they are the top levels of joint force employer for their respective countries.

We have quite different systems (which was my point in the first place). The US Chain of command runs from the President to the Secretary of Defence to each of the Combatant Commanders (amongst others) while ours runs from the Prime Minister (I'll leave aside the GG issue) to the MND to the CDS to CJOC. The key difference is that unlike in the US, our CDS has command of all the forces, both generators and employers. There is no US military equivalent to our CDS. The only one in the US who has that overarching responsibility is the Secretary of Defence. It's always difficult to make comparisons between the two systems, but to me its more like the CDS (with the SJS) and the MND together exercise the powers of the Secretary of Defence in that they jointly have overall leadership of all the forces, both generators and employers. That's why I see the joint force employer comparison between the CJOC and the UCC.

🍻


----------



## OldSolduer

Supreme Court to hear appeal of ex-soldier convicted of sexual assault, voyeurism
		


This. Does he have a point?


----------



## Blackadder1916

OldSolduer said:


> Supreme Court to hear appeal of ex-soldier convicted of sexual assault, voyeurism
> 
> 
> 
> This. Does he have a point?



From the linked article

"His lawyers argue McGregor essentially had diplomatic status while serving in Washington and that his home should have been protected from search and seizure."

From his court-martial decision. McGregor C.R. (Corporal), R. v. - Chief Military Judge

"On 14 February 2017, a search warrant was authorized by a magistrate to search the residence of Corporal McGregor, whose diplomatic immunity had been lifted for that limited purpose by the Head of Mission at the Canadian Embassy in Washington, DC."

And from his CMAC appeal decision R. v. McGregor - Court Martial Appeal Court

"[14]  As a result, Lt. Rioux sought the assistance of the Alexandria Police Force for purposes of obtaining a search warrant to permit entry into and a search of, Cpl. McGregor’s residence and any electronic devices found therein. The Alexandria Police agreed to assist but advised they could not apply for a warrant due to Cpl. McGregor’s diplomatic immunity. As a result, Canada, via diplomatic note WSHDC-4086, dated February 14, 2017, from the Embassy of Canada to the American Secretary of State, waived Cpl. McGregor’s immunity with respect to his residence pursuant to article 30 of the Vienna Convention_._ However, Cpl. McGregor retained his personal inviolability and his immunity from arrest."


----------



## KevinB

OldSolduer said:


> Supreme Court to hear appeal of ex-soldier convicted of sexual assault, voyeurism
> 
> 
> 
> This. Does he have a point?


No, Diplomatic privileges can be waived by the Home Nation for personnel in the Host Nation.
   NIS along with LE here (or technically 27.3miles down the road from me) obtained the Search Warrant.
 Accused was charged in Canada -- not here -- I am sure he didn't want to be charged here, but we would be willing to do it 
Jurisdiction of persons with diplomatic protections and charged by home nations have been settled for years - so that is a no go for him.

Sexual Assaulter have the highest recidivism rates for crimes - better just flush the turd.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

OldSolduer said:


> Supreme Court to hear appeal of ex-soldier convicted of sexual assault, voyeurism
> 
> 
> 
> This. Does he have a point?


I doubt it, based on Canada waiving his diplo immunity, which is within the right of Canada to do.

I am kind of surprised the Supremes even agreed to hear this. There must be an interesting point of law in there someplace.


----------



## dapaterson

Are the filings with the SCC available to the public?  I agree with @SeaKingTacco that there must be some interesting nugget of law there that the clerks reviewing the file flagged to the justices.


----------



## KevinB

SeaKingTacco said:


> I am kind of surprised the Supremes even agreed to hear this. There must be an interesting point of law in there someplace.


It is definitely an odd one - 

Original story on trial results -- I tried searching the CM - but didn't find it.


			https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/soldier-colin-mcgregor-sexual-assault-voyeurism-appeal-1.5308765


----------



## PPCLI Guy

dapaterson said:


> Are the filings with the SCC available to the public?  I agree with @SeaKingTacco that there must be some interesting nugget of law there that the clerks reviewing the file flagged to the justices.


I think it is the "diplomatic immunity" connotation....


----------



## Jarnhamar

PPCLI Guy said:


> I think it is the "diplomatic immunity" connotation....


_It's just been revoked! _
-Roger Murtaugh_, 1989_


----------



## KevinB

PPCLI Guy said:


> I think it is the "diplomatic immunity" connotation....


Which was waived by the Chief of Mission based on the transcripts.

The individual does not hold the immunity - the country does, it is conferred to individuals from the country and its up to the country to use or, or waiver it depending on circumstances.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Yup


----------



## KevinB

PPCLI Guy said:


> Yup


It definitely should be interesting to see this play out.
   Probably should have thrown him out a panel van to the VA State Troopers on the Beltway -- he'd still be cooling his heels in a Pen down here.


----------



## daftandbarmy

KevinB said:


> It definitely should be interesting to see this play out.
> Probably should have thrown him out a panel van to the VA State Troopers on the Beltway -- he'd still be cooling his heels in a Pen down here.



Luckily there are a few good customs agents out there that protect the flock:

Ahmed Ressam​
*Ahmed Ressam* (Arabic: احمد رسام‎; also *Benni Noris* or the *Millennium Bomber*; born May 9, 1967) is an Algerian al-Qaeda member who lived for a time in Montreal, Quebec, Canada.[1][3][4][6][8] He received extensive terrorist training in Afghanistan.

He was convicted in 2001 of planning to bomb the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) on New Year's Eve 1999, as part of the foiled 2000 millennium attack plots.[9][10] He was initially sentenced to 22 years in prison, after cooperating with the government in testifying about al-Qaeda and associated terrorist networks. In February 2010, an appellate court held his sentence to be too lenient, and ordered that it be extended.[11] In October 2012, he was re-sentenced to 37 years' imprisonment.[12] He is serving time at ADX Florence in Colorado, US.

Ressam rented a dark green 1999 Chrysler 300M luxury sedan, and on the evening of December 13, Ressam and Dahoumane hid the explosives and all the related components in the wheel well in the car's trunk.[1][7][24] On December 14, they left Vancouver, traveling to Victoria, British Columbia. Believing that he would draw less scrutiny alone, Ressam sent Dahoumane back to Vancouver by bus.[1][10][16][22]

Ressam took the _M/V Coho_ car ferry from Victoria to Port Angeles, Washington.[9][10] He successfully passed through U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service checks in Victoria, and boarded the last ferry of the day for the 90-minute crossing to the U.S.[7][17][25]

After the ferry docked in Port Angeles at 6 pm, Ressam intended to be the last car to leave the ferry.[1][17][23] Although there had not been any intelligence reports suggesting threats, U.S. Customs inspector Diana Dean decided to have a secondary Customs search conducted of Ressam's car, saying later that Ressam was acting "hinky" and asked him to get out of the car.[1][10][26][27]

At first, Ressam was not cooperative.[1] Dean requested that he fill out a Customs declaration form, which he did, identifying as a Canadian citizen named Benni Noris.[9] He had a passport, Quebec driver license, and credit cards all in the Noris name, as well as another Quebec driver license with the same date of birth, but in the name "Mario Roig".[1] Royal Canadian Mounted Police later advised that the Mario Roig driver license was a fake, and did not exist on their records.[1]

This timer, built around a Casio f91w, the model bought by Ahmed Ressam, was captured in Afghanistan in the early 2000s.
Another Customs inspector searched the car and found in the spare tire well:


ten green plastic garbage bags with 118 pounds (54 kg) of a fine white powder (which tests later identified as urea, used to manufacture explosives and fertilizer),
two lozenge bottles filled with primary explosives hexamethylene triperoxide diamine (HMTD) and cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine (RDX),
two plastic bags with 14 pounds (6.4 kg) of a crystalline powder (later shown to be aluminium sulfate, used primarily as a desiccant, to keep things dry),
two 22-ounce olive jars with 2.6 pounds (1.2 kg) of golden-brown liquid (later identified as secondary explosive ethylene glycol dinitrate (EGDN), an extremely explosive and volatile nitroglycerin equivalent that is twice as powerful as TNT), and
four operational timing devices designed to detonate primary explosives, consisting of small black boxes containing circuit boards connected to Casio watches and 9-volt battery connectors.[1][2][7][9][10][17]
As one of the Customs inspectors escorted Ressam from the car, he broke free and fled.[1] Inspectors chased him for five to six blocks and caught him as he tried to force his way into a car stopped at a traffic light. They took him into custody.[1][24]

He was arrested by the U.S. Border Patrol on charges of misrepresentation on entry and failure to be inspected, booked into the Clallam County Jail in Clallam County, Washington, and investigated by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).[1] Customs officials searching him and the car also found the phone numbers of Abu Doha and Meskini.[5][28][29][30] His fingerprints were analyzed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who determined that he was "Ahmed Ressam", rather than "Benni Antoine Noris".[1]

An explosives expert concluded that the materials in his car could have produced a blast 40x greater than that of a devastating car bomb.[1][10] It was ultimately determined that he had intended to detonate the explosives at the Los Angeles International Airport.[9]









						Ahmed Ressam - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## FJAG

KevinB said:


> It is definitely an odd one -
> 
> Original story on trial results -- I tried searching the CM - but didn't find it.
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/soldier-colin-mcgregor-sexual-assault-voyeurism-appeal-1.5308765



The CM ruling on excessive delay

The CM ruling on exclusion of evidence

The CM finding of guilty.

The CM sentencing.

🍻


----------



## dapaterson

The Beaverton wins.









						Canadian Army considers removing sexual misconduct as a prerequisite for leadership - The Beaverton
					

KINGSTON – While controversy builds in the halls of the Canadian military as candidate after candidate for advancement comes under investigation, Army bosses are considering dropping the sexual misconduct requirement for leadership positions.  “I have to admit we’ve been a bit blindsided here,”...




					www.thebeaverton.com


----------



## Blackadder1916

FJAG said:


> The CM ruling on excessive delay
> 
> The CM ruling on exclusion of evidence
> 
> The CM finding of guilty.
> 
> The CM sentencing.
> 
> 🍻



And the CMAC appeal decision R. v. McGregor - Court Martial Appeal Court

McGregor's Application for Leave to Appeal to the SCC

The Government's response https://www.scc-csc.ca/WebDocuments-DocumentsWeb/39543/MM020_Respondent_Her-Majesty-the-Queen.pdf


----------



## KevinB

Blackadder1916 said:


> And the CMAC appeal decision R. v. McGregor - Court Martial Appeal Court
> 
> McGregor's Application for Leave to Appeal to the SCC
> 
> The Government's response https://www.scc-csc.ca/WebDocuments-DocumentsWeb/39543/MM020_Respondent_Her-Majesty-the-Queen.pdf


So child porn too, the guy just needs to gassed, not given a new trial.


----------



## FSTO

Re: the dwindling supply of GOFOs. 
I’m wondering if we’ll see this crisis burn itself out over time. I know that my kids (now in their late 20’s) have a much different mindset than I was at their age. The are far more accepting of the alphabet soup of alternate lifestyle and have no problem calling out racism, sexism and sexual misconduct. 
Maybe our current crop/generation of GOFOs just need to fade away and let the next generation take over. This would also be a good way to take care of the bloat at our higher HQs.


----------



## OldSolduer

FSTO said:


> I’m wondering if we’ll see this crisis burn itself out over time. I know that my kids (now in their late 20’s) have a much different mindset than I was at their age. The are far more accepting of the alphabet soup of alternate lifestyle and have no problem calling out racism, sexism and sexual misconduct.
> Maybe our current crop/generation of GOFOs just need to fade away and let the next generation take over. This would also be a good way to take care of the bloat at our higher HQs.


Your correct in that assessment.


----------



## Blackadder1916

FSTO said:


> Re: the dwindling supply of GOFOs.
> 
> Maybe our current crop/generation of GOFOs just need to fade away and let the next generation take over. This would also be a good way to take care of the bloat at our higher HQs.



The only way to eliminate a bloat (_is this now the collective noun for generals?_) is to destroy the nest.  An example of their unchecked spread would be the three (3) general officers sent to the PHAC for the vaccine op.  While only one remains, two having been punted back; "secondment" permits the CAF to not carry them against the authorized number of GOFOs and to promote into the vacant positions they held before going to another department for what should have been a temporary assignment.  At least one of the three triggered the GOFO promotion cascade and maybe had a secondary effect of filling the position that (if the world was normal) an otherwise already existing, but now jobless MGen could have filled.  I haven't found any reference to the two BGens that accompanied Fortin to the PHAC or whether anyone was promoted (even A/WSE) into their previous positions. 



> CANFORGEN 022/21 PROMOTIONS AND SENIOR APPOINTMENTS 2021 – GENERAL AND FLAG OFFICERS
> 
> 4.  MAJOR-GENERAL D. FORTIN WAS SECONDED TO PUBLIC HEALTH AGENCY OF CANADA, IN OTTAWA, RESULTING IN THE FOLLOWING PROMOTIONS AND APPOINTMENTS:
> (1) BRIGADIER-GENERAL I.S. HUDDLESTON WILL BE PROMOTED MAJOR-GENERAL AND APPOINTED CHIEF OF STAFF, CANADIAN JOINT OPERATIONS COMMAND, IN OTTAWA, REPLACING MAJOR-GENERAL D. FORTIN
> (2) COLONEL J.J. ALEXANDER WILL BE PROMOTED BRIGADIER-GENERAL AND APPOINTED DIRECTOR GENERAL AIR READINESS, IN OTTAWA, REPLACING BRIGADIER-GENERAL I.S. HUDDLESTON


----------



## daftandbarmy

Blackadder1916 said:


> The only way to eliminate a bloat (_is this now the collective noun for generals?_) is to destroy the nest.  An example of their unchecked spread would be the three (3) general officers sent to the PHAC for the vaccine op.  While only one remains, two having been punted back; "secondment" permits the CAF to not carry them against the authorized number of GOFOs and to promote into the vacant positions they held before going to another department for what should have been a temporary assignment.  At least one of the three triggered the GOFO promotion cascade and maybe had a secondary effect of filling the position that (if the world was normal) an otherwise already existing, but now jobless MGen could have filled.  I haven't found any reference to the two BGens that accompanied Fortin to the PHAC or whether anyone was promoted (even A/WSE) into their previous positions.



We might try applying the 'Yes man' filter as a way to screen the wheat from the chaff, all the way down the line. Then stream the right kind of people through 

"A ‘Yes man’ is a dangerous man. He is a menace. He will go very far. He can become a minister, a secretary, or a Field Marshall but he can never become a leader nor ever be respected. 

He will be used by his superiors, disliked by his colleagues, and despised by his subordinates. 

So discard the ‘Yes man’".

- Sam ‘Bahadur’ Manekshaw









						Sam Manekshaw - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## dapaterson

Apparently the CDS (suspended) sent a note to other GOFOs, explaining that he's been exonerated and should be immediately reinstated.

The CDS (acting) is unamused.



			Redirect Notice
		


I find retired general Mike Day to have his headspace aligned with A/CDS Eyre; his take on this is worth reading as well.






						"I wouldn't start from here"
					

I read a tremendously thoughtful tweet thread from Annalise Schamuhn yesterday which reminded me that the ability to hold two ( or more) se...




					t.co


----------



## Good2Golf

DMD’s solid on this one, for sure.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Good2Golf said:


> DMD’s solid on this one, for sure.


It is not entirely clear to me why the Government has prolonged this situation.

Just tell Admiral McDonald he is retired. No need to give a reason.


----------



## MilEME09

SeaKingTacco said:


> It is not entirely clear to me why the Government has prolonged this situation.
> 
> Just tell Admiral McDonald he is retired. No need to give a reason.


Shows how low on the priority list it is, but I mean it's been sometime after the election now and we still don't have a new cabinet or a date for parliament to resume


----------



## daftandbarmy

dapaterson said:


> Apparently the CDS (suspended) sent a note to other GOFOs, explaining that he's been exonerated and should be immediately reinstated.
> 
> The CDS (acting) is unamused.
> 
> 
> 
> Redirect Notice
> 
> 
> 
> I find retired general Mike Day to have his headspace aligned with A/CDS Eyre; his take on this is worth reading as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I wouldn't start from here"
> 
> 
> I read a tremendously thoughtful tweet thread from Annalise Schamuhn yesterday which reminded me that the ability to hold two ( or more) se...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> t.co



I think the Navy have a word for that, don't they?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

daftandbarmy said:


> I think the Navy have a word for that, don't they?


I don’t know what it is.


----------



## Jarnhamar

$22,000 a month for sitting around on administrative leave indefinitely. Not too shabby.


----------



## dapaterson

SeaKingTacco said:


> I don’t know what it is.


There's this guy named Mainguy...


----------



## kev994

Jarnhamar said:


> $22,000 a month for sitting around on administrative leave indefinitely. Not too shabby.


I suspect his lawyer’s dipping into that a fair amount.


----------



## daftandbarmy

dapaterson said:


> There's this guy named Mainguy...



Makes for excellent reading....

WHAT THE MAINGUY REPORT NEVER TOLD US: THE TRADITION OF ‘MUTINY’ IN THE ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY BEFORE 1949



			http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo1/no2/doc/85-92-eng.pdf


----------



## MilEME09

daftandbarmy said:


> Makes for excellent reading....
> 
> WHAT THE MAINGUY REPORT NEVER TOLD US: THE TRADITION OF ‘MUTINY’ IN THE ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY BEFORE 1949
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo1/no2/doc/85-92-eng.pdf


I mean we are bringing back a lot of old traditions aren't we?


----------



## Jarnhamar

kev994 said:


> I suspect his lawyer’s dipping into that a fair amount.



Maybe that's why he started sending out his own letters.


----------



## kev994

Maybe he’s trying to stretch out his best five years?


----------



## Good2Golf

McDonald is the only one (well, Eyre, once he’s not Acting) the Governor in Council can say, “Your service shall not longer continue.”

It would take a pair…or see the results of the latest Nanos poll that would indicate to the GIC that the people think McDonald’s time is over.


----------



## dapaterson

LGen Whelan. CMP, suspended.









						Senior military officer placed on leave months after sexual-misconduct investigation against him started
					

Lieutenant-General Steven Whelan was appointed head of Canadian Forces personnel in May, he now joins list of military officers being investigated




					www.theglobeandmail.com


----------



## OldSolduer

dapaterson said:


> LGen Whelan. CMP, suspended.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Senior military officer placed on leave months after sexual-misconduct investigation against him started
> 
> 
> Lieutenant-General Steven Whelan was appointed head of Canadian Forces personnel in May, he now joins list of military officers being investigated
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theglobeandmail.com


Facepalm 🤦‍♀️ here. WTF????


----------



## daftandbarmy

dapaterson said:


> LGen Whelan. CMP, suspended.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Senior military officer placed on leave months after sexual-misconduct investigation against him started
> 
> 
> Lieutenant-General Steven Whelan was appointed head of Canadian Forces personnel in May, he now joins list of military officers being investigated
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theglobeandmail.com



We few... we not so happy few....


----------



## SeaKingTacco

dapaterson said:


> There's this guy named Mainguy...


No, I know what mutiny is. I don’t know what it is Admiral McDonald is doing. Or why it has come to this.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Good2Golf said:


> McDonald is the only one (well, Eyre, once he’s not Acting) the Governor in Council can say, “Your service shall not longer continue.”
> 
> It would take a pair…or see the results of the latest Nanos poll that would indicate to the GIC that the people think McDonald’s time is over.


Why would it take a pair? I am not sure I understand what core group of Liberal voters would care, one way or another, who the CDS is.


----------



## dapaterson

SeaKingTacco said:


> I don’t know what it is Admiral McDonald is doing. Or why it has come to this.


I realize that a naval officer with an out of control ego is something entirely novel...


----------



## Good2Golf

SeaKingTacco said:


> Why would it take a pair? I am not sure I understand what core group of Liberal voters would care, one way or another, who the CDS is.


Take a pair (heretofore not displayed) to venture out into Decisionland without having a survey that talking heads can ease the GIC’s mind…


----------



## kev994

OldSolduer said:


> Facepalm 🤦‍♀️ here. WTF????


I lost track long ago, but didn’t this guy’s predecessor get removed for sexual misconduct? Or is that a different HR job? I seem to remember the guy in charge of CMP being under investigation.


----------



## kev994

I think I have a foolproof solution: we get everyone to self-attest in Monitor-Mass that they are not guilty of sexual misconduct. My understanding is that there is no way to defeat this system.


----------



## Infanteer

kev994 said:


> I think I have a foolproof solution: we get everyone to self-attest in Monitor-Mass that they are not guilty of sexual misconduct. My understanding is that there is no way to defeat this system.


----------



## kev994

The Globe and Mail has some additional tidbits in their article Here. Confirms that his predecessor was removed for sexual misconduct and that the investigation started back in June, basically as soon as he took over CMP.


----------



## ballz

FSTO said:


> Maybe our current crop/generation of GOFOs just need to fade away and let the next generation take over. This would also be a good way to take care of the bloat at our higher HQs.



Our current crop of Colonels and Lieutenant-Colonels, and their supporting CWOs, have been infected by the same / raised in the same culture of zero accountability, being too afraid and too incomptent in HR to use the remedial measures system. It was a Maj (now currently serving LCol) and an MWO that were too spineless to support me in putting a WO on remedial measures when I was a Pl Comd, then when they were finally on board it was a LCol and RSM who lacked any spine and decided to just post the problem, that caused me to pursue my CPA as a mechanism to release. Had nothing to do with GOFOs.

Get rid of all the GOFOs all you want, I don't think much changes.


----------



## brihard

kev994 said:


> I think I have a foolproof solution: we get everyone to self-attest in Monitor-Mass that they are not guilty of sexual misconduct. My understanding is that there is no way to defeat this system.


Magnificent


----------



## MilEME09

So how many GOFO's are left?


----------



## brihard

MilEME09 said:


> So how many GOFO's are left?



Amusingly, it turns out that all of the army.ca rants on GOFO bloat were, in fact, an inadvertent OPSEC breach of CAF's 'defense in depth'.


----------



## KevinB

MilEME09 said:


> So how many GOFO's are left?


Too many?

I'm sure there will be more reports to come, it has become fashionable now to throw a GOFO under the bus.
  Don't get me wrong I am all for burning the guilty at the stake - but some of the reports seem to be years old - I wonder what took so long for them to come to light - others seem to be scorned lovers (which doesn't excuse the relationships - especially the disparity of rank in some) - but as someone who tried to report several inappropriate relationships overseas - the MP's didn't GAFF - and its not an individual problem at this point - it's an entire systemic issue - but at the end of the day, the Military is a reflection of society - I would suggest that the Canadian Society as a whole needs a wake up call on this - as it isn't isolated to the CF -- the CF is just the whipping boy poster child envogue these days - and I'm sure (based on what I have seen elsewhere in the Cdn Gov - that I could find more issues in the RCMP and PS on a per capita basis than the CF.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Give everyone a copy of "The Forever War" and tell them to read it 3 times.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

KevinB said:


> Too many?
> 
> I'm sure there will be more reports to come, it has become fashionable now to throw a GOFO under the bus.
> Don't get me wrong I am all for burning the guilty at the stake - but some of the reports seem to be years old - I wonder what took so long for them to come to light - others seem to be scorned lovers (which doesn't excuse the relationships - especially the disparity of rank in some) - but as someone who tried to report several inappropriate relationships overseas - the MP's didn't GAFF - and its not an individual problem at this point - it's an entire systemic issue - but at the end of the day, the Military is a reflection of society - I would suggest that the Canadian Society as a whole needs a wake up call on this - as it isn't isolated to the CF -- the CF is just the whipping boy poster child envogue these days - and I'm sure (based on what I have seen elsewhere in the Cdn Gov - that I could find more issues in the RCMP and PS on a per capita basis than the CF.


Speaking of the PS,yea a Regional Director General would not create a whole new level of management and then appoint her boyfriend from another Department to one of those new nice paying jobs without a competition for the job would they?


----------



## SupersonicMax

ballz said:


> Our current crop of Colonels and Lieutenant-Colonels, and their supporting CWOs, have been infected by the same / raised in the same culture of zero accountability, being too afraid and too incomptent in HR to use the remedial measures system. It was a Maj (now currently serving LCol) and an MWO that were too spineless to support me in putting a WO on remedial measures when I was a Pl Comd, then when they were finally on board it was a LCol and RSM who lacked any spine and decided to just post the problem, that caused me to pursue my CPA as a mechanism to release. Had nothing to do with GOFOs.
> 
> Get rid of all the GOFOs all you want, I don't think much changes.


That’s a very broad brush from a fairly limited number of data points.  I can confirm there are many LCols and above that will not hesitate to use the disciplinary and administrative systems. 

It is either you experienced a weak CoC or the reasons your wanted to pursue administrative actions were simply not justified in the end (while it is possible, two levels questioning proposed administrative measures is perhaps a sign that what you were proposing was not appropriate).  Every story has a couple of versions. We only get to know yours.


----------



## SupersonicMax

brihard said:


> Amusingly, it turns out that all of the army.ca rants on GOFO bloat were, in fact, an inadvertent OPSEC breach of CAF's 'defense in depth'.


I don’t want to minimize what victims are bringing forward but if I was an adversary, I would use this crisis to the max extent possible to weaken our strategic leadership and the institution.


----------



## MilEME09

SupersonicMax said:


> I don’t want to minimize what victims are bringing forward but if I was an adversary, I would use this crisis to the max extent possible to weaken our strategic leadership and the institution.


I would not be surprised, Russia did use Russel Williams against us in Latvia, trying to convince the population we would turn them into homosexual cross dressers. 100% China and Russia are pushing these stories more. I have said it before we aren't in a shooting war, but we are in a Cyber war, have been for years, and we are loosing. Covid and the anti vaccine movement is a perfect example of our adversaries using false information to cause unrest in the civilian population and brew civil unrest.


----------



## Furniture

SupersonicMax said:


> That’s a very broad brush from a fairly limited number of data points.  I can confirm there are many LCols and above that will not hesitate to use the disciplinary and administrative systems.
> 
> It is either you experienced a weak CoC or the reasons your wanted to pursue administrative actions were simply not justified in the end (while it is possible, two levels questioning proposed administrative measures is perhaps a sign that what you were proposing was not appropriate).  Every story has a couple of versions. We only get to know yours.


100% 

Just because the result you wanted isn't the end result of an an investigation, does not meant the investigation was flawed.

I don't know the CDS, but he raised a valid point... If there is no return after an accusation, why even investigate anything? Fire all accused, and in a year the CAF will be run by the Pte with the most attempts at BMQ.


----------



## MilEME09

Furniture said:


> 100%
> 
> Just because the result you wanted isn't the end result of an an investigation, does not meant the investigation was flawed.
> 
> I don't know the CDS, but he raised a valid point... If there is no return after an accusation, why even investigate anything? Fire all accused, and in a year the CAF will be run by the Pte with the most attempts at BMQ.


Valid point, at the end of the day I think the CAF needs to create, or better yet created for them guide lines for these situations. If not charged, there needs to be a decision made about the member within a reasonable amount of time


----------



## dimsum

MilEME09 said:


> trying to convince the population we would turn them into homosexual cross dressers.


I'm a sample size of 1, but in my experience my LGBTQ friends have had the more "normal" relationships. 

They're still together and happy, which is more than I can say for a whole whack of my hetero friends.


----------



## ballz

SupersonicMax said:


> That’s a very broad brush from a fairly limited number of data points.



Where did I suggest it was anything more than an anecdote?



SupersonicMax said:


> I can confirm there are many LCols and above that will not hesitate to use the disciplinary and administrative systems.



Don't be offended, but I won't take your word for it. The evidence I've seen suggests otherwise, and so has my experience.



SupersonicMax said:


> It is either you experienced a weak CoC or the reasons your wanted to pursue administrative actions were simply not justified in the end (while it is possible, two levels questioning proposed administrative measures is perhaps a sign that what you were proposing was not appropriate).  Every story has a couple of versions. We only get to know yours.



As expected, the knee-jerk reaction from some is always to try and lend the benefit of the doubt to institution... perhaps if we stopped giving the institution that benefit, we wouldn't be here. If 1/10th of the senior officers backed up their talk with real actions, we wouldn't have this thread.


----------



## Jarnhamar

We've reached a place where alleged accusations against senior officers, including decades old ones, seem to be taken seriously and investigated (almost to the point of being weaponized but that's another story).

The rest of the CAF hasn't reached this hair-trigger threshold yet. Various CoCs still **** off complaints, try to down play the misconduct, or go after the victim.

What happens if we do though?
What's going to happen to joe blow OC who after getting handsy with a 18 year old private at the X-Mas dinner isn't just given a talking to behind closed doors and the private told not to worry about it?  
Or when a CSM can't intimidate a private into not reporting an SNCO because he's a really good guy who is just going through a rough divorce?

Can we afford to put 30% of the CAF on paid administrative leave while we develop a new DLN course?


----------



## Journeyman

MilEME09 said:


> 100% China and Russia are pushing these stories more.


Not to mention the divisive threat of..... pineapple on pizza!!


----------



## Halifax Tar

ballz said:


> As expected, the knee-jerk reaction from some is always to try and lend the benefit of the doubt to institution... perhaps if we stopped giving the institution that benefit, we wouldn't be here. If 1/10th of the senior officers backed up their talk with real actions, we wouldn't have this thread.



Agreed.  Commitment to the institution should also mean culling the rotted chaff from.tye wheat when it's necessary, for the good of the institution.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Jarnhamar said:


> We've reached a place where alleged accusations against senior officers, including decades old ones, seem to be taken seriously and investigated (almost to the point of being weaponized but that's another story).
> 
> The rest of the CAF hasn't reached this hair-trigger threshold yet. Various CoCs still **** off complaints, try to down play the misconduct, or go after the victim.
> 
> What happens if we do though?
> *What's going to happen to joe blow OC who after getting handsy with a 18 year old private at the X-Mas dinner isn't just given a talking to behind closed doors and the private told not to worry about it?
> Or when a CSM can't intimidate a private into not reporting an SNCO because he's a really good guy who is just going through a rough divorce?
> *
> Can we afford to put 30% of the CAF on paid administrative leave while we develop a new DLN course?



Tell us more about that....

(See what I did there?  ).


----------



## Haggis

Colin Parkinson said:


> Speaking of the PS, yea a Regional Director General would not create a whole new level of management and then appoint her boyfriend from another Department to one of those new nice paying jobs without a competition for the job would they?


Fake News!  The PS is far more responsible and ethical than the CAF in the eyes of the public.

As long as said public doesn't look at the Federal Public Service Labour Relations Board decisions, that façade can be maintained.


----------



## GR66

Jarnhamar said:


> We've reached a place where alleged accusations against senior officers, including decades old ones, seem to be taken seriously and investigated (almost to the point of being weaponized but that's another story).
> 
> The rest of the CAF hasn't reached this hair-trigger threshold yet. Various CoCs still **** off complaints, try to down play the misconduct, or go after the victim.
> 
> What happens if we do though?
> What's going to happen to joe blow OC who after getting handsy with a 18 year old private at the X-Mas dinner isn't just given a talking to behind closed doors and the private told not to worry about it?
> Or when a CSM can't intimidate a private into not reporting an SNCO because he's a really good guy who is just going through a rough divorce?
> 
> Can we afford to put 30% of the CAF on paid administrative leave while we develop a new DLN course?


What happens if you don't?

Edited to add:  Seriously, isn't that how the CAF has arrived at this shyte-show?  Tell an 18-year old Private that's been sexually assaulted by an OC "not to worry about it"  because he's had a "talking to"???  You're OK that a CSM should "intimidate a Private" not to report a SNCO because he's a "really good guy"???.  

If it really is 30% of the CAF that it totally OK with that then maybe they do need to be put on administrative leave...but not while a new DLN course is developed, but until they can be investigated and if appropriate, charged and released.


----------



## kev994

Jarnhamar said:


> We've reached a place where alleged accusations against senior officers, including decades old ones, seem to be taken seriously and investigated (almost to the point of being weaponized but that's another story).
> 
> The rest of the CAF hasn't reached this hair-trigger threshold yet. Various CoCs still **** off complaints, try to down play the misconduct, or go after the victim.
> 
> What happens if we do though?
> What's going to happen to joe blow OC who after getting handsy with a 18 year old private at the X-Mas dinner isn't just given a talking to behind closed doors and the private told not to worry about it?
> Or when a CSM can't intimidate a private into not reporting an SNCO because he's a really good guy who is just going through a rough divorce?
> 
> Can we afford to put 30% of the CAF on paid administrative leave while we develop a new DLN course?


If we can’t keep our hands to ourselves then maybe we shouldn’t have that Xmas dinner, or maybe there shouldn’t be alcohol at it.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

kev994 said:


> If we can’t keep our hands to ourselves then maybe we shouldn’t have that Xmas dinner, or maybe there shouldn’t be alcohol at it.


So punish everyone, because we cannot bother to deal with the few?


----------



## daftandbarmy

SeaKingTacco said:


> So punish everyone, because we cannot bother to deal with the few?



Why not? The Navy did it:



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/hmcs-whitehorse-incident-results-in-drinking-ban-on-navy-ships-1.2871521


----------



## kev994

SeaKingTacco said:


> So punish everyone, because we cannot bother to deal with the few?


The time to deal with the few is long gone, we’re in the middle of an emergency crisis, I say we do anything that has a chance of improving things.


----------



## Happy Guy

Ref: Sexual Harassment - STATSCAN

Some more information from STATSCAN regarding sexual harassment in 2020.  In brief:
- In 2020, one in four women (25%) and one in six men (17%) reported having personally experienced inappropriate sexualized behaviours in their workplace.

- One in ten women (10%) personally experienced workplace discrimination based on gender, gender identity or sexual orientation in the year prior to the pandemic, compared with less than one in twenty men (4%).

- For women, experiences of inappropriate sexualized behaviour were most common for those working in certain occupations where men have historically outnumbered women.

- Women working in some occupations where they historically outnumbered men also experienced high rates of inappropriate sexualized behaviours in the year leading up the pandemic. For example, almost one in three women working in sales and service (32%) and health-related occupations (30%).

- One in three women targeted with sexually explicit materials at work says someone in authority was responsible

- Many women do not speak out about their experiences for fear of negative impact on their career.

We can assume that CAF members are a reflection of Cdn society so we can assume that the above stats also hold true for this institution. This means that the so far, in the CAF the rates of sexual harassment reporting, have been relatively low compared to society.

In my opinion OP HONOUR did help the CAF by highlighting poor behaviours which n turn brought about positive change.  It will take time, years, before women are not treated as sex objects.  Sexual harassment will not go away in the CAF or society but we can try to minimize the risk to women and other vulnerable populations, by pointing out and reporting such poor behaviour.

One thing to point out, as a matter of perspective. It appears, due to media exposure, more women are pointing sexual harassment in the CAF than other departments.  I hope this means that women feel more empowered or safer to report sexual harassment in the CAF as compared to other federal departments where they are less protected.

Cheers


----------



## Takeniteasy

The CAF CoC has had ample time to address the systemic lack of faculty in addressing harassment and discrimination. There are plenty of examples and now a second review. Its complicated and hard to fix but when you encounter times to make a difference and you respond by saying "let the CoC take care of this, its a sensitive subject, you need to know your place," and face reprisals for trying to move forward with a formal complaint; you quickly see how the power structure yields to the institution and its so called socially conscience leaders.


----------



## Brad Sallows

If matters going back to, say, 1980 belong to the set, then absolutely every institution, organization, and corporation has a lot to deal with.  All the men who ever patted a bum or worse didn't all end up in the CAF.


----------



## Happy Guy

I am a guy (with two adult daughters and a son) so this my perspective. The women who report sexual harassment are the ones who felt aggrieved, threaten, humiliated or were harmed during the incident.  Most men would stop immediately if the women said No, made gestures or showed body language suggesting discomfort. For many women it would take a rather overly aggressive person who wouldn't take No for an answer before they would report it.  Many of us men will not have to worry about the innocent flirt.  As for the patting the bum, my wife could have 30 years worth of charges against me .

We (males) must realize that it takes a tremendous amount of courage to report sexual harassment and the women who are reporting it risk being ostracized by their peers and recrimination from their superiors.  Think of situation (it doesn't have to be sexual harassment) where you were placed in a circumstance where you felt you had no recourse because of the over whelming power that the aggressor had over you.  The person could have verbally or physically intimidated you and that person had direct control over your career and future in the organization. It takes courage to step forward.  

What we should be concerned about is fair treatment for the complainant and the respondent and a fair, open a transparent investigative and dispute resolution proces.  Unfortuantely, from what I can see, the respondents are not getting any fair treatment by the government.


----------



## cyber_lass

Happy Guy said:


> I am a guy (with two adult daughters and a son) so this my perspective. The women who report sexual harassment are the ones who felt aggrieved, threaten, humiliated or were harmed during the incident.  Most men would stop immediately if the women said No, made gestures or showed body language suggesting discomfort. For many women it would take a rather overly aggressive person who wouldn't take No for an answer before they would report it.  Many of us men will not have to worry about the innocent flirt.  As for the patting the bum, my wife could have 30 years worth of charges against me .
> 
> We (males) must realize that it takes a tremendous amount of courage to report sexual harassment and the women who are reporting it risk being ostracized by their peers and recrimination from their superiors.  Think of situation (it doesn't have to be sexual harassment) where you were placed in a circumstance where you felt you had no recourse because of the over whelming power that the aggressor had over you.  The person could have verbally or physically intimidated you and that person had direct control over your career and future in the organization. It takes courage to step forward.
> 
> What we should be concerned about is fair treatment for the complainant and the respondent and a fair, open a transparent investigative and dispute resolution proces.  Unfortuantely, from what I can see, the respondents are not getting any fair treatment by the government.


As a women... this is quite well said. Thank you.


----------



## Furniture

Happy Guy said:


> I am a guy (with two adult daughters and a son) so this my perspective. The women who report sexual harassment are the ones who felt aggrieved, threaten, humiliated or were harmed during the incident.  Most men would stop immediately if the women said No, made gestures or showed body language suggesting discomfort. For many women it would take a rather overly aggressive person who wouldn't take No for an answer before they would report it.  Many of us men will not have to worry about the innocent flirt.  As for the patting the bum, my wife could have 30 years worth of charges against me .
> 
> We (males) must realize that it takes a tremendous amount of courage to report sexual harassment and the women who are reporting it risk being ostracized by their peers and recrimination from their superiors.  Think of situation (it doesn't have to be sexual harassment) where you were placed in a circumstance where you felt you had no recourse because of the over whelming power that the aggressor had over you.  The person could have verbally or physically intimidated you and that person had direct control over your career and future in the organization. It takes courage to step forward.
> 
> What we should be concerned about is fair treatment for the complainant and the respondent and a fair, open a transparent investigative and dispute resolution proces.  Unfortuantely, from what I can see, the respondents are not getting any fair treatment by the government.


While I agree with what you said, I think there is a danger in framing this as an exclusively a "male" problem.

I was harassed by a female staff member while on course, and the perception that men can't be harassed definitely lead to me not saying anything at the time. In the end I was fine, and the staff member moved on to other things, but I think it's important to remember that women can also be offenders.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

MilEME09 said:


> Valid point, at the end of the day I think the CAF needs to create, or better yet created for them guide lines for these situations. If not charged, there needs to be a decision made about the member within a reasonable amount of time



They are already created;  they need to be strengthened (perhaps) and used appropriately;  I'm not talking just charging people where appropriate - I am a supporter of using the appropriate administrative sanctions ( think Ch 14 of the Mil Admin Law Manual stuff) including release.  We have an AR process, we have written Defence Ethics, we have DAODs on conduct/performance deficiencies, the list goes on.  We have the tools we need, for the most part.

Right now, the big hurtle isn't our disciplinary/admin tools and procedures; it is the public perception of them because of the PR disaster we're weathering as an institution that is mainly resting at the feet of our most senior leadership.

Where to start in re-educating the entire CAF, regardless of component, ranks or DEU??

IMO, here is the foundations (links below);  we NEED to get back to the very basics.  We need to get everyone to understand these.  NEED.  No personal interpretations.  No "I'm a leader and I'll enforce these rules/regs, but not these ones because...well that is what I feel like".

These ones, word for effin' word.






						QR&O: Volume I - Chapter 4 Duties and Responsibilities of Officers - Canada.ca
					

Queen's Regulations and Orders - QR&O - Chapter 4 - Duties and Responsibilities of Officers




					www.canada.ca
				









						QR&O: Volume I - Chapter 5 Duties and Responsibilities of Non-Commissioned Members - Canada.ca
					

Queen's Regulations and Orders - QR&O - Chapter 5 - Duties and Responsibilities of Non-Commissioned Members




					www.canada.ca
				




Self-discipline is lacking, obedience is lacking....CAF-wide.  We need to change that; the roof will continue to sag and crack until the foundation is fixed.


----------



## YZT580

how much is current and how much is deep in the past?  A number of these allegations go back decades and occurred within the junior ranks.  If it were lieutenants and corporals being charged the papers would be moving on to another issue and it would be possible to implement a solution but as long as it involves generals and admirals you will never get the chance.


----------



## ueo

YZT580 said:


> how much is current and how much is deep in the past?  A number of these allegations go back decades and occurred within the junior ranks.  If it were lieutenants and corporals being charged the papers would be moving on to another issue and it would be possible to implement a solution but as long as it involves generals and admirals you will never get the chance.


The media (through which the public) have the attention span of a gnat. If its "sexy" it sells for a limited time. IMHO this shyte storm will pass as bigger stories are found. That being said the system must be over hauled and become more people oriented- an old Sgt told me long ago "Take care of your people and they'll take care of you."


----------



## brihard

Half the upcoming courts martial are for sexual assault. We aren’t just talking an historical issue here.






						Upcoming courts martial - Canada.ca
					

List of upcoming courts martial by date and/or by province.




					www.canada.ca


----------



## Ostrozac

That and the whole ”this will all blow over“ COA was already attempted in 2015, when Operation Honour was launched. 6 years later, and this is still eating up time, energy, resources and people. That’s longer than either world war; it’s longer than the period it took us to ramp up our first real standing military during the early Cold War.

This isn't just about sexual misconduct. Not anymore. It’s also about our ability to obey government direction, implement institutional changes, and retain credibility with those that fund us — taxpayers and the politicians they elect.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Ostrozac said:


> That and the whole ”this will all blow over“ COA was already attempted in 2015, when Operation Honour was launched. 6 years later, and this is still eating up time, energy, resources and people. That’s longer than either world war; it’s longer than the period it took us to ramp up our first real standing military during the early Cold War.
> 
> *This isn't just about sexual misconduct. Not anymore. It’s also about our ability to obey government direction, implement institutional changes, and retain credibility with those that fund us — taxpayers and the politicians they elect.*


----------



## Halifax Tar

Ostrozac said:


> That and the whole ”this will all blow over“ COA was already attempted in 2015, when Operation Honour was launched. 6 years later, and this is still eating up time, energy, resources and people. That’s longer than either world war; it’s longer than the period it took us to ramp up our first real standing military during the early Cold War.
> 
> This isn't just about sexual misconduct. Not anymore. It’s also about our ability to obey government direction, implement institutional changes, and retain credibility with those that fund us — taxpayers and the politicians they elect.


----------



## Jarnhamar

brihard said:


> Half the upcoming courts martial are for sexual assault. We aren’t just talking an historical issue here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Upcoming courts martial - Canada.ca
> 
> 
> List of upcoming courts martial by date and/or by province.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.canada.ca



Lots of privates and corporals in that list with sexual assault charges against them. Contravenes the "it's the dinosaurs" mantra.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Ostrozac said:


> That and the whole ”this will all blow over“ COA was already attempted in 2015, when Operation Honour was launched. 6 years later, and this is still eating up time, energy, resources and people. That’s longer than either world war; it’s longer than the period it took us to ramp up our first real standing military during the early Cold War.
> 
> This isn't just about sexual misconduct. Not anymore. It’s also about our ability to obey government direction, implement institutional changes, and retain credibility with those that fund us — taxpayers and the politicians they elect.


Yup, launched by Vance. Lead by example.


----------



## OldSolduer

Jarnhamar said:


> Lots of privates and corporals in that list with sexual assault charges against them. Contravenes the "it's the dinosaurs" mantra.



It doesn’t fit the narrative does it? 

A few guilty ones need to be publicly “nailed to the cross “ - like executing an admiral now snd then to encourage the others to behave.


----------



## dimsum

Jarnhamar said:


> Lots of privates and corporals in that list with sexual assault charges against them. Contravenes the "it's the dinosaurs" mantra.


The "confidently incorrect" folks generally say that mantra.

The rest of us know that it's a problem not limited to the older folks, but that is what is being highlighted because they're of senior rank.  Joe Public doesn't care as much when it's Pte Bloggins vs MGen Bloggins, even if Pte B's charge is from the past year and MGen B's charge was in the 80s.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Jarnhamar said:


> Lots of privates and corporals in that list with sexual assault charges against them. Contravenes the "it's the dinosaurs" mantra.



I think the issue is some of these GO/FOs were seen to be chastising the unwashed masses below them in rank for our behavior.  

Now it seems the curtain is getting pulled back and the by golly the emperor(s) have no clothes! (pun intended)

This is an issue with Canadian society, trying to try it one demographic is short sighted and probably just for social tribal arguments.


----------



## OldSolduer

There’s memes going on about how men and boys should act not how women and girls should dress or act. 
Man the fuck up troops. If you outrank the ones you’re hitting on you maybe in violation of the ethics we all should have.


----------



## daftandbarmy

OldSolduer said:


> There’s memes going on about how men and boys should act not how women and girls should dress or act.
> Man the fuck up troops. If you outrank the ones you’re hitting on you maybe in violation of the ethics we all should have.



But what pronouns should we use, please, RSM? 


Charla Huber: Asking for pronouns can cause anxiety​
You may have noticed on email signatures, name tags and Twitter handles people are adding their pronouns. Even on many Zoom calls people add their pronouns next to their displayed name.

Common pronouns used are “she/her,” “he/him” or “they/them.” The act of sharing and asking pronouns is something that has been implemented as a respectful way to share one’s own pronouns and to open the door for others to share theirs. This is something that has been gaining traction and many people are welcoming it. People can share their identity with others to ensure they are not misgendered.

The concept is when everyone shares their pronouns, someone who is transgender or non-binary can share their pronouns casually with everyone else.

When it comes to gender, there have been huge strides in making space for people to be more welcoming and inclusive. The act of embracing pronouns is one demonstration of that.

I’ve heard of other situations where folks with androgenous names such as Sam, Alex or Robin appreciate having pronouns added on email signatures to mitigate being misgendered as well.

I agree that providing opportunities for people to share their pronouns is something that is important and should have happened a long time ago. Many people welcome the opportunity, but rarely do I ever hear the other side of this equation.

I am a firm believer that it is OK for people to share their pronouns, but I do not think it is always appropriate to openly ask for people’s pronouns.

If I am ever unsure, I use “they/them” pronouns for someone, or simply use the individual’s name without pronouns, to err on the side of caution.

When we are asking someone their pronouns, even if done out of an act of inclusiveness and respect, we could be forcing someone to “out themselves” when they may not be ready. If someone is going through a period of questioning their identity, it can cause extra unneeded stress. The individual is then faced with lying and feeling awful, or feeling forced to disclose and feeling awful. If someone is not ready to publicly state their preferred pronouns, it puts them in an awkward place.

Due to this, when I am in a group setting, I often do not share my pronouns. I want to make sure that if there is anyone else in the room who isn’t comfortable sharing pronouns, that they are not the only person.

If a workplace creates an overarching policy stating that everyone must display their pronouns, it could cause emotional turmoil to someone unintentionally.

If you want to introduce yourself with your pronouns, it can be great way to open the door to someone else to share theirs. If they do not use that opportunity to share their pronouns, don’t force them.

In these types of situations, each one of us needs to identify our own privileges. If you identify as the gender you were assigned at birth and have never questioned it, saying your pronouns are “she/her” or “he/him” may be simple, but it isn’t for everyone.









						Charla Huber: Asking for pronouns can cause anxiety
					

You may have noticed on email signatures, name tags and Twitter handles people are adding their pronouns. Even on many Zoom calls people add their pronouns next to their displayed name. Common pronouns used are “she/her,” “he/him” or “they/them.




					www.timescolonist.com


----------



## trigger324

Jarnhamar said:


> Lots of privates and corporals in that list with sexual assault charges against them. Contravenes the "it's the dinosaurs" mantra.


Wonder where all the WO and above are? I’m sure those ranks are as proportional as the rest and every GOFO has a chief. Not to mention they can be as dinosaurish as them


----------



## brihard

Mercedes Stephenson is reporting she has a direct eyewitness to the alleged Adm McDonald sexual assault, and that said witness did report to CFNIS.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1449856224183287808


----------



## MilEME09

brihard said:


> Mercedes Stephenson is reporting she has a direct eyewitness to the alleged Adm McDonald sexual assault, and that said witness did report to CFNIS.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1449856224183287808


Well this does not bode well, this may be why the government hadn't made a decision about him yet.


----------



## daftandbarmy

brihard said:


> Mercedes Stephenson is reporting she has a direct eyewitness to the alleged Adm McDonald sexual assault, and that said witness did report to CFNIS.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1449856224183287808


----------



## kev994

brihard said:


> Mercedes Stephenson is reporting she has a direct eyewitness to the alleged Adm McDonald sexual assault, and that said witness did report to CFNIS.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1449856224183287808


So…. Does this mean that his ‘vindication’ was actually CFNIS realizing that they can’t charge someone of his rank so they’re wasting their time investigating?


----------



## MilEME09

kev994 said:


> So…. Does this mean that his ‘vindication’ was actually CFNIS realizing that they can’t charge someone of his rank so they’re wasting their time investigating?


Happened with Vance so I guess so? Only way I could possibly see a CDS being charged now is if the Governor General was a former Judge. As head of state and the armed forces the GG, if possessing a legal background could have authority. I'm just thinking out loud and it probably doesn't work like that though.


----------



## brihard

MilEME09 said:


> Happened with Vance so I guess so? Only way I could possibly see a CDS being charged now is if the Governor General was a former Judge. As head of state and the armed forces the GG, if possessing a legal background could have authority. I'm just thinking out loud and it probably doesn't work like that though.


Charged under the NDA, yeah. Basically no mechanism for that. His rank or appointment would not protect him from criminal charges in a hypothetical case where those could be substantiated.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

That letter seems like a real 100%  dirtbag thing now...


----------



## SeaKingTacco

brihard said:


> Charged under the NDA, yeah. Basically no mechanism for that. His rank or appointment would not protect him from criminal charges in a hypothetical case where those could be substantiated.


Didn’t the alleged event happen in Iceland? How would a CCC charge work?


----------



## kev994

SeaKingTacco said:


> Didn’t the alleged event happen in Iceland? How would a CCC charge work?


It wouldn’t. That’s why the whole point of the NDA.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

kev994 said:


> It wouldn’t. That’s why the whole point of the NDA.


Which brings us straight back to the Fish Report stating it is legally impossible to charge a CDS under the NDA.

Now what?


----------



## MilEME09

SeaKingTacco said:


> Which brings us straight back to the Fish Report stating it is legally impossible to charge a CDS under the NDA.
> 
> Now what?


Civil suit?


----------



## OldSolduer

trigger324 said:


> Wonder where all the WO and above are? I’m sure those ranks are as proportional as the rest and every GOFO has a chief. Not to mention they can be as dinosaurish as them


You really don’t like anyone higher ranked than Cpl  do you?


----------



## FJAG

brihard said:


> Half the upcoming courts martial are for sexual assault. We aren’t just talking an historical issue here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Upcoming courts martial - Canada.ca
> 
> 
> List of upcoming courts martial by date and/or by province.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.canada.ca


That's quite a shopping list of wrongdoing. It's hard to say the military isn't taking these things serious and not taking disciplinary action.

One can always do better but, if anything, this shows things are being done.


kev994 said:


> So…. Does this mean that his ‘vindication’ was actually CFNIS realizing that they can’t charge someone of his rank so they’re wasting their time investigating?


That's always the way I took it with the firmness of Lt(N) Macdonald's reports. 

That begs the question on where does the CF stand on fixing the legislative structure to provide a way of charging and trying very high senior staff and military judges? It's been years since the issue came to the forefront?

🍻


----------



## KevinB

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> That letter seems like a real 100%  dirtbag thing now...


I think you meant MORE of a Dirtbag thing -- it was a DB thing before this popped up.


----------



## KevinB

FJAG said:


> That's quite a shopping list of wrongdoing. It's hard to say the military isn't taking these things serious and not taking disciplinary action.
> 
> One can always do better but, if anything, this shows things are being done.
> 
> That's always the way I took it with the firmness of Lt(N) Macdonald's reports.
> 
> That begs the question on where does the CF stand on fixing the legislative structure to provide a way of charging and trying very high senior staff and military judges? It's been years since the issue came to the forefront?
> 
> 🍻


Bring back the Firing Squad.
   Seriously - if the CDS fucks up that bad  it is a great example that would encourage others...


----------



## OldSolduer

KevinB said:


> Bring back the Firing Squad.
> Seriously - if the CDS fucks up that bad  it is a great example that would encourage others...


Which CDS we talkin about here Willis? Past, present or acting?


----------



## FJAG

KevinB said:


> Bring back the Firing Squad.
> Seriously - if the CDS fucks up that bad  it is a great example that would encourage others...


That would have worked once. The CSD had capital punishment long after it was removed from the CCC.

Unfortunately    you can't have punishment without a trial and since he can't be tried ... he can't be shot.

🍻


----------



## MilEME09

‘Several’ witnesses corroborate sexual misconduct allegation against McDonald, accuser says - National | Globalnews.ca
					

The revelation comes just days after Adm. Art McDonald sent a letter to senior military officers claiming his exoneration from sexual misconduct allegations against him.




					globalnews.ca
				




and the story drops, so the story was backed up by the Duty O, and others, but the Admiral has said the statements were "uncorroborated", this is as big of a PR nightmare as Vance, if not worse. Actually never mind it is worse cause Two CDS's cannot be charged under the NDA for sexual offenses because our system has no way to put them on trial. Making them above the law, pretty sure we have now lost all credibility to investigate anything our selves.


----------



## daftandbarmy

MilEME09 said:


> ‘Several’ witnesses corroborate sexual misconduct allegation against McDonald, accuser says - National | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> The revelation comes just days after Adm. Art McDonald sent a letter to senior military officers claiming his exoneration from sexual misconduct allegations against him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and the story drops, so the story was backed up by the Duty O, and others, but the Admiral has said the statements were "uncorroborated", this is as big of a PR nightmare as Vance, if not worse. Actually never mind it is worse cause Two CDS's cannot be charged under the NDA for sexual offenses because our system has no way to put them on trial. Making them above the law, pretty sure we have now lost all credibility to investigate anything our selves.



I saw the coverage on Global tonight. I'm pretty sure they were saying 'collaborated' when they meant 'corroborated', which was interesting in a malapropistic kind of way.

Regardless, I thought that Lt (N) Macdonald showed great courage.


----------



## Good2Golf

SeaKingTacco said:


> Didn’t the alleged event happen in Iceland? How would a CCC charge work?


Also apparently an issue with VAdm Edmundson’s alleged rape of MS(Retd) Stéphanie Viau in Nov 1991 on board PRO while in port at Pearl Harbour, HI.

Not sure how NDA s.130 wouldn’t work if CCC deemed unusable?


----------



## trigger324

OldSolduer said:


> You really don’t like anyone higher ranked than Cpl  do you?


Oh please. I must hate myself then. What I’m saying is that there’s a noticeably absent group amongst all the so called offenders by comparison


----------



## CBH99

Good2Golf said:


> Also apparently an issue with VAdm Edmundson’s alleged rape of MS(Retd) Stéphanie Viau in Nov 1991 on board PRO while in port at Pearl Harbour, HI.
> 
> Not sure how NDA s.130 wouldn’t work if CCC deemed unusable?


Forgive my ignorance (truly)

But if the incident happened onboard a Canadian warship, would the CCC not still apply even if the ship happens to be deployed?

And if not the Criminal Code of Canada, would local laws not be the ones applied?


(I’d have just assumed that as a member of the Canadian Armed Forces, if I sexually assaulted another member, while onboard a Royal Canadian Navy ship, that the Criminal Code of Canada would still apply to me.)

I’m sure there has to be a clearly stated policy of what to do when criminal offences allegedly occur outside of Canada by CAF members, outside of just the NDA.


----------



## KevinB

CBH99 said:


> I’m sure there has to be a clearly stated policy of what to do when criminal offences allegedly occur outside of Canada by CAF members, outside of just the NDA.


Firing Squad.



FJAG said:


> That would have worked once. The CSD had capital punishment long after it was removed from the CCC.
> 
> Unfortunately    you can't have punishment without a trial and since he can't be tried ... he can't be shot.
> 
> 🍻


If you're bringing back the Firing Squad - it needs legislation.
   At the same time, the NDA is amended.
1. All GOFO ranks changed to appointments - so highest actual 'rank' in the CF is a COL.
2. GOFO Appointed COL's can be charged and tried as any other COL.


----------



## Haggis

trigger324 said:


> What I’m saying is that there’s a noticeably absent group amongst all the so called offenders by comparison


Maybe they learned from mistakes made earlier in their careers or from those of their peer group?


----------



## trigger324

Haggis said:


> Maybe they learned from mistakes made earlier in their careers or from those of their peer group?


What makes them any different than a Senior, General, or Flag Officer then who you’d expect the same from?


----------



## Haggis

trigger324 said:


> What makes them any different than a Senior, General, or Flag Officer then who you’d expect the same from?


Morals?  Integrity?  Ethics? Experience?  Maturity?  Pick one.  Add one of your own.

As a WO/MWO/CWO I occasionally told my officer "Sir/ma'am, you can't/shouldn't do that."  Often they listened.  Sometimes they didn't.


----------



## trigger324

Haggis said:


> Morals?  Integrity?  Ethics? Experience?  Maturity?  Pick one.


All of those, I’d have expected to have been prerequisites fulfilled to become a GOFO. Yet here we are.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

CBH99 said:


> Forgive my ignorance (truly)
> 
> But if the incident happened onboard a Canadian warship, would the CCC not still apply even if the ship happens to be deployed?
> 
> And if not the Criminal Code of Canada, would local laws not be the ones applied?
> 
> 
> (I’d have just assumed that as a member of the Canadian Armed Forces, if I sexually assaulted another member, while onboard a Royal Canadian Navy ship, that the Criminal Code of Canada would still apply to me.)
> 
> I’m sure there has to be a clearly stated policy of what to do when criminal offences allegedly occur outside of Canada by CAF members, outside of just the NDA.


Yes the CCC applies on RCN warships abroad, but through section 130 of the NDA.


----------



## KevinB

Haggis said:


> Morals?  Integrity?  Ethics? Experience?  Maturity?  Pick one.  Add one of your own.


common sense to retire before the sins catch up...


----------



## ArmyRick

I challenge many of these GOFOs to start looking inwards. They are the senior of the senior leadership of the Canadian Forces. They should act in the most professional way possible and embrace the principles of integrity and accountability.  Or how could they wear that uniform and look at themselves in the mirror? 
If and when any warning flares of their professionalism or integrity is brought out, I personally feel they need to address it immediately and I would prefer publicly (they are the faces of the CAF to the nation). 

When some transgression, poor judgement or slight mishap is found on their part, I truly feel they should own it and RESIGN. Do I expect the same of say a LT or a MAJ? Nope. They are much lower on the totem pole and their ability to damage the CAF is significantly lower. Note the first sentence in this paragraph. 

For the outright unlawful or severely unethical actions or decisions, they need to be punted, full stop. A freaking general should know better than to propose to a corporal to go to a nude beach together (among many of the other questionable conduct of our GOFOs).

Some think the Canadian public hasn't noticed. They do. Sometimes for the worst. The public tends to only hear part of a story or think from the headlines that the whole CAF is one big biker gang or something similar. In the last 4-5 months, I have had to convince several relatives and close friends that this behaviour DOES NOT reflect the majority of the CAF.


----------



## cyber_lass

ArmyRick said:


> I challenge many of these GOFOs to start looking inwards. They are the senior of the senior leadership of the Canadian Forces. They should act in the most professional way possible and embrace the principles of integrity and accountability.  Or how could they wear that uniform and look at themselves in the mirror?
> If and when any warning flares of their professionalism or integrity is brought out, I personally feel they need to address it immediately and I would prefer publicly (they are the faces of the CAF to the nation).
> 
> When some transgression, poor judgement or slight mishap is found on their part, I truly feel they should own it and RESIGN. Do I expect the same of say a LT or a MAJ? Nope. They are much lower on the totem pole and their ability to damage the CAF is significantly lower. Note the first sentence in this paragraph.
> 
> For the outright unlawful or severely unethical actions or decisions, they need to be punted, full stop. A freaking general should know better than to propose to a corporal to go to a nude beach together (among many of the other questionable conduct of our GOFOs).
> 
> Some think the Canadian public hasn't noticed. They do. Sometimes for the worst. The public tends to only hear part of a story or think from the headlines that the whole CAF is one big biker gang or something similar. In the last 4-5 months, I have had to convince several relatives and close friends that this behaviour DOES NOT reflect the majority of the CAF.


You would think, but power often breeds a sense of entitlement. I am with you. And as woman about to be in the forces, my family is almost begging me not to at this point.


----------



## The Bread Guy

KevinB said:


> common sense to retire before the sins catch up...


Is that why they call it the medal "for 12 years of undetected crime" then? 😉


----------



## KevinB

cyber_lass said:


> You would think, but power often breeds a sense of entitlement. I am with you. And as woman about to be in the forces, my family is almost begging me not to at this point.


I would point out that at least the CF is starting to admit the faults and deal with it.
   The PM still blames women for "misunderstanding him"


----------



## FJAG

KevinB said:


> ...
> 1. All GOFO ranks changed to appointments - so highest actual 'rank' in the CF is a COL.
> 2. GOFO Appointed COL's can be charged and tried as any other COL.


Not quite. NDA s 21 provides for the rank structure of the CF by way of a schedule. All the GOFO ranks are part of that schedule and thereby a rank whether achieved through promotion or by way of appointment. Note that MCpl is not a rank but is purely an appointment.



> Ranks of officers and non-commissioned members
> 21 (1) For the purposes of this Act, the ranks of the officers and non-commissioned members of the Canadian Forces shall be as set out in the schedule
> (2) A person holding a rank set out in the schedule shall use, or be referred to by, a designation of rank prescribed in regulations made by the Governor in Council but only in the circumstances prescribed in those regulations.
> 
> 
> 
> Schedule
> (Section 21)
> Officers
> 
> 1 General
> 2 Lieutenant-General
> 3 Major-General
> 4 Brigadier-General
> 5 Colonel
> 6 Lieutenant-Colonel
> 7 Major
> 8 Captain
> 9 Lieutenant
> 10 Second Lieutenant
> 11 Officer Cadet
> Non-Commissioned Members
> 
> 12 Chief Warrant Officer
> 13 Master Warrant Officer
> 14 Warrant Officer
> 15 Sergeant
> 16 Corporal
> 17 Private



Sorry but the CF is screwed. We need an amendment to the NDA and QR&Os that diverts persons excluded from the charging and disciplinary process to give power to someone to charge and try and punish. My preferred method is diversion to trial by a civilian superior court justice.

🍻


----------



## MilEME09

KevinB said:


> I would point out that at least the CF is starting to admit the faults and deal with it.
> The PM still blames women for "misunderstanding him"


Admiting it great but we need to fix the faults too, starting with our ability to prosecute the senior ranges without the appearance of Bias.


----------



## KevinB

FJAG said:


> Not quite. NDA s 21 provides for the rank structure of the CF by way of a schedule. All the GOFO ranks are part of that schedule and thereby a rank whether achieved through promotion or by way of appointment. Note that MCpl is not a rank but is purely an appointment.


But that could be changed.


FJAG said:


> Sorry but the CF is screwed. We need an amendment to the NDA and QR&Os that diverts persons excluded from the charging and disciplinary process to give power to someone to charge and try and punish. My preferred method is diversion to trial by a civilian superior court justice.
> 
> 🍻


 I would suggest a Hybrid trial - with a jury of CF personnel - 3 JCM, 3 SNCO's, 3 JrO, 3SO's (1 from each service), overseen by a Federal Judge who is also on the CMA Board.


----------



## daftandbarmy

KevinB said:


> But that could be changed.
> 
> I would suggest a Hybrid trial - with a jury of CF personnel - 3 JCM, 3 SNCO's, 3 JrO, 3SO's (1 from each service), overseen by a Federal Judge who is also on the CMA Board.



If we're not careful, we might replicate this infamous committee:


*Committee of Public Safety*, French *Comité De Salut Public*, political body of the French Revolution that gained virtual dictatorial control over France during the Reign of Terror (September 1793 to July 1794).


The Committee of Public Safety was set up on April 6, 1793, during one of the crises of the Revolution, when France was beset by foreign and civil war. The new committee was to provide for the defense of the nation against its enemies, foreign and domestic, and to oversee the already existing organs of executive government. The members of the committee, at first numbering 9 and later increased to 12, were elected by the National Convention (representative assembly) for a period of one month and were eligible for reelection.









						Committee of Public Safety | Facts, History, & Members
					

Committee of Public Safety, French Comité De Salut Public,  political body of the French Revolution that gained virtual dictatorial control over France during the Reign of Terror (September 1793 to July 1794). The Committee of Public Safety was set up on April 6, 1793, during one of the crises...



					www.britannica.com


----------



## KevinB

daftandbarmy said:


> If we're not careful, we might replicate this infamous committee:
> 
> 
> *Committee of Public Safety*, French *Comité De Salut Public*, political body of the French Revolution that gained virtual dictatorial control over France during the Reign of Terror (September 1793 to July 1794).
> 
> 
> The Committee of Public Safety was set up on April 6, 1793, during one of the crises of the Revolution, when France was beset by foreign and civil war. The new committee was to provide for the defense of the nation against its enemies, foreign and domestic, and to oversee the already existing organs of executive government. The members of the committee, at first numbering 9 and later increased to 12, were elected by the National Convention (representative assembly) for a period of one month and were eligible for reelection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Committee of Public Safety | Facts, History, & Members
> 
> 
> Committee of Public Safety, French Comité De Salut Public,  political body of the French Revolution that gained virtual dictatorial control over France during the Reign of Terror (September 1793 to July 1794). The Committee of Public Safety was set up on April 6, 1793, during one of the crises...
> 
> 
> 
> www.britannica.com


Everyone needs a good Reign of Terror now and then.

 I was originally going to suggest a Star Chamber made up of CF members at a random draw - but I thought that might be a little too totalitarian.


----------



## Brad Sallows

It's the armed forces.  Trial by combat.


----------



## GR66

Brad Sallows said:


> It's the armed forces.  Trial by combat.


Pistol duels.....oh yeah...waiting on pistols....

Aerial Dogfights???   Oh, waiting on new fighters....

105mm Howitzer Duel?  Can't find two working guns....

ATGM battle?.....uhhhhh....

Boot toss???.....errrrr....


----------



## Jarnhamar

trigger324 said:


> What I’m saying is that there’s a noticeably absent group amongst all the so called offenders by comparison



Numbers play a part. Number of ptes and cpls in a company vs number of WOs. 

I also look at the court martial list now and then and have seen said ranks in there along with everyone else. Looks like they're just not currently up for anything.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

GR66 said:


> Pistol duels.....oh yeah...waiting on pistols....
> 
> Aerial Dogfights???   Oh, waiting on new fighters....
> 
> 105mm Howitzer Duel?  Can't find two working guns....
> 
> ATGM battle?.....uhhhhh....
> 
> Boot toss???.....errrrr....


Our leaders??   I'm thinking Powerpoint Death Matches


----------



## FormerHorseGuard

I wonder if anyone dug deep into private business world how many CEOs or higher ranking executives would be gone. Not approving of what has happened or what is happening. But sure hope the up and coming leadership have woken up and realize one bad mistake can lead to a public disaster.


----------



## trigger324

Jarnhamar said:


> Numbers play a part. Number of ptes and cpls in a company vs number of WOs.
> 
> I also look at the court martial list now and then and have seen said ranks in there along with everyone else. Looks like they're just not currently up for anything.


All points taken and already considered.


----------



## FJAG

FormerHorseGuard said:


> I wonder if anyone dug deep into private business world how many CEOs or higher ranking executives would be gone. Not approving of what has happened or what is happening. But sure hope the up and coming leadership have woken up and realize one bad mistake can lead to a public disaster.


And then there are those  paragons of higher education and morality - the universities and churches.

🍻


----------



## MilEME09

GR66 said:


> Pistol duels.....oh yeah...waiting on pistols....
> 
> Aerial Dogfights???   Oh, waiting on new fighters....
> 
> 105mm Howitzer Duel?  Can't find two working guns....
> 
> ATGM battle?.....uhhhhh....
> 
> Boot toss???.....errrrr....


Golden eye style, Slappers


----------



## HiTechComms

FormerHorseGuard said:


> I wonder if anyone dug deep into private business world how many CEOs or higher ranking executives would be gone. Not approving of what has happened or what is happening. But sure hope the up and coming leadership have woken up and realize one bad mistake can lead to a public disaster.


As some one that worked with a lot of executives, high, mid  and even low ranking private sector individuals with any sort of management duties. I think you would be very disappointed. The private sector deals with this in a very efficient format and manner. Payouts are huge, HR departments are supper attentive to complaints, zero tolerance policy, most will resign or get fired. Most VIP types also know better, because their life, liberty, reputation and pay depends on it.

There is a very good reason why most private sector has Open Space type office spaces, most meetings have more then 2 people in the room. Open door policies, cameras are everywhere, lots also record meetings (I do), monitoring and auditing of communications, Most meeting rooms have glass walls (literally glass). I would never have a subordinate in my office of the opposite sex with out another person in the room, never ever with a closed door. As a personal anecdote, knew a fund manager at a large investment firm that would refuse to get on an elevator with a woman.

Most male execs I know follow Mike Pence rules, most don't mentor nor meet outside of the office with the opposite sex. If there are meetings they are always in a Public setting. To be honest with you the female managers and execs do the same.

Office Romances are a big no no these days. Lots of contracts have explicitly forbade/discouraged such behavior as well. I had contracts that stated do not engage in fraternization (foreign contracts)

I bet there are incidents but they are dealt with quickly and efficiently and its been like this for quite some time. Have heard stories of guys telling and advising other that this has been going on for like 30+ years. There is also a very high level of Paranoia in the private sector. Not saying this is good or bad but it is what it is. HR departments exist to protect the company not the workers.


----------



## Good2Golf

Well that’s one data point. 

Another is that CEO-elect of one very large US defense company is caught having an inappropriate relationship with a female subordinate on the corporate jet, fired and becomes….CEO of another very large US defense company.  Maybe your previous experience wasn’t at the commercial equivalent of the GOFO/CDS level?


----------



## Halifax Tar

HiTechComms said:


> As some one that worked with a lot of executives, high, mid  and even low ranking private sector individuals with any sort of management duties. I think you would be very disappointed. The private sector deals with this in a very efficient format and manner. Payouts are huge, HR departments are supper attentive to complaints, zero tolerance policy, most will resign or get fired. Most VIP types also know better, because their life, liberty, reputation and pay depends on it.
> 
> There is a very good reason why most private sector has Open Space type office spaces, most meetings have more then 2 people in the room. Open door policies, cameras are everywhere, lots also record meetings (I do), monitoring and auditing of communications, Most meeting rooms have glass walls (literally glass). I would never have a subordinate in my office of the opposite sex with out another person in the room, never ever with a closed door. As a personal anecdote, knew a fund manager at a large investment firm that would refuse to get on an elevator with a woman.
> 
> Most male execs I know follow Mike Pence rules, most don't mentor nor meet outside of the office with the opposite sex. If there are meetings they are always in a Public setting. To be honest with you the female managers and execs do the same.
> 
> Office Romances are a big no no these days. Lots of contracts have explicitly forbade/discouraged such behavior as well. I had contracts that stated do not engage in fraternization (foreign contracts)
> 
> I bet there are incidents but they are dealt with quickly and efficiently and its been like this for quite some time. Have heard stories of guys telling and advising other that this has been going on for like 30+ years. There is also a very high level of Paranoia in the private sector. Not saying this is good or bad but it is what it is. HR departments exist to protect the company not the workers.



I think I have said before my father was a Warden in the Fed Correction service.  He's had to deal with guards sleeping with inmates, that I am lead to believe, is dealt with swiftly.  But internal sexual misconduct I know they have struggles with as well.


----------



## daftandbarmy

HiTechComms said:


> As some one that worked with a lot of executives, high, mid  and even low ranking private sector individuals with any sort of management duties. I think you would be very disappointed. The private sector deals with this in a very efficient format and manner. Payouts are huge, HR departments are supper attentive to complaints, zero tolerance policy, most will resign or get fired. Most VIP types also know better, because their life, liberty, reputation and pay depends on it.
> 
> There is a very good reason why most private sector has Open Space type office spaces, most meetings have more then 2 people in the room. Open door policies, cameras are everywhere, lots also record meetings (I do), monitoring and auditing of communications, Most meeting rooms have glass walls (literally glass). I would never have a subordinate in my office of the opposite sex with out another person in the room, never ever with a closed door. As a personal anecdote, knew a fund manager at a large investment firm that would refuse to get on an elevator with a woman.
> 
> Most male execs I know follow Mike Pence rules, most don't mentor nor meet outside of the office with the opposite sex. If there are meetings they are always in a Public setting. To be honest with you the female managers and execs do the same.
> 
> Office Romances are a big no no these days. Lots of contracts have explicitly forbade/discouraged such behavior as well. I had contracts that stated do not engage in fraternization (foreign contracts)
> 
> I bet there are incidents but they are dealt with quickly and efficiently and its been like this for quite some time. Have heard stories of guys telling and advising other that this has been going on for like 30+ years. There is also a very high level of Paranoia in the private sector. Not saying this is good or bad but it is what it is. HR departments exist to protect the company not the workers.



Well said!

I can confirm this is pretty much the case with the (hundreds) of civilian sector organizations I've worked with over the past couple of decades.

The CAF is eons behind, in more ways than one.


----------



## Jarnhamar

HiTechComms said:


> Payouts are huge,


VAC facilitates some very big payouts and cash for life for CAF members (not as big as civilian settlements of course) 

 I know a retired cpl who's at +$1M and gets a check every month for more than I bring home working.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Jarnhamar said:


> Lots of privates and corporals in that list with sexual assault charges against them. Contravenes the "it's the dinosaurs" mantra.


 The "new" generation....my general observation is they are less self-disciplined, decide which regs and rules they will follow and don't have the obediance (military context) that was more normal IMO at least, 2 - 3 decades ago.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

daftandbarmy said:


> But what pronouns should we use



In my case, I am quite comfortable if the jr ranks use "Warrant" "Warrant Officer" "Warrant EITS"....

Not as accepted;  "hey"  "sup?" or "brah".


----------



## Eye In The Sky

kev994 said:


> It wouldn’t. That’s why the whole point of the NDA.



There'd be no traction with 103.61 or  103.615 at all? 

103.61 – OFFENCES AGAINST OTHER CANADIAN LAW​103.615 – OFFENCES UNDER LAW APPLICABLE OUTSIDE CANADA​


----------



## Eye In The Sky

cyber_lass said:


> You would think, but power often breeds a sense of entitlement. I am with you. And as woman about to be in the forces, my family is almost begging me not to at this point.



I just want to point out....there are a handful of stories of General/Flag Officers who are in some rather serious trouble.  There are many more (tens of thousands)  General and Flag Officers, Senior Officer, Junior Officers, and all manner of Non-commissioned Member ranking from CWO/CP01 to S3/Pte/Avr who are not quity of or being accused of the same offences.

The barrel has some bad apples, for certain, and some of those are the ones on the top....but the whole barrel is not rotten.

Good luck at BMQ;  remember, YOU are the future of the CAF and YOU can be a part of the change you'd like to see happening '_yesterday, today and tomorrow_'.


----------



## KevinB

FormerHorseGuard said:


> I wonder if anyone dug deep into private business world how many CEOs or higher ranking executives would be gone. Not approving of what has happened or what is happening. But sure hope the up and coming leadership have woken up and realize one bad mistake can lead to a public disaster.


I want to point out that you cannot draw a parallel to the civilian world with this.
   Honor, Honesty, and Integrity are not requirements in the civilian world - and they don't have a Queen's Commission to go forth and command.

Tons of crap happens elsewhere - that is life -- this issue isn't "well its okay over there" - the issue is certain members and commissioned officers in the CF chose to ignore rules they had sworn to uphold -- some of these personnel where Generals and Admirals - which points to the fact that some have been doing this most likely for quite some time, and at the most senior level it can't currently be addressed via the NDA.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Keep the Army in the Public Eye they said.... but they didn't say how:

*Head of Canadian military intelligence school relieved of command after misconduct investigation
Lt.-Col. Raphael Guay now serving as a staff officer in Ottawa*

The former commandant of the Canadian Forces School of Military Intelligence is continuing to serve in the military after being relieved of his command following an investigation into allegations of inappropriate conduct.

In April, the Canadian Forces temporarily removed Lt.-Col. Raphael Guay from his duties overseeing the school in Kingston, Ont.

CBC News has now confirmed that the military decided months ago that Guay would not return to his command post because of the findings coming from the unit's disciplinary investigation.

"Additionally, other administrative and corrective measures have been taken, including the cancellation of the former commandant's promotion and planned posting," wrote Department of National Defence (DND) spokesperson Daniel Le Bouthillier in a statement to CBC News.



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/head-military-intelligence-school-demoted-claims-inappropriate-conduct-1.6215222


----------



## HiTechComms

Eye In The Sky said:


> In my case, I am quite comfortable if the jr ranks use "Warrant" "Warrant Officer" "Warrant EITS"....
> 
> Not as accepted;  "hey"  "sup?" or "brah".


We use "Client", "User", "Operator", "Individual", actual name in Signature, or on user file when corresponding or speaking with said person. Got so use to using "We" that "I" doesn't make it into most conversations. 

If you point a finger at some one make sure there are not three pointed back at you.. So its the Knife hand strategy.  My weapon of choice, Microsoft Outlook!


----------



## OldSolduer

Halifax Tar said:


> I think I have said before my father was a Warden in the Fed Correction service.  He's had to deal with guards sleeping with inmates, that I am lead to believe, is dealt with swiftly.  But internal sexual misconduct I know they have struggles with as well.


I'm in Corrections and yes we have had those issues as well.


----------



## Ostrozac

Eye In The Sky said:


> The "new" generation....my general observation is they are less self-disciplined, decide which regs and rules they will follow and don't have the obediance (military context) that was more normal IMO at least, 2 - 3 decades ago.


I’m not so sure about that, as a general statement. I joined 3 decades ago, and there were certainly plenty of people from my generation that liked to play fast and loose with rules and regulations — after all it’s hard to blame Somalia on the millennials, they were in primary school at the time.

I will grant you that they seem a little more individualistic, my generation seemed to rebel in packs, but that might be unavoidable culture creep — talk of the “Me Generation” dates back to the 1970’s.

Besides, thanks to an ever closer global culture, not only do our close allies have similar culture creep, so do our enemies, so it’s a bit of a level playing field, in some respects.


----------



## Kilted

brihard said:


> Half the upcoming courts martial are for sexual assault. We aren’t just talking an historical issue here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Upcoming courts martial - Canada.ca
> 
> 
> List of upcoming courts martial by date and/or by province.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.canada.ca


It's getting all too common to see another name of someone I know every time I check that page.


----------



## kev994

Eye In The Sky said:


> There'd be no traction with 103.61 or  103.615 at all?
> 
> 103.61 – OFFENCES AGAINST OTHER CANADIAN LAW​103.615 – OFFENCES UNDER LAW APPLICABLE OUTSIDE CANADA​


You’re still using the NDA. My understanding is that since there isn’t anyone in the military who outranks the CDS there isn’t anyone who can charge him under the NDA. That’s the whole controversy with his predecessor being ‘above the law.’


----------



## Eye In The Sky

doh!


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Ostrozac said:


> I’m not so sure about that, as a general statement. I joined 3 decades ago,



I am "Cornwallis in '89" vintage...I can only go off my observations, at my rank, from the past....5 years.  I understand that encompasses a fairly small cross-section of the CAF.


----------



## dapaterson

The challenge with the CDS is not "who can charge" but "who can preside".  Any charge giving rise to a GCM would be impossible, as it would be impossible to form a panel.

For a military judge only trial where there's no right to elect a panel, on paper, the NDA would permit it.


----------



## OldSolduer

KevinB said:


> I want to point out that you cannot draw a parallel to the civilian world with this.
> Honor, Honesty, and Integrity are not requirements in the civilian world - and they don't have a Queen's Commission to go forth and command.
> 
> Tons of crap happens elsewhere - that is life -- this issue isn't "well its okay over there" - the issue is certain members and commissioned officers in the CF chose to ignore rules they had sworn to uphold -- some of these personnel where Generals and Admirals - which points to the fact that some have been doing this most likely for quite some time, and at the most senior level it can't currently be addressed via the NDA.


I fully agree with your statements here. Those of you still in are not civilians and you still have an oath to honor. I do care what happens in other organizations ( ie the various churches that have covered their ne'er do wells rapists butts, the hockey organizations that continue to hire pedophiles and the like) but the most concerning to me is that people have dishonored our profession by their behavior.


----------



## ballz

FormerHorseGuard said:


> I wonder if anyone dug deep into private business world how many CEOs or higher ranking executives would be gone. Not approving of what has happened or what is happening. But sure hope the up and coming leadership have woken up and realize one bad mistake can lead to a public disaster.





Good2Golf said:


> Well that’s one data point.
> 
> Another is that CEO-elect of one very large US defense company is caught having an inappropriate relationship with a female subordinate on the corporate jet, fired and becomes….CEO of another very large US defense company.  Maybe your previous experience wasn’t at the commercial equivalent of the GOFO/CDS level?



Who cares? For a private business, that is the owner's / shareholder's business.... if they don't care, that's up to them.

We're the CAF, our shareholders are Canadians, and they are demanding better.


----------



## MilEME09

ballz said:


> Who cares? For a private business, that is the owner's / shareholder's business.... if they don't care, that's up to them.
> 
> We're the CAF, our shareholders are Canadians, and they are demanding better.


They may be demanding better but our board of governors (caninet) ain't on the highest moral ground either. Frankly it will be upto us to push change, IF the A/CDS went to the minister with a giant list of ways to change the NDA to prevent these situations in the future, it would probably get done with credit to the politicians if it worked.


----------



## daftandbarmy

ballz said:


> Who cares? For a private business, that is the owner's / shareholder's business.... if they don't care, that's up to them.
> 
> We're the CAF, our shareholders are Canadians, and they are demanding better.



Well....

.... you might argue that most Canadians are *not *in the military so are expecting the CAF to come up to - at least - the standard of *their *(civilian) workplaces.


----------



## mariomike

daftandbarmy said:


> .... you might argue that most Canadians are *not *in the military so are expecting the CAF to come up to - at least - the standard of *their *(civilian) workplaces.


That would be a YMMV thing.

Outside of the CAF, I was only familiar with one standard regarding "off-duty behavior."



> Certain jobs require a high level of skill and a high level of trust from both employers and the public. For employees working in those types of positions, it’s possible that off-duty behaviour can call into question that trust, if it demonstrates poor judgment. And if an employer no longer has confidence that an employee has the judgment to perform a job of high skill and responsibility, the result could be dismissal.


----------



## SupersonicMax

MilEME09 said:


> They may be demanding better but our board of governors (caninet) ain't on the highest moral ground either. Frankly it will be upto us to push change, IF the A/CDS went to the minister with a giant list of ways to change the NDA to prevent these situations in the future, it would probably get done with credit to the politicians if it worked.


This is irrelevant.  We are asked to do better by our bosses (PM/MND) and the public.  Regardless whether they are good leaders or not, it is a legitimate order.  We shall do better. It’s not like the CAF has a leg to stand on both legally and optically…


----------



## OldSolduer

SupersonicMax said:


> This is irrelevant.  We are asked to do better by our bosses (PM/MND) and the public.  Regardless whether they are good leaders or not, it is a legitimate order.  We shall do better. It’s not like the CAF has a leg to stand on both legally and optically…


Your bosses - the PM and Cabinet have no moral high ground, but as you say, the CAF has been told to clean up its act.

In my crayon eater's mind it doesn't matter what the Cabinet does - it's what the CAF does to lead the way out of the dilemma it got itself into. 

The herd may need to be culled.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

MilEME09 said:


> They may be demanding better but our board of governors (caninet) ain't on the highest moral ground either. Frankly it will be upto us to push change, IF the A/CDS went to the minister with a giant list of ways to change the NDA to prevent these situations in the future, it would probably get done with credit to the politicians if it worked.



I'm curious;  aside from "make it so the CDS can be charged under the NDA", what changes?

We have disciplinary and administrative tools NOW to deal with conduct/performance issues, including imprisonment and release (the 2 most severe, IMO).  What changes will "prevent these situations in the future" in your mind?  Myself, I think "streamline the AR process for targeted conduct/performance deficiencies"... but I also understand that as the jeopardy to a mbr's career increases, so does their right to procedural fairness (that will not change, nor should it change). 

I've said this before to posts similar to this of yours;  the CAF doesn't need _more policy_.  It needs to properly employ the policy and enforcement tools (discip and/or admin) it has in its' toolbelt.  OP HONOUR was policy....how'd that fair out for us?

If possible consequences now include imprisonment and/or release, I'm not seeing how changing something like the NDA is going to act as that deterrent to "_prevent these situations in the future_".  Loss of freedom and/or employment seems about as severe of a deterrent our society is willing to tolerate.


----------



## Good2Golf

I still think an independent investigative function that reports directly to Parliament figures somewhere in the solution.


----------



## Haggis

Good2Golf said:


> I still think an independent investigative function that reports directly to Parliament figures somewhere in the solution.


Yes, because reports to Parliament are always acted on in a timely and effective manner.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Eye In The Sky said:


> I'm curious;  aside from "make it so the CDS can be charged under the NDA", what changes?
> 
> We have disciplinary and administrative tools NOW to deal with conduct/performance issues, including imprisonment and release (the 2 most severe, IMO).  What changes will "prevent these situations in the future" in your mind?  Myself, I think "streamline the AR process for targeted conduct/performance deficiencies"... but I also understand that as the jeopardy to a mbr's career increases, so does their right to procedural fairness (that will not change, nor should it change).
> 
> I've said this before to posts similar to this of yours;  the CAF doesn't need _more policy_.  It needs to properly employ the policy and enforcement tools (discip and/or admin) it has in its' toolbelt.  OP HONOUR was policy....how'd that fair out for us?
> 
> If possible consequences now include imprisonment and/or release, I'm not seeing how changing something like the NDA is going to act as that deterrent to "_prevent these situations in the future_".  Loss of freedom and/or employment seems about as severe of a deterrent our society is willing to tolerate.



Agreed.  Like many things, we don't need more laws we need to enforce what we have better.


----------



## MilEME09

Halifax Tar said:


> Agreed.  Like many things, we don't need more laws we need to enforce what we have better.


Okay and how do you propose we solve the fact a CDS can't be prosecuted because no one can preside over such a trial as of now. Just kick them out? Seems like a small price to pay for sexual assault. We do not need more rules, we just need to modify the ones we have. As for enforcement, again who can enforce the rules against a CDS? We have clearly seems it can't be done.


----------



## daftandbarmy

MilEME09 said:


> Okay and how do you propose we solve the fact a CDS can't be prosecuted because no one can preside over such a trial as of now. Just kick them out? Seems like a small price to pay for sexual assault. We do not need more rules, we just need to modify the ones we have. As for enforcement, again who can enforce the rules against a CDS? We have clearly seems it can't be done.



Maybe we just need to get better at culling the herd ealier ron so, you know, the psychos don't wind up run the ship?

#peterprinciplefail


----------



## captloadie

Perhaps we also need to relook at the administrative tools and the timelines involved to determine whether there is a need for change there as well. How many organizations, even with strong Unions to represent their members, keep members who steal from the company, can't show up for work on time, assault co-workers, etc? We often use disciplinary measures to punish these individuals, and then say you've paid your penance, life goes back to normal. Yes, there are sometime administrative measures that accompany these disciplinary proceedings, but not normally for individuals who are "good guys" who've breached the code of conduct, or where it isn't mandated by policy.

Maybe the fear of losing one's career, especially among the officer core, would keep individuals on the straight and narrow, more so than the fear of receiving a fine after being judged by a group of your peers, or your CO. And I'm not talking about individuals being booted for making mistakes, because breaching the code of conduct, or not living up to our Values and Ethics, aren't mistakes, their choices.


----------



## QV

MilEME09 said:


> Okay and how do you propose we solve the fact a CDS can't be prosecuted because no one can preside over such a trial as of now. Just kick them out? Seems like a small price to pay for sexual assault. We do not need more rules, we just need to modify the ones we have. As for enforcement, again who can enforce the rules against a CDS? We have clearly seems it can't be done.



If the CDS committed a crime he should be charged criminally and brought to trial before a civilian court. If he broke a rule (like a CAF disciplinary matter) then the MND, GG or whomever should fire him (lesser creatures would be disciplined by the mil justice system). 

The only major change that need to occur is for the CAF to stop treating discipline matters like crimes and crimes like discipline matters.


----------



## Good2Golf

Haggis said:


> Yes, because reports to Parliament are always acted on in a timely and effective manner.


While I am equally cynical as you, Haggis, or perhaps even more, we do need to at least have some element of plural, non-partisan oversight.  We've seen with "Government" trying to obfuscate and hide the details of firing the two Chinese nationals/Canadian Permanent Residents from the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg a year and a bit ago, including to the degree of the Government attempting to sue Parliament to keep the facts hidden from the public, that the oversight must be at least as transparent as possible...


----------



## KevinB

MilEME09 said:


> Okay and how do you propose we solve the fact a CDS can't be prosecuted because no one can preside over such a trial as of now. Just kick them out? Seems like a small price to pay for sexual assault. We do not need more rules, we just need to modify the ones we have. As for enforcement, again who can enforce the rules against a CDS? We have clearly seems it can't be done.



I think the currently on Leave Admiral can get nabbed by the Criminal Code --  just need some Mounties and a Crown 





						Criminal Code
					

Federal laws of Canada




					laws-lois.justice.gc.ca
				





Offences outside of Canada

*477.1* Every person who commits an act or omission that, if it occurred in Canada, would be an offence under a federal law, within the meaning of section 2 of the Oceans Act, is deemed to have committed that act or omission in Canada if it is an act or omission


(a) in the exclusive economic zone of Canada that
(i) is committed by a person who is in the exclusive economic zone of Canada in connection with exploring or exploiting, conserving or managing the natural resources, whether living or non-living, of the exclusive economic zone of Canada, and
(ii) is committed by or in relation to a person who is a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act;

(b) that is committed in a place in or above the continental shelf of Canada and that is an offence in that place by virtue of section 20 of the Oceans Act;
(c) that is committed outside Canada on board or by means of a ship registered or licensed, or for which an identification number has been issued, pursuant to any Act of Parliament;
(d) that is committed outside Canada in the course of hot pursuit; or
(e) that is committed outside the territory of any state by a Canadian citizen.






						Oceans Act
					

Federal laws of canada




					laws-lois.justice.gc.ca


----------



## Haggis

Good2Golf said:


> While I am equally cynical as you, Haggis, or perhaps even more, we do need to at least have some element of plural, non-partisan oversight.  We've seen with "Government" trying to obfuscate and hide the details of firing the two Chinese nationals/Canadian Permanent Residents from the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg a year and a bit ago, including to the degree of the Government attempting to sue Parliament to keep the facts hidden from the public, that the oversight must be at least as transparent as possible...


This "open and transparent" government also invoked S 39 of the Canada Evidence Act to prevent a Federal Court Judge from seeing the evidence it used to justify a billion dollar plus gun confiscation.

This PM also gave implied direction to the PPSC and the RCMP in the Norman fiasco.

And, this government had six years to act on the Deschamps report.

As long as this government holds a de-facto majority in Parliament (which they do right now with the continued backing of the NDP and Bloc), any report they don't like will get shelved with a promise to "do better".


----------



## McG

Good2Golf said:


> I still think an independent investigative function that reports directly to Parliament figures somewhere in the solution.


If only a retired supreme court judge had recommended that we needed an external review process. We might have already been half-way (or more) to what you are suggesting.


----------



## Good2Golf

McG said:


> If only a retired supreme court judge had recommended that we needed an external review process. We might have already been half-way (or more) to what you are suggesting.


Yeah, that would have been really, really, really helpful.  Alas, what’s a Government to do…sing, and dance perhaps?  That should work…


----------



## Fishbone Jones

So I was having a conversation with a few old buddies and this subject reared its head, regarding Vance. The gist got around to his decorations. Particularly, his Commander of the Order of Military Merit, Meritorious Service Cross and his CD. The question was, given his position as the top soldier, if found guilty, should these decorations be forfeit and removed from him? I'm unaware of the process and requirements, but I would say yes to at least the first two.


----------



## KevinB

Fishbone Jones said:


> So I was having a conversation with a few old buddies and this subject reared its head, regarding Vance. The gist got around to his decorations. Particularly, his Commander of the Order of Military Merit, Meritorious Service Cross and his CD. The question was, given his position as the top soldier, if found guilty, should these decorations be forfeit and removed from him?


In a just world yes.
  So he's probably on the next Order of Canada list...


----------



## FJAG

"Culture eats strategy for breakfast" is an old adage. "Culture eats policy for breakfast" ought to be one too.

We're a society that generally believes in giving wrongdoers a chance to better themselves notwithstanding the high levels of recidivism that exists. In my days we always held up as paragons those of our best Snr NCOs who had spent time in detention barracks as young gunners. We still like to give folks the benefit of the doubt or a second chance.

The problem isn't that we don't take disciplinary or administrative action when warranted. We do. But in many cases we're not sure if its warranted when faced with a situation where one doesn't know what to believe and the consequences can be career or life shattering for someone.

Believe it or not, the culture in the Canadian military has changed for the better tremendously over the last half century. When I started out we were white as the driven snow and vastly heterosexual males with a very few females in administrative roles here and there and a few folks in deep closets. I recently compared photos of my Toronto reserve regiment from 60 years ago and one from recently and the steps that we've taken to become more inclusive are clearly there for all to see.

Cultural change never comes fast enough for some, especially for politicians out to win brownie points amongst certain constituents. While we still have a way to go, we're trying and shouldn't be beating ourselves senseless over our failings. Sexual misconduct is not a unique problem confined to the military; it permeates all corners of human society where a hierarchical structure can lead to abuse. We'll never be able to eradicate it as long as it continues to exist in general. All we can do is push policy through education/indoctrination at all levels until our culture reaches a point where a critical mass is prepared to take appropriate action whenever and wherever warranted.

Every attempt to influence a change in culture requires a sound business transformation plan which itself requires solid buy-in and a direct commitment and involvement by the leadership. Canada's military has a poor record at business transformation activities principally because leaders delegate implementation to lower levels that do not have the weight to carry them off ruthlessly and frequently are not allocated enough time or resources for success. This is a systemic failure inherent within a generally risk-averse bureaucracy such as the Canadian military. Once a delegate is appointed senior leaders tend to move on to a new item on the agenda considering the problem as solved. Culture change is not that simple.

Frankly, with the turmoil amongst the senior leadership at this time and the external pressure being exerted on them by a hypocritical political leadership I can't see a bright future for this problem. Obviously the MND should have been fired years ago. At this point I'm waiting to see how the new cabinet will look. Quite frankly I do not see the PM providing the depth of talent needed; I'm not even sure that such depth exists in his caucus.

🍻


----------



## Fishbone Jones

People have had their Order of Canada revoked for professional misconduct, etc. I see little difference here.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

My reserve regiment was targeting Chinese (Cantonese speakers) to join even back in the 70's and quite few were in as NCO's and even officers when I was a plug.


----------



## Blackadder1916

So, in other words . . .  couldn't find enough evidence to prove what is reasonably suspected to be true.









						McDonald sexual misconduct allegation was not deemed ‘unfounded,’ military confirms - National | Globalnews.ca
					

In response to questions from Global News, the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal offered what appears to be the most direct rebuttal yet of McDonald's claims that he is exonerated.




					globalnews.ca
				





> McDonald sexual misconduct allegation was not deemed ‘unfounded,’ military confirms​
> The allegation of sexual misconduct made against Adm. Art McDonald has not been deemed unfounded, according to military officials.
> 
> In response to questions from Global News, the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal offered what appears to be the most direct rebuttal yet of McDonald’s repeated public claims that he has been exonerated by virtue of no charge being laid against him.
> 
> “As stated in August 2021, the CFNIS investigation into an allegation of sexual misconduct against Admiral McDonald resulted in no charges being laid based on insufficient evidence,” reads the statement.
> 
> “This does not mean that the allegation was unfounded, which is defined by Statistics Canada as ‘After a police investigation it is concluded that no violation of the law took place nor was attempted’.”
> 
> . . .


----------



## Happy Guy

Ref : External Review into Sexual Misconduct and Sexual Harassment in the Canadian Armed Forces

Madame Justice Deschamps, a former Supreme Court Judge, wrote a rather comprehensive report regarding sexual misconduct and sexual harassment in the CAF in 2015.  General Vance, launched Op HONOUR, in response to this well written, but in my opinion poorly received (by many members of the CAF) report.  Many male members in the CAF did not believe that sexual misconduct and sexual harassment was rampant in the CAF.

One of the key recommendations of the report :

_The External Review Authority ( ERA ) heard repeatedly from participants that the only way to increase the frequency of reporting is to create a reporting mechanism outside of the chain of command. Indeed, a number of other military organizations—for example in the United States, Australia and France—have created independent offices to receive reports of sexual misconduct, as well as to provide victim support, conduct training, and track data. Most of these offices allow victims to decide whether or not they wish their complaint to trigger a formal complaint and investigation process. Regardless of which path they choose, however, victims are offered treatment and support._


While the CAF did create the Sexual Misconduct Response Centre to allow victims to report sexual misconduct and/or sexual harassment incidents, this centre was not outside the chain of command.  This, in my opinion, created a conflict of interest where the centre reported to a Senior Officer who in turn reported to the CDS.   Our bosses, thought that the CAF would be professional enough to fairly handle sexual misconduct and sexual harassment cases, but this proved to be a mistake and the CAF community is now paying a steep price for this.

I reiterate, Sexual Misconduct Response Centre must be an independent organization outside the CAF Chain of Command. It must be given the trained manpower and resources to do its job.  I sincerely hope that the MND will now firmly deal the problem.

I first became aware of sexual misconduct and sexual harassment when I was in Petawawa in the 1990s when the Canadian Airborne Regiment (CAR) was still in existence.  Members of my female clerks, who were single and living in quarters, refused to walk near the CAR lines at night for fear of being attacked.  Years later, one of my female Captains, who was a Sgt in Petawawa at the time, told me that she make it a rule that females were to be in groups of two/three when walking at night while on base at night.  At that time it never occurred to me that females on base were in physical danger from its own people.  This is a very real problem.  I am sure that our leaders knew about this problems years ago but they dismissed it.

For serving members, please don't lose heart, keep the institution strong and please help protect the victims.


----------



## KevinB

Happy Guy said:


> I first became aware of sexual misconduct and sexual harassment when I was in Petawawa in the 1990s when the Canadian Airborne Regiment (CAR) was still in existence.  Members of my female clerks, who were single and living in quarters, refused to walk near the CAR lines at night for fear of being attacked.  Years later, one of my female Captains, who was a Sgt in Petawawa at the time, told me that she make it a rule that females were to be in groups of two/three when walking at night while on base at night.  At that time it never occurred to me that females on base were in physical danger from its own people.  This is a very real problem.  I am sure that our leaders knew about this problems years ago but they dismissed it.  One sexual misconduct and/or sexual harassment case is too many in the CAF.



One was in no greater danger from the CAR lines as the 2RCHA/2CER barracks for that, or in my experience any other CF Cbt Arms barracks across the country at that point in time. 
  *although the likelihood to be hit by a falling canoe with a drunk in it trying to 'surf' out a window was a more likely event than anywhere else
**admittedly I stayed away from the 1CDO barracks as by a whole, as did most of the English speakers - they took things to a different level a lot...

    Nice looking females where much more likely to be invited in for beer etc - and after certain hours - any females would be invited in...

 Now - I will agree there was harassment (and again that goes for all barracks across the country at that time) - I don't think anyone at the time believed it was harassment - so in that manner, we have all grown by leaps and bounds.   I also would think its a good policy to go in groups of 2+ anywhere in the dark, however CF bases IMHE were much better than most civilian areas.


----------



## OldSolduer

I do recall the Deschamps report. I read it. I told my CO and the leaders “it does not flatter us”


----------



## Happy Guy

KevinB said:


> One was in no greater danger from the CAR lines as the 2RCHA/2CER barracks for that, or in my experience any other CF Cbt Arms barracks across the country at that point in time.
> *although the likelihood to be hit by a falling canoe with a drunk in it trying to 'surf' out a window was a more likely event than anywhere else
> **admittedly I stayed away from the 1CDO barracks as by a whole, as did most of the English speakers - they took things to a different level a lot...
> 
> Nice looking females where much more likely to be invited in for beer etc - and after certain hours - any females would be invited in...
> 
> Now - I will agree there was harassment (and again that goes for all barracks across the country at that time) - I don't think anyone at the time believed it was harassment - so in that manner, we have all grown by leaps and bounds.   I also would think its a good policy to go in groups of 2+ anywhere in the dark, however CF bases IMHE were much better than most civilian areas.


The females that I talked felt endangered by walking near the CAR lines at night.  This was collaborated years later by two different women.  You, as a male, would not perceive it as dangerous but the women did feel fear, it was very real to them and that's what counts.  I don't know if women were attacked on Base, but it wouldn't surprise me if the attacks were not reported.

I had friends who were in the CAR (2,3 and Svc Cdo, you're right about 1 Cdo) at the time.  One of them had his jeep stolen and set on fire on the parade square when he, as the Duty Officer, shut down the Kyrenia Mess.  Perhaps it was these incidents that gave the CAR its unsavoury reputation and made women fear them.

Please note I had a posting message to the CAR, before Somalia, but it was changed when the person I was to replace, stayed on for another year.  I would have been proud to have been posted to the CAR - there is something about the Maroon Beret and white wings.


----------



## dapaterson

SMRC is outside the military CoC, reporting to the DM, not the CDS.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

KevinB said:


> One was in no greater danger from the CAR lines as the 2RCHA/2CER barracks for that, or in my experience any other CF Cbt Arms barracks across the country at that point in time.
> *although the likelihood to be hit by a falling canoe with a drunk in it trying to 'surf' out a window was a more likely event than anywhere else
> **admittedly I stayed away from the 1CDO barracks as by a whole, as did most of the English speakers - they took things to a different level a lot...
> 
> Nice looking females where much more likely to be invited in for beer etc - and after certain hours - any females would be invited in...
> 
> Now - I will agree there was harassment (and again that goes for all barracks across the country at that time) - I don't think anyone at the time believed it was harassment - so in that manner, we have all grown by leaps and bounds.   I also would think its a good policy to go in groups of 2+ anywhere in the dark, however CF bases IMHE were much better than most civilian areas.



Well in the late 70's/ early 80's women came far and wide to come drink in the Grenade Club,.....couldn't have been that scary at that time.


----------



## CountDC

in the not too distant past by my reckoning Halifax JRs had a woman's night every week that did very well.  The local female population seemed to enjoy it.


----------



## Happy Guy

dapaterson said:


> SMRC is outside the military CoC, reporting to the DM, not the CDS.


I stand corrected.  

Cheers


----------



## KevinB

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Well in the late 70's/ early 80's women came far and wide to come drink in the Grenade Club,.....couldn't have been that scary at that time.


Let's be honest some of the women that came to drink there where downright scary...




Happy Guy said:


> The females that I talked felt endangered by walking near the CAR lines at night.  This was collaborated years later by two different women.  You, as a male, would not perceive it as dangerous but the women did feel fear, it was very real to them and that's what counts.


Good point - I often forget the lens one looks at things through is colored by experience - and in this case I can't put myself in their shoes do to the sex difference.


Happy Guy said:


> I don't know if women were attacked on Base, but it wouldn't surprise me if the attacks were not reported.


 For the most part I would say someone violently attacking a woman around there was more likely to beaten within an inch of their life.   
    I may have been aware of some actions taken towards people who hit GF's or Wife's - and it didn't fair well for the attacker.
 I knew a WO who was a big fan of solving things at the lowest level...



Happy Guy said:


> I had friends who were in the CAR (2,3 and Svc Cdo, you're right about 1 Cdo) at the time.  One of them had his jeep stolen and set on fire on the parade square when he, as the Duty Officer, shut down the Kyrenia Mess.  Perhaps it was these incidents that gave the CAR its unsavoury reputation and made women fear them.


  There have been a number of discipline issues in the CF, and a lot of Regimental politics that hid a great deal of things that shouldn't have been hidden.



Happy Guy said:


> Please note I had a posting message to the CAR, before Somalia, but it was changed when the person I was to replace, stayed on for another year.  I would have been proud to have been posted to the CAR - there is something about the Maroon Beret and white wings.


----------



## Happy Guy

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Well in the late 70's/ early 80's women came far and wide to come drink in the Grenade Club,.....couldn't have been that scary at that time.


When I was a really young Sapper, the Grenade Club was the place to go.   I sort of remember being thrown over the tables because of some careless remark about Gunners and their poor aiming habits - it was over 35 years ago and I used to drink quite a bit back then.  Ahh, ... to be young, single and fit again.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

I hardly drank, I went there for the women, now I drink more and women less......sigh....


----------



## McG

Blackadder1916 said:


> So, in other words . . .  couldn't find enough evidence to prove what is reasonably suspected to be true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> McDonald sexual misconduct allegation was not deemed ‘unfounded,’ military confirms - National | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> In response to questions from Global News, the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal offered what appears to be the most direct rebuttal yet of McDonald's claims that he is exonerated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> globalnews.ca


More reason for a military professional disciplinary system that is public (like summary trials & courts martial) and is decided on balance of probabilities (like remedial measures).  If we want the public to trust us as a profession and if we want to send a real message of what is acceptable behaviour to our members, then we need a system that gets the job done and does not allow someone to claim "exoneration" from something that evidence suggests they probably did.



Happy Guy said:


> While the CAF did create the Sexual Misconduct Response Centre to allow victims to report sexual misconduct and/or sexual harassment incidents, this centre was not outside the chain of command.





dapaterson said:


> SMRC is outside the military CoC, reporting to the DM, not the CDS.


It does the victim support & statistical tracking, but it is not really a reporting mechanism. It does not receive complaints and then cause anything to be done about them. So I would still regard it as falling short of the Deschamps recommendation.


----------



## Jarnhamar

At least Trudeau/LPC did the right thing and didn't give him his job back.


----------



## Ostrozac

MilEME09 said:


> They may be demanding better but our board of governors (caninet) ain't on the highest moral ground either. Frankly it will be upto us to push change, IF the A/CDS went to the minister with a giant list of ways to change the NDA to prevent these situations in the future, it would probably get done with credit to the politicians if it worked.


No, it probably wouldn’t. There hasn’t even been an amendment implemented yet for naval ranks, QR&O still lists Leading Seaman, etc… and not the illegal ‘pirate’ ranks based on the term Sailor. And that’s just an Order in Council — it doesn’t even require an act of parliament. We can’t depend on a rewrite of the NDA — it may take years, we may not like what we get, and once it’s in the NDA it’s going to be locked in, maybe for decades. We have to work in the space that we have.


----------



## Good2Golf

dapaterson said:


> SMRC is outside the military CoC, reporting to the DM, not the CDS.


It needs to be right fully independent of DND/CAF.  (Any) DM isn’t separate enough.


----------



## trigger324

Ostrozac said:


> … and not the illegal ‘pirate’ ranks based on the term Sailor.


Illegal? How so?


----------



## trigger324

Fishbone Jones said:


> So I was having a conversation with a few old buddies and this subject reared its head, regarding Vance. The gist got around to his decorations. Particularly, his Commander of the Order of Military Merit, Meritorious Service Cross and his CD. The question was, given his position as the top soldier, if found guilty, should these decorations be forfeit and removed from him? I'm unaware of the process and requirements, but I would say yes to at least the first two.


Totally agree, but I wouldn’t hold my breath, especially for that CD. I know a remarkable number of guys with “detected crime” and they still sport it


----------



## SeaKingTacco

daftandbarmy said:


> Maybe we just need to get better at culling the herd ealier ron so, you know, the psychos don't wind up run the ship?
> 
> #peterprinciplefail





trigger324 said:


> Illegal? How so?


The table in the QR&O has not been amended. Legally, the old naval ranks (OS, AB, LS, MS) are correct.


----------



## trigger324

SeaKingTacco said:


> The table in the QR&O has not been amended. Legally, the old naval ranks (OS, AB, LS, MS) are correct.


I see. Well I’m sure they’ll get to it. They’ve got a few more pressing issues to deal with at the moment


----------



## SeaKingTacco

trigger324 said:


> I see. Well I’m sure they’ll get to it. They’ve got a few more pressing issues to deal with at the moment


If you say so.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Fishbone Jones said:


> So I was having a conversation with a few old buddies and this subject reared its head, regarding Vance. The gist got around to his decorations. Particularly, his Commander of the Order of Military Merit, Meritorious Service Cross and his CD. The question was, given his position as the top soldier, if found guilty, should these decorations be forfeit and removed from him? I'm unaware of the process and requirements, but I would say yes to at least the first two.



There is a QR&O dealing with forfeit of decorations and medals






						QR&O: Volume I - Chapter 18 Honours - Canada.ca
					

Queen's Regulations and Orders - QR&O - Chapter 18 - Honours




					www.canada.ca
				





> 18.27 - FORFEITURE AND RESTORATION OF DECORATIONS AND MEDALS OTHER THAN THOSE AWARDED FOR GALLANTRY AND WAR MEDALS
> 
> (1) An officer or non-commissioned member shall forfeit any decoration or medal awarded to the member or to which the member may be entitled for long service, good conduct, efficiency to meritorious service other than gallantry, where the members is:
> 
> a.  sentenced to life imprisonment; (5 June 2008)
> b.  sentenced to dismissal with disgrace from Her Majesty's service;
> c.  sentenced to dismissal from Her Majesty's service; or
> d.  released for misconduct;
> 
> (2) An officer or non-commissioned member may be ordered by the Minister to forfeit any decoration or medal awarded to the member or to which the member may be entitled for long service, good conduct, efficiency or meritorious service other than gallantry, where the member is:
> 
> a.  convicted by a civil authority of any serious offence; or
> b.  convicted of an offence of treason, sedition, mutiny, cowardice, desertion or a disgraceful offence against morality;
> 
> (3) Any decoration or medal forfeited may be restored at the discretion of the Minister.
> 
> (M) (9 May 2008 effective 5 June 2008)



However, a strict interpretation of the QR&O may prove it difficult to use as a mechanism to remove Vance's medals since he is no longer a member of the CAF (unless he transferred to and remains in the Supp Res).   As for his membership in the Order of Military Merit, there is a separate route to terminate that.






						Constitution
					

INTERPRETATION 1. The definitions in this section apply in this Constitution. “Commander” means a Commander of the Order. (commandeur)




					www.gg.ca
				





> TERMINATION OF MEMBERSHIP
> 25. (1) A person’s membership in the Order ceases when
> 
> (a) the person dies;
> 
> (b) the Governor General accepts the person's resignation from the Order, which resignation shall have been made in writing and given to the Secretary General; or
> 
> (c) *the Governor General makes an ordinance terminating the person’s appointment to the Order*.
> 
> (2) An ordinance terminating an appointment to the Order shall take effect on the day on which it is sealed with the Seal of the Order.


----------



## brihard

The Meritorious Service Decoration Regulations contain a mechanism for revoking an MSM or MSC on the advice of the CDS.


----------



## Weinie

brihard said:


> The Meritorious Service Decoration Regulations contain a mechanism for revoking an MSM or MSC on the advice of the CDS.


LMFAO


----------



## OldSolduer

brihard said:


> The Meritorious Service Decoration Regulations contain a mechanism for revoking an MSM or MSC on the advice of the CDS.


However what is not stated and I'm kinda guessing here but a lot of underlings (BGens and up) may owe their career to a disgraced CDS. IF a current CDS advised whoever (the GoC) to strip that disgraced CDS of his MSM how long do you think it would be before accusations of some sort would surface?

Just a thought - professional jealousy can ruin careers.


----------



## brihard

Just so it’s clear, I wasn’t taking a position on this. I’m just quoting a relevant bit of regulation, that’s all. Personally, I would think it advisable to shy away from going after going ours and awards in all but the most egregious cases, or where there is some deceit regarding the honours and awards themselves. At the end of the day if someone still did A Good Thing a bunch of years ago, that isn’t erased by malfeasance later on down the road. Now, something that recognizes a career in its totality (order of military merit), sure, that merits a different sort of scrutiny than something recognizing a specific deed or act.


----------



## Jarnhamar

OldSolduer said:


> how long do you think it would be before accusations of some sort would surface?


There's probably quite a few senior members who know better than to piss off people like Vance and MacDonald


brihard said:


> At the end of the day if someone still did A Good Thing a bunch of years ago, that isn’t erased by malfeasance later on down the road.



Completely agree with you about taking someone's bling away when they've did something deserving. 

Just a few observations:
1. The CAF hardly seems interested in going after these people for assaults, probably not going to be much interest in taking medals away for misbehavior; and
2. We've all seen nominations that could pass for being ripped out of Beaverton. Some people get awards because it's almost an SOP for certain positions, or certain ranks. I don't think the CAF is going to want attention on the H&A system.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Convicted by a civil authority of any serious offence.

I believe Vance has been charged with Obstruction. That's pretty serious..........if convicted. 

Does anyone know if the judge is a trudeau appointee?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

brihard said:


> Just so it’s clear, I wasn’t taking a position on this. I’m just quoting a relevant bit of regulation, that’s all. Personally, I would think it advisable to shy away from going after going ours and awards in all but the most egregious cases, or where there is some deceit regarding the honours and awards themselves. At the end of the day if someone still did A Good Thing a bunch of years ago, that isn’t erased by malfeasance later on down the road. Now, something that recognizes a career in its totality (order of military merit), sure, that merits a different sort of scrutiny than something recognizing a specific deed or act.


I don't think anyone was pointing at you Bri. What I found humorous was that it could be removed by the CDS. Like that would ever happen😆


----------



## brihard

Fishbone Jones said:


> I don't think anyone was pointing at you Bri. What I found humorous was that it could be removed by the CDS. Like that would ever happen😆


Oh, for sure- I understood it the same way. Just figured I’d add the clarity.

I share the exact same sense of “not bloody likely”.


----------



## Weinie

Fishbone Jones said:


> I don't think anyone was pointing at you Bri. What I found humorous was that it could be removed by the CDS. Like that would ever happen😆


And that was my point exactly Bri. The irony of the CDS removing decorations from the X-removed CDS, who was the arbiter; the irony is delicious.


----------



## OldSolduer

Fishbone Jones said:


> Convicted by a civil authority of any serious offence.
> 
> I believe Vance has been charged with Obstruction. That's pretty serious..........if convicted.
> 
> Does anyone know if the judge is a trudeau appointee?


Obstruction of Justice could be a relatively minor thing as well. Bri should be able to set us straight.


----------



## brihard

OldSolduer said:


> Obstruction of Justice could be a relatively minor thing as well. Bri should be able to set us straight.


Not touching this one, since we’re talking a real and ongoing case. We’ll see what crown and the courts do.


----------



## Weinie

brihard said:


> Not touching this one, since we’re talking a real and ongoing case. We’ll see what crown and the courts do.


I expect that Jonny V is going down, based on what Kelli B taped and provided to the NCIS. It is pretty hard to argue against real testimony that will be played in court.


----------



## Haggis

Fishbone Jones said:


> Convicted by a civil authority of any serious offence.
> 
> I believe Vance has been charged with Obstruction. That's pretty serious..........if convicted.
> 
> Does anyone know if the judge is a trudeau appointee?


I believe Vance was charged under CCC s 139(2) which is a hybrid offence. The Crown has elected to proceed summarily, so he could be liable for up to 2 years less a day and a $5000 fine.  If the Crown had elected to proceed by indictment, he could have served up to ten years.

No idea who the judge is and I don't think it matters as this is Ontario Provincial  Court, not Federal Court.


----------



## Kilted

Fishbone Jones said:


> So I was having a conversation with a few old buddies and this subject reared its head, regarding Vance. The gist got around to his decorations. Particularly, his Commander of the Order of Military Merit, Meritorious Service Cross and his CD. The question was, given his position as the top soldier, if found guilty, should these decorations be forfeit and removed from him? I'm unaware of the process and requirements, but I would say yes to at least the first two.


The CD is probably the hardest one to take away.  He could perhaps lose his most recent bar if he was charged and convicted for something by the military, but to take the actual medal away he would have to be charged and convicted for something in his first 12 years.  Granted, there are exceptional circumstances such as Russel Williams, but this doesn't meet that threshold.


----------



## Kilted

CountDC said:


> in the not too distant past by my reckoning Halifax JRs had a woman's night every week that did very well.  The local female population seemed to enjoy it.


Stuff like that has happened since messes were invented.  Probably one of the warning signs from the past should have been when soldiers, etc were afraid to bring their girlfriend/wife into the mess.  Although, there were likely other reasons for this as well.


----------



## QV

I wonder what the exact details of the obstruction charge on Vance refer to? If the gist of this is: "Hey, don't share the details of our private affair with anyone, that's private." 

I wonder how that will be assessed against "intentionally attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice". 

Is pursuing a disciplinary matter (the inappropriate relationship) a "course of justice" or is that reserved for crimes?


----------



## KevinB

QV said:


> I wonder what the exact details of the obstruction charge on Vance refer to? If the gist of this is: "Hey, don't share the details of our private affair with anyone, that's private."
> 
> I wonder how that will be assessed against "intentionally attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice".
> 
> Is pursuing a disciplinary matter (the inappropriate relationship) a "course of justice" or is that reserved for crimes?


Military Justice is still theoretically justice...


----------



## Brad Sallows

> At the end of the day if someone still did A Good Thing a bunch of years ago, that isn’t erased by malfeasance later on down the road.



That's not the way a vocal minority wants it to be, and they're getting their way in a lot of places.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Coates hung out to dry....


Former top NORAD commander was investigated for months after defence department said he broke no rules​​*Christopher Coates was the subject of a high-level military meeting following reports of an affair*

An alleged extramarital affair involving Canada's former top commander at NORAD was investigated by military police for several months after the Department of National Defence (DND) publicly stated that no rules were broken by former lieutenant-general Christopher Coates.

Sources with knowledge of the probe told CBC News that interviews were conducted and statements taken from witnesses last spring — several weeks after the department publicly backed Coates.

Meanwhile, an access to information request filed by CBC News — looking for briefings and notes exchanged among senior military leaders about how the allegations were handled — was recently denied on the grounds that an active investigation was taking place.

CBC asked the defence department to explain the contradiction. It also asked DND when the investigation of Coates started, whether it has concluded and whether it yielded any action.




			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/christopher-coates-military-police-affair-1.6218447


----------



## Good2Golf

…I wonder if the “high-level military meeting” involved his sister-in-law (ie. wife of his brother, [edit]Cdr(Ret’d) Curtis Coates)?


_* Edited to correct LGen(Ret’d) Coates’ brother’s name. _


----------



## Eye In The Sky

So.   Had an affair, the other person wasn't in direct CofC/wasn't a sub.

And?

Sorry, not condoning cheating but...I'm sure there are people who work at supermarkets and day-cares who have affairs.


----------



## brihard

Eye In The Sky said:


> So.   Had an affair, the other person wasn't in direct CofC/wasn't a sub.
> 
> And?
> 
> Sorry, not condoning cheating but...I'm sure there are people who work at supermarkets and day-cares who have affairs.


Huge deal for the Americans. Adultery is still a UCMJ offense. One of those things where if you're working in a host nation on behalf of yours, you have to respect and play by their rules.


----------



## Brad Sallows

High-level people have to be trusted by allies.  Not all allies view adulterers as trustworthy.  Yes, that may be disappointing on their part.  But it's the real world in which we have to fit.


----------



## Cronicbny

Eye In The Sky said:


> So.   Had an affair, the other person wasn't in direct CofC/wasn't a sub.
> 
> And?
> 
> Sorry, not condoning cheating but...I'm sure there are people who work at supermarkets and day-cares who have affairs.


The challenge here relates entirely to his position as the Deputy Commander of a bi-national Command. He knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that any extra-marital affair would be viewed very unfavourably by his US CoC. I agree that nothing was contrary to Canadian law or CSD... only contrary to the ethical/moral standards I think we should (at a minimum) expect from a 3 star General Officer. It was embarassing to many of the uniformed Canadians in the Commands, and it caused some really unnecessary awkwardness given his Assessor responsibilities that come with the position.

I don't think it is unreasonable to expect our GO/FOs to display the highest moral and ethical standards. If they don't meet the threshold, they should be held responsible.

Perhaps the worst part of this - after clearly missing the mark of ethical/moral standards as the Deputy - is that the institution thought it perfectly fine to then put him in Command at CJOC. That decision is so tone deaf, given the Tri-Command relationship between NORAD, USNORTHCOM and CJOC- the bridges with Senior US military and DoD were already burned/burning... how could that have come out of COA analysis as the favoured option?

Alas, here we are.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

brihard said:


> Huge deal for the Americans. Adultery is still a UCMJ offense. One of those things where if you're working in a host nation on behalf of yours, you have to respect and play by their rules.



Ya, I know the UCMJ piece, but...why does Canadian news care about this, today?

To keep a ball rolling, I suspect...


----------



## MARS

Good2Golf said:


> …I wonder if the “high-level military meeting” involved his sister-in-law (ie. wife of his brother, Capt(N) Matthew Coates)?


I think that is the wrong Coates?  I have met the DM's hubby while at NORAD - and it isn't Capt(N) Coates...but I don't know if there is also a familial relation between Capt(N) Coates and LGen Coates as well, or not...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Cronicbny said:


> nothing was contrary to Canadian law or CSD



And nothing that held weight in terms of appropriate administrative sanctions, I'm assuming from the story.

Unless there is a link to the 5019 series DAODs, or the Statement of Defence Ethics...

_next_

Or, if adultery is going to be determined to be "an offense" to any/all CAF members who commit it (not going to happen), then fine.  Otherwise...

Again...I'm not condoning it.  I'm married, on IR and don't cheat (I sleep easier at night knowing I'm only disappointing to a single woman...).  But, I have a bit of a hard time taking criticism on adultery from anyone in the US;  it's not like they're free of it, in their society or Armed Forces.


----------



## Good2Golf

MARS said:


> I think that is the wrong Coates?  I have met the DM's hubby while at NORAD - and it isn't Capt(N) Coates...but I don't know if there is also a familial relation between Capt(N) Coates and LGen Coates as well, or not...


Right you are, MARS, I got Matt and Curtis crossed.


----------



## dimsum

Good2Golf said:


> Right you are, MARS, I got Matt and Curtis crossed.


How many Coates's are there?!


----------



## Eye In The Sky

"The U.S. military has strict rules about fraternization and deems extramarital affairs a punishable offence. The Canadian Armed Forces does not outlaw affairs but considers relationships within the chain of command to be off-limits.

DND disputes the characterization of the relationship as "an affair," saying Coates — who is the brother-in-law of Canada's deputy defence minister — "was separated when he entered into a relationship with the individual in question." 

Separated is a distinct status, different from "married" including in the CAF.  No?  If the American's don't agree with the distinction...personally, I couldn't really care less.  I'm not an American, and they're not the boss of me.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Eye In The Sky said:


> "T*he U.S. military has strict rules about fraternization and deems extramarital affairs a punishable offence.* The Canadian Armed Forces does not outlaw affairs but considers relationships within the chain of command to be off-limits.
> 
> DND disputes the characterization of the relationship as "an affair," saying Coates — who is the brother-in-law of Canada's deputy defence minister — "was separated when he entered into a relationship with the individual in question."
> 
> Separated is a distinct status, different from "married" including in the CAF.  No?  If the American's don't agree with the distinction...personally, I couldn't really care less.  I'm not an American, and they're not the boss of me.



Clearly we have 'unofficially' declared these activities as punishable in one way or another, formally or otherwise.

Maybe it's time that we _came out of the closet_ and formalized things.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

daftandbarmy said:


> Maybe it's time that we _came out of the closet_ and formalized things.



Maybe it is....amend 5019-0 and -1...


----------



## dimsum

A military in crisis: Here are the senior leaders embroiled in sexual misconduct cases​



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sexual-misconduct-military-senior-leaders-dnd-caf-1.6218683


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Crikies.


----------



## brihard

daftandbarmy said:


> Maybe it's time that we _came out of the closet_ and formalized things.


Do you mean Coates check?


----------



## daftandbarmy

brihard said:


> Do you mean Coates check?


----------



## Jarnhamar

Remember all of those sudden retirement messages a year and a half ago or so?

Probably unrelated.


----------



## Weinie

Eye In The Sky said:


> So.   Had an affair, the other person wasn't in direct CofC/wasn't a sub.
> 
> And?
> 
> Sorry, not condoning cheating but...I'm sure there are people who work at supermarkets and day-cares who have affairs.


Except, he didn't have an affair. His marriage was over before he entered into the new relationship.


----------



## Cronicbny

Weinie said:


> Except, he didn't have an affair. His marriage was over before he entered into the new relationship.


That was certainly news to his spouse - who sent an email to the other CAF spouses...


----------



## dimsum

brihard said:


> Do you mean Coates check?


----------



## Weinie

Cronicbny said:


> That was certainly news to his spouse - who sent an email to the other CAF spouses...


Yeah, no acrimony has ever been recorded between a splitting couple.


----------



## trigger324

Jarnhamar said:


> Remember all of those sudden retirement messages a year and a half ago or so?
> 
> Probably unrelated.


You can run, but you can’t hide. I doubt this is near over.


----------



## QV

Weinie said:


> Except, he didn't have an affair. His marriage was over before he entered into the new relationship.


pffft...details don't matter anymore.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Weinie said:


> Except, he didn't have an affair. His marriage was over before he entered into the new relationship.


Separated or divorced, getting into a relationship with someone in NORAD when you are the 2 I/C on exchange seems like an awful idea, especially in the puritan US culture. Even if he didn't break any rules, it's a pretty big indication you messed up when a four star is talking to the embassy about getting you gone.


----------



## Brad Sallows

What was the status of the other person in the relationship?


----------



## Weinie

Navy_Pete said:


> Separated or divorced, getting into a relationship with someone in NORAD when you are the 2 I/C on exchange seems like an awful idea, especially in the *puritan *US culture. Even if he didn't break any rules, it's a pretty big indication you messed up when a four star is talking to the embassy about getting you gone.


Meh...........


----------



## daftandbarmy

The Executive Summary ....


A military in crisis: Here are the senior leaders embroiled in sexual misconduct cases​​Observers say they've never seen so many military leaders swept up in scandal at the same time​

It's a leadership crisis without precedent in the Canadian Armed Forces — a fact that only becomes clear when you take a step back and look at the full depth and scope of the sexual misconduct crisis and survey the wreckage in the top ranks.

Since early February 2021, 11 senior Canadian military leaders — current and former — have been sidelined, investigated or forced into retirement from some of the most powerful and prestigious posts in the defence establishment.

Experts say they can't think of another military anywhere else in the world that has seen so many senior leaders swept up in scandal at the same time.

Some senior leaders are facing allegations of sexual misconduct and are under military police investigation. Two people have been charged criminally in connection to the claims. Some have launched public campaigns to fight for their jobs back. 

In other cases, military leaders have been placed on leave over their own handling of sexual misconduct files that triggered public backlash and division in the ranks.

The investigations often came to light publicly only after journalists started asking questions of the Department of National Defence (DND).

DND says military police do not "proactively disclose the existence of ongoing investigations" because it could jeopardize the integrity of those investigations. Investigations are confirmed publicly on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the investigation, privacy rights and the public's right to now, the department said.

What follows is a CBC News summary of all the senior leaders' cases and what has been reported to date. The list will be updated with new developments as they emerge. The cases are listed in chronological order. 



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sexual-misconduct-military-senior-leaders-dnd-caf-1.6218683


----------



## ModlrMike

At the rate we're going even I have a shot at CRCN.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Navy_Pete said:


> Separated or divorced, getting into a relationship with someone in NORAD when you are the 2 I/C on exchange seems like an awful idea, especially in the puritan US culture. Even if he didn't break any rules, it's a pretty big indication you messed up when a four star is talking to the embassy about getting you gone.


Two single people entering into a relationship. Are we now expecting, again single, people on OutCan posting to become social and celibate hermits?


----------



## Navy_Pete

Fishbone Jones said:


> Two single people entering into a relationship. Are we now expecting, again single, people on OutCan posting to become social and celibate hermits?


No, but when you are running a base, date someone outside the base. Similarly, if you are running the CAF, date someone outside of the CAF/DND. How is this difficult? If you want more dating options, don't get promoted to where you are running things. It's your workplace, not kettle of fish, and there will never not be the potential for a power imbalance when you reach the august heights the GOFOs reach.

Might even help maintain a work/life balance to make friends outside of work.


----------



## ModlrMike

No fishing off the company pier.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Navy_Pete said:


> No, but when you are running a base, date someone outside the base. Similarly, if you are running the CAF, date someone outside of the CAF/DND. How is this difficult? If you want more dating options, don't get promoted to where you are running things. It's your workplace, not kettle of fish, and there will never not be the potential for a power imbalance when you reach the august heights the GOFOs reach.
> 
> Might even help maintain a work/life balance to make friends outside of work.


The person was not in his chain of command. He followed the rules and reported it to both countries. So far as I can gather, no one was worried enough to stop it. Your own personal bias aside, I don't see where he did anything wrong. That's  where I'm leaving it.


----------



## NavyShooter

Fishbone Jones said:


> Two single people entering into a relationship. Are we now expecting, again single, people on OutCan posting to become social and celibate hermits?


Nope, but I guess the way the world today is, you'll have to think about what the media will say about you in 15-20 years using different standards.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

We could always make these mandatory for anyone over the rank of Major


----------



## OldSolduer

Navy_Pete said:


> No, but when you are running a base, date someone outside the base. Similarly, if you are running the CAF, date someone outside of the CAF/DND. How is this difficult? If you want more dating options, don't get promoted to where you are running things. It's your workplace, not kettle of fish, and there will never not be the potential for a power imbalance when you reach the august heights the GOFOs reach.
> 
> Might even help maintain a work/life balance to make friends outside of work.


You can make all kinds of rules, regulations and guidelines you want. Someone will breach them, guaranteed.

SO if what many of you want is no personal relationships between serving personnel, what do you do with all those service couples?


----------



## Weinie

OldSolduer said:


> You can make all kinds of rules, regulations and guidelines you want. Someone will breach them, guaranteed.
> 
> SO if what many of you want is no personal relationships between serving personnel, what do you do with all those service couples?


Kill them all....oh wait a minute.


----------



## MilEME09

ModlrMike said:


> At the rate we're going even I have a shot at CRCN.


Concept of two up? Na how about 10 up


----------



## KevinB

Fishbone Jones said:


> The person was not in his chain of command. He followed the rules and reported it to both countries. So far as I can gather, no one was worried enough to stop it. Your own personal bias aside, I don't see where he did anything wrong. That's  where I'm leaving it.


Well it does seem some where worried about it  = that it elevated to a political mess.


----------



## Journeyman

Eye In The Sky said:


> Sorry, not condoning cheating but...I'm sure there are people who work at supermarkets and day-cares who have affairs.


Yes, the security implications of supermarket and day-care workers being blackmailed for their indiscretions by foreign adversaries is staggering.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Journeyman said:


> Yes, the security implications of supermarket and day-care workers being blackmailed for their indiscretions by foreign adversaries is staggering.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Journeyman said:


> Yes, the security implications of supermarket and day-care workers being blackmailed for their indiscretions by foreign adversaries is staggering.



Snr NCMs and Officers... Pour toi

And I think that's the key.  If you want to be; are mandated to be; and act as to be superior; be prepared for the expectation that you meet that standard in all aspects.


----------



## Jarnhamar

If a corporal caused international embarrassment stemming from an incident while OUTCAN that caused them to be RTUd would they quietly get shuffled jobs while people argued "was it really against the rules?" Right?


----------



## cyber_lass

NavyShooter said:


> Nope, but I guess the way the world today is, you'll have to think about what the media will say about you in 15-20 years using different standards.


Women not liking or wanting unwarranted touching or sexual jokes or sexual advances hasn't changed. Just before it was accepted 
(this is the part men are missing). You know how many times at work I was touched and it felt sleazy, but feared for my job as the guys are laughing and I have to "play along", because "it is no big deal"? More times than I can count.  But there was never a mechanism that would help me report and not be forced out of my work place. So if you are worried about 15-20 years from now, don't be sleazy? Can't be that hard for people who own penises to learn.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

cyber_lass said:


> (this is the part men are missing).
> 
> Can't be that hard for people who own penises to learn.


Strange, I've been unwantingly touched far more by women then by men....

The chip isn't helping what you're trying to say.


----------



## OldSolduer

cyber_lass said:


> Women not liking or wanting unwarranted touching or sexual jokes or sexual advances hasn't changed. Just before it was accepted
> (this is the part men are missing). You know how many times at work I was touched and it felt sleazy, but feared for my job as the guys are laughing and I have to "play along", because "it is no big deal"? More times than I can count.  But there was never a mechanism that would help me report and not be forced out of my work place. So if you are worried about 15-20 years from now, don't be sleazy? Can't be that hard for people who own penises to learn.


Generalizing men is not the solution which you seem to be

Education and repercussions for those who conduct themselves in a manner unbecoming are far more acceptable than casting us off the pier.


----------



## Good2Golf

Do people really think an ultra-feminist scorched-earth all-men-are-scum approach is helpful?  My intro to sexual harassment of any kind in the CAF happened during basic training, where a female captain took great delight in insulting every woman in the platoon with the c-word, and occasionally frontally groped male candidates during morning inspections.  Complaints fell on deaf ears.  That in no way makes any of the confirmed sexualized conduct of males against women (or other males or TG pers) acceptable, but the solution is a concert whole-of-CAF effort moving forward, that ensures comprehensive cultural change across the board, making no exceptions for anyone in a position of responsibility, no matter their gender.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Good2Golf said:


> Do people really think an ultra-feminist scorched-earth all-men-are-scum approach is helpful?  My intro to sexual harassment of any kind in the CAF happened during basic training, where a female captain took great delight in insulting every woman in the platoon with the c-word, and occasionally frontally groped male candidates during morning inspections.  Complaints fell on deaf ears.  That in no way makes any of the confirmed sexualized conduct of males against women (or other males or TG pers) acceptable, but the solution is a concert whole-of-CAF effort moving forward, that ensures comprehensive cultural change across the board, making no exceptions for anyone in a position of responsibility, no matter their gender.



Dude... there's no statute of limitations on sexual harassment - as we've seen recently.

Just sayin'


----------



## Brad Sallows

> occasionally frontally groped male candidates during morning inspections.



Poor leadership.  Never start what you don't intend to finish.


----------



## Happy Guy

I do not think that Cyber Lass meant to infer that all men are guilty.  As a female she was expressing her experiences of being tired of all the unwanted touching, leering and sexist remarks directed at her.   Given the comments in response to her, I think that she now knows that she could have worded her comments more carefully.  Please keep in mind that she is female in an overwhelming male environment.  As a male, I have never been a mainly female environment where the attention was focused on me because I was a guy and regarded as a sex object.  I think that for the most part, we, males, have never been in such an environment for a long period of time.  

Given the comments that I've read so far many of us (males and females) have personally experience some form of sexual misconduct or sexual harassment in some form or another.  The number of males, in this forum, who have expressed sexual harassment surprised me as I thought % wise it would be a rather low figure.

Old Solduer and Good2Golf  are right, education, self awareness and cultural charge are the key to reduce this serious problem in the CAF.  It would help, too, if our Superiors would talk the talk and walk  the walk too.  If we believe in the Pareto Principle (20% of the population causes all the problems), this minority is wilfully harming DND/CAF.   The vast majority of CAF members are decent and respectful people and the general public should be reminded of that.


----------



## cyber_lass

OldSolduer said:


> Generalizing men is not the solution which you seem to be
> 
> Education and repercussions for those who conduct themselves in a manner unbecoming are far more acceptable than casting us off the pier.


The point wasn't to generalise. Just my experience. That should count for something, right? Someone made a comment about being worried about 15-20 years down the road that "behviour" might be wrong. Well my point was this sort of behvaiour was always wrong, it just was accepted and not questioned. That was my only point.


----------



## cyber_lass

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Strange, I've been unwantingly touched far more by women then by men....
> 
> The chip isn't helping what you're trying to say.


Then report it. Because at this point, men are still 90% of time responsible for these incidents. 1 in 6 women have experienced unwanted sexual advances/rape, for men that is 1 in 66.  So if you have been an issue for you, report it, not right when it happens to anyone, regardless of sex/gender.


----------



## cyber_lass

Good2Golf said:


> Do people really think an ultra-feminist scorched-earth all-men-are-scum approach is helpful?  My intro to sexual harassment of any kind in the CAF happened during basic training, where a female captain took great delight in insulting every woman in the platoon with the c-word, and occasionally frontally groped male candidates during morning inspections.  Complaints fell on deaf ears.  That in no way makes any of the confirmed sexualized conduct of males against women (or other males or TG pers) acceptable, but the solution is a concert whole-of-CAF effort moving forward, that ensures comprehensive cultural change across the board, making no exceptions for anyone in a position of responsibility, no matter their gender.


No one is making that claim.   Though the stats don't lie. 90% of the time, men are the perpetrators of sexual crimes.


----------



## KevinB

cyber_lass said:


> The point wasn't to generalise. Just my experience. That should count for something, right? Someone made a comment about being worried about 15-20 years down the road that "behviour" might be wrong. Well my point was this sort of behvaiour was always wrong, it just was accepted and not questioned. That was my only point.


The problem was your quote.  Times change - you cannot apply the lens of the present to the actions of the past.

No I am not defending Sexual Assault or Harassment in that, but lets go back and look at things done in WW2 - and now taking a weapon from someone you killed is a crime, and imagine if you made an ashtray out of an enemies head these days...

Sexual Assault was never acceptable - I think many folks can related to issues they either experienced, or witnessed in their careers.
  The CF did a pretty poor job of policing the 'minor' incidents when it was just a 'touching/grope", and as a male soldier - some of the female soldiers where fairly aggressive -- like GTG I have been groped by Female officers - one instance I was smothered/groped/tickeled by a Female Maj (non Cbt Arms) was witnessed by a Maj and MWO (my OC and CSM) - who they then gave me the inspired guidance of "clearly she like you you should go hit that"...

  Sexual Harassment - that has come a long way - and I am sure that my behaviors in the past in some circumstances would be extremely offensive now -- but at the time, a lot of females in the CF either gave as good as they got, or in some smaller groups used it as playful banter.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

cyber_lass said:


> No one is making that claim.   Though the stats don't lie. 90% of the time, men are the perpetrators of sexual crimes.


The stats actually  lie a lot,....most men [especially back then] wouldn't even THINK about reporting lest, as Kevin alluded too, their mancard gets taken away.    I'll bet if everything was reported we're looking at 60/40......and I'll bet assault, without the sexual connotation , is towards the female side.


----------



## cyber_lass

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> The stats actually  lie a lot,....most men [especially back then] wouldn't even THINK about reporting lest, as Kevin alluded too, their mancard gets taken away.    I'll bet if everything was reported we're looking at 60/40......and I'll bet assault, without the sexual connotation , is towards the female side.


Then start reporting and we will see.


----------



## Kilted

Journeyman said:


> Yes, the security implications of supermarket and day-care workers being blackmailed for their indiscretions by foreign adversaries is staggering.


You never know how heated the Loblaws-Walmart competition might get. Wal-Mart probably counts as a foreign adversary, at least to Loblaws.


----------



## cyber_lass

KevinB said:


> The problem was your quote.  Times change - you cannot apply the lens of the present to the actions of the past.
> 
> No I am not defending Sexual Assault or Harassment in that, but lets go back and look at things done in WW2 - and now taking a weapon from someone you killed is a crime, and imagine if you made an ashtray out of an enemies head these days...
> 
> Sexual Assault was never acceptable - I think many folks can related to issues they either experienced, or witnessed in their careers.
> The CF did a pretty poor job of policing the 'minor' incidents when it was just a 'touching/grope", and as a male soldier - some of the female soldiers where fairly aggressive -- like GTG I have been groped by Female officers - one instance I was smothered/groped/tickeled by a Female Maj (non Cbt Arms) was witnessed by a Maj and MWO (my OC and CSM) - who they then gave me the inspired guidance of "clearly she like you you should go hit that"...
> 
> Sexual Harassment - that has come a long way - and I am sure that my behaviors in the past in some circumstances would be extremely offensive now -- but at the time, a lot of females in the CF either gave as good as they got, or in some smaller groups used it as playful banter.


Yes, you can apply the lens of today to the past. it is how we progress and get better. Sexual assault and sexual was never okay. What made it okay was the silence implied. Don't say anything, because you are just lucky to have a job. I think many in the forum are men, and they, you too possible, are viewing the issue from the men's perspective. That "it was innocent" and "acceptable" back then.  Well no, it was never innocent, and it was accepted, because women knew to keep their mouths shut.  Even I was told never to rock the boat if I want to grow my career, and that is not only in the military. So if I guy does something, I suck it up, and move on, for fear of my career.  Or play along, be one of the guys. The only thing that is changing now, is women are feeling empowered to speak out and not be reprimanded for it.


----------



## daftandbarmy

cyber_lass said:


> No one is making that claim.   Though the stats don't lie. 90% of the time, men are the perpetrators of sexual crimes.



And then there's the Org Chart issue:


----------



## KevinB

cyber_lass said:


> Yes, you can apply the lens of today to the past. it is how we progress and get better. Sexual assault and sexual was never okay. What made it okay was the silence implied. Don't say anything, because you are just lucky to have a job. I think many in the forum are men, and they, you too possible, are viewing the issue from the men's perspective. That "it was innocent" and "acceptable" back then.  Well no, it was never innocent, and it was accepted, because women knew to keep their mouths shut.  Even I was told never to rock the boat if I want to grow my career, and that is not only in the military. So if I guy does something, I suck it up, and move on, for fear of my career.  Or play along, be one of the guys. The only thing that is changing now, is women are feeling empowered to speak out and not be reprimanded for it.


You missed my point.
    You need to learn from the past - but you can't ALWAYS judge the actions of the past with the Moral conviction of the current.

 Now yes I am a man, and I also served in Cbt Arms units - and thus had a relatively low number of female military personnel I worked with.    The CF for years was really clear on Harassment, at least the definition of it, and how it applied (actually doing anything - well the CF was good at talking about solutions...).

 Do I think Sexual Assaults from the past can be viewed from the current lens - absolutely - but I don't think you can view harassment in the same way -- (and frankly I tend to put any sort of unwanted touching into Assault - as that is exactly what it is, it has gone past harassment at that point).  
   But people grow up and society changes - maybe a comment or rude wink wasn't appropriate then, but my point is how far does one want to go back to avenge certain transgressions?


----------



## OldSolduer

cyber_lass said:


> The point wasn't to generalise. Just my experience. That should count for something, right? Someone made a comment about being worried about 15-20 years down the road that "behviour" might be wrong. Well my point was this sort of behvaiour was always wrong, it just was accepted and not questioned. That was my only point.


You are correct and my apologies, that sort of behavior is never excusable.


----------



## cyber_lass

KevinB said:


> You missed my point.
> You need to learn from the past - but you can't ALWAYS judge the actions of the past with the Moral conviction of the current.
> 
> Now yes I am a man, and I also served in Cbt Arms units - and thus had a relatively low number of female military personnel I worked with.    The CF for years was really clear on Harassment, at least the definition of it, and how it applied (actually doing anything - well the CF was good at talking about solutions...).
> 
> Do I think Sexual Assaults from the past can be viewed from the current lens - absolutely - but I don't think you can view harassment in the same way -- (and frankly I tend to put any sort of unwanted touching into Assault - as that is exactly what it is, it has gone past harassment at that point).
> But people grow up and society changes - maybe a comment or rude wink wasn't appropriate then, but my point is how far does one want to go back to avenge certain transgressions?


So really, what you are wanting is a statute of limitations. No, I am not missing the point. Yes, harassment can be viewed in the same way. Moral convictions? Huh. I guarantee most of these victims coming out of the wood work now, didn't view the assault as any less offensive back then, than today. Just now they can say something without being reprimanded and losing their career.  I think you are missing what I am saying. How it affects the victims hasn't changed, just now victims have a way to get justice and start healing. And perpetrators can be held accountable. If the effects on the victims are no different, then why would we judge the crime/action to be any less repugnant just because it happened x number of years ago?


----------



## brihard

So, if we’re talking about lenses of the past here, how far back are we going?

Assuming not many CAF members stay longer than 35 years (pension math), that would take us back to 1986. What were the stated rules and expectations back then? What had CAF institutionally decided would be tolerated, and what wouldn’t be?

What about 25 years- 1996. What was officially OK then?

I get that the ship takes time to steer, but had the wheel been turned to shift course on the whole sexual harassment thing by that point? Were the expectations and standards that we’re applying now unknown to individuals then? Or was it just ignored because impunity still ruled?

I’ll also note that most of the really historical stuff that’s coming up either has allegations of a criminal nature, and/or pretty flagrant abuses of power/authority. I don’t see the media dragging generals because they told someone they had a nice ass in 1997.


----------



## KevinB

cyber_lass said:


> So really, what you are wanting is a statute of limitations. No, I am not missing the point. Yes, harassment can be viewed in the same way. Moral convictions? Huh. I guarantee most of these victims coming out of the wood work now, didn't view the assault as any less offensive back then, than today. Just now they can say something without being reprimanded and losing their career.  I think you are missing what I am saying. How it affects the victims hasn't changed, just now victims have a way to get justice and start healing. And perpetrators can be held accountable. If the effects on the victims are no different, then why would we judge the crime/action to be any less repugnant just because it happened x number of years ago?


Can you read?

 It is a legitimate question given twice you have absolutely ignored what I wrote, and decided on your own narrative from my comments.

Go back and read what I wrote.


I made no excuses for any sexual assault - or touching of any kind - and I supported going after that regardless of age of the complaint.

What I did say, was how long do you think a snide sexist comment, or leer should be culpable for?
   I don't know the answer -- I don't think it should be 20 years, but I do not honestly have a good answer on a time frame, and as well did it continue if the offending party was confronted about it?
   Clearly a persistent issue should be addressed for longer than one individual comment or look -- but my question stands, on the fact if you go back long enough, some comments would have been acceptable then, though they are not now.


----------



## Takeniteasy

cyber_lass said:


> Yes, you can apply the lens of today to the past. it is how we progress and get better. Sexual assault and sexual was never okay. What made it okay was the silence implied. Don't say anything, because you are just lucky to have a job. I think many in the forum are men, and they, you too possible, are viewing the issue from the men's perspective. That "it was innocent" and "acceptable" back then.  Well no, it was never innocent, and it was accepted, because women knew to keep their mouths shut.  Even I was told never to rock the boat if I want to grow my career, and that is not only in the military. So if I guy does something, I suck it up, and move on, for fear of my career.  Or play along, be one of the guys. The only thing that is changing now, is women are feeling empowered to speak out and not be reprimanded for it.


Its the white heteronormative centre that has always held the power especially in the military (that centre comprises of a few attitudes that has the CAF where it is today). In discussions I have I often hear "well that was how we thought back then" and I respond by asking who is the "we" you are talking about, changes the narrative and hints at well yes "we" the centre thought like that and everyone else needs to fall in line. They had/have the power and we need to comply or like you have stated face reprisals for standing up for yourself. Its interesting to note that you are still having to defend your words and experiences against those who use their own experiences like it is some kind of he said she said game... I hope you are an active member because at least your thinking goes beyond comparing it to just yourself and you bring in context and empathy.


----------



## Jarnhamar

cyber_lass said:


> Just now they can say something without being reprimanded and losing their career.


We're very far from being there._ 
Some_ women can. Ones who are lucky or more likely in privileged positions of rank(though that's not always the case).
Others are still at the mercy of various mafias in uniform.

"Just report it" can be a double edged sword. Context with a historical lens is important. Someone assaulted 20 years ago? Great candidate to go after them now. 
Is it a good use of our limited resources to go after someone who ran down a hallway naked 25 years ago? Probably not as much.

As for telling Bruce to just report it, I have a feeling if the roles were reversed and Bruce was telling you to just report an incident from your past you might point out it's not his place to tell you what to do about your experience. We need to avoid white knights while we're trying to fix the CAF.


----------



## cyber_lass

Takeniteasy said:


> Its the white heteronormative centre that has always held the power especially in the military (that centre comprises of a few attitudes that has the CAF where it is today). In discussions I have I often hear "well that was how we thought back then" and I respond by asking who is the "we" you are talking about, changes the narrative and hints at well yes "we" the centre thought like that and everyone else needs to fall in line. They had/have the power and we need to comply or like you have stated face reprisals for standing up for yourself. Its interesting to note that you are still having to defend your words and experiences against those who use their own experiences like it is some kind of he said she said game... I hope you are an active member because at least your thinking goes beyond comparing it to just yourself and you bring in context and empathy.


Soon to be a member.  Thanks for your words. Very well said.


----------



## cyber_lass

KevinB said:


> Can you read?
> 
> It is a legitimate question given twice you have absolutely ignored what I wrote, and decided on your own narrative from my comments.
> 
> Go back and read what I wrote.
> 
> 
> I made no excuses for any sexual assault - or touching of any kind - and I supported going after that regardless of age of the complaint.
> 
> What I did say, was how long do you think a snide sexist comment, or leer should be culpable for?
> I don't know the answer -- I don't think it should be 20 years, but I do not honestly have a good answer on a time frame, and as well did it continue if the offending party was confronted about it?
> Clearly a persistent issue should be addressed for longer than one individual comment or look -- but my question stands, on the fact if you go back long enough, some comments would have been acceptable then, though they are not now.


Wow. "Can I read". Nicely done. How long should any sexist comment or or look be valid.  Well I don't see anyone complaining or filling charges based on "leering" or for that matter a sexist comment. But a sexist comment is never right. So, how long? It wasn't okay then, and it isn't okay now. Not sure why that is so difficult for you to understand. What are you so afraid of? That you may have said something or done something wrong and now there is chance you might be held accountable? Since you have trouble reading too apparently... let me try this again, even to this day, women will not come forward for basic "leering" or "sexist" comment, unless it constant and they are safe in doing so. We still have to worry about our careers and lives. For a woman to come forward takes a lot of fortitude. It is not something you do willy nilly. There are still repercussions for reporting, let's not kid ourselves.


----------



## Altair

cyber_lass said:


> Wow. "Can I read". Nicely done. How long should any sexist comment or or look be valid.  Well I don't see anyone complaining or filling charges based on "leering" or for that matter a sexist comment. But a sexist comment is never right. So, how long? It wasn't okay then, and it isn't okay now. Not sure why that is so difficult for you to understand. What are you so afraid of? That you may have said something or done something wrong and now there is chance you might be held accountable? Since you have trouble reading too apparently... let me try this again, even to this day, women will not come forward for basic "leering" or "sexist" comment, unless it constant and they are safe in doing so. We still have to worry about our careers and lives. For a woman to come forward takes a lot of fortitude. It is not something you do willy nilly. There are still repercussions for reporting, let's not kid ourselves.


You will learn shortly how this culture has existed for so long just by reading some of the responses here. 

Don't worry, the Canadian public and in large part politicians are moving on this a lot faster than the military is. I'm not sure to what degree they will be successful but after reading comments here for some time it's clear why the military cannot fix itself.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Altair said:


> but after reading comments here for some time it's clear why the military cannot fix itself.


Everyone else is out of step 😵‍💫


----------



## Good2Golf

cyber_lass said:


> No one is making that claim.   Though the stats don't lie. 90% of the time, men are the perpetrators of sexual crimes.


And possibly even higher than 90%, CL, I actually wouldn’t doubt.  My concern is when the focus by some/many becomes narrowed, to the point where a pan-organization approach isn’t pursued.  The overall approach needs to not deliberately leave gaps in the goals that are necessary to better the organization completely.


----------



## Haggis

Happy Guy said:


> As a male, I have never been a mainly female environment where the attention was focused on me because I was a guy and regarded as a sex object.  I think that for the most part, we, males, have never been in such an environment for a long period of time.


When I worked as an analyst in the IM Group, I shared a small open-concept office in a dilapidated NDHQ outbuilding with five females for about 18 months.  I was the newest addition to the team and later became the acting manager.  My desk was somewhat isolated from the others as "last person in the office".

I learned a lot by being proximate to many conversations about feminine issues, habits and practices and relationships.  Sometimes I was simply a fly on the wall.   Occasionally I had to remind them that I was there before the over-sharing started.


----------



## KevinB

cyber_lass said:


> Wow. "Can I read". Nicely done. How long should any sexist comment or or look be valid.  Well I don't see anyone complaining or filling charges based on "leering" or for that matter a sexist comment.


You seem to enjoy glossing over my comments and cherry picking, so I decided a more direct approach was necessary.




cyber_lass said:


> But a sexist comment is never right. So, how long? It wasn't okay then, and it isn't okay now. Not sure why that is so difficult for you to understand. What are you so afraid of? That you may have said something or done something wrong and now there is chance you might be held accountable?


 I've been out of the CF since 2005, my conscience in clean in this respect though even if I was still in.   I did a lot of dumb stuff in my day - but it wasn't generally related to any of this.  Have I ogled women - yup, and I am sure I have said something in the past, and yes I have done some pretty dumb things;  I got promoted when teaching at the RCR BSL - I got really drunk - and peed at the bar in the mess - and walked around with no pants, I am sure I offended a bunch of people.   The Duty Officer was a female and she came in -looked at me - pulled up my pants said "looks like a penis, only smaller" which pretty much delated the party (and me), and the end result; I was the Duty NCO for the next 3 weeks, and was missing half my butt, and a few bruises from the CSM's "discussion about appropriate behaviors" and a guarantee he was going to put my pace stick up my ass if anything like that occurred again. 

        I don't know where you get the idea I am defending it -- I was asking a question, because based on what you had stated in threads above you seem to feel something of a non assault nature done in the 80's should be viewed like it was done currently and proceeded on with like it was.  




cyber_lass said:


> Since you have trouble reading too apparently... let me try this again, even to this day, women will not come forward for basic "leering" or "sexist" comment, unless it constant and they are safe in doing so.


 That is a failure of the CoC if it continues, and if the member doesn't feel comfortable.  


cyber_lass said:


> We still have to worry about our careers and lives.


Okay I would agree.



cyber_lass said:


> For a woman to come forward takes a lot of fortitude. It is not something you do willy nilly. There are still repercussions for reporting, let's not kid ourselves.


Let's be honest - for anyone in the CF to report something it takes fortitude, and they absolutely are repercussions, that isn't isolated to women, or even to Sexual Assault or Sexual Harassment.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Brad Sallows said:


> Poor leadership.  Never start what you don't intend to finish.


----------



## Happy Guy

Jarnhamar said:


> We're very far from being there._
> Some_ women can. Ones who are lucky or more likely in privileged positions of rank(though that's not always the case).
> Others are still at the mercy of various mafias in uniform.
> 
> "Just report it" can be a double edged sword. Context with a historical lens is important. Someone assaulted 20 years ago? Great candidate to go after them now.
> Is it a good use of our limited resources to go after someone who ran down a hallway naked 25 years ago? Probably not as much.
> 
> As for telling Bruce to just report it, I have a feeling if the roles were reversed and Bruce was telling you to just report an incident from your past you might point out it's not his place to tell you what to do about your experience. We need to avoid white knights while we're trying to fix the CAF.


Most of us at sometime in our lives have been bullied. Whether it was at school, the park or the workplace the negative effects are same.  For some people the psychological trauma is shapes their lives and they are reminded about it on a regular basis.  Sexual misconduct or sexual harassment can have the same effect.  The pain doesn't go away.   I was ruthlessly bullied by a gang when I was a young child who verbally harassed me and sometimes they threw things at me.   This was over 50 years ago but the scars remains.  Til this day, I will become very combative and defensive over the slightest perceived insult, although I have significantly mellowed out since I became a husband and a parent.

I would imagine that any victim of sexual assault would feel traumatized or humiliated by the act.  It could be name calling, being groped or touched in some sexual way.  The point is this is an act of violence (remember violence is not just physically hitting someone).  The incident could have happened 10 minutes, one year, 10 years or 20 years ago.  The issue is that violence occurred and the victim was negatively affected by it and this trauma didn't heal. Some guys here recalled being belittled when they were sexually harassed and their complaints not taken seriously.  Now imagined if this happened to you on a more frequent basis - several times a week for the rest of your career.  Would you not want to your concerns to be taken seriously by the chain of command?  Say you were groped and called by some sexual pejorative name over 10 years ago and it deeply hurt you, but you knew that your complaint would not be taken seriously so you had to lived with the hurt and the pain.  Now with the climate more conducive to the reporting of sexual misconduct and sexual harassment you now have the opportunity to report it.  Would you not do it, especially if you knew that the aggressor was now in a position of higher rank / power and could or had already sexual harassed more victims?



From what I'm seeing here is that many men here are on the defensive and empathize with the sexual aggressors because they thought of their past behaviours and are thinking why I patted that women's butt in the bar/mess and I could be investigated and charged.  Most women will not pursue this unless you were persistent, overly aggressive and/or had scaled up the physical touching.  Most guys/women will stop if told "NO!" and the matter would be dropped.  

Most of us at sometime in our lives have been bullied. Whether it was at school, the park or the workplace the negative effects are same.  For some people the psychological trauma is shapes their lives and they are reminded about it on a regular basis.  Sexual misconduct or sexual harassment can have the same effect.  The pain doesn't go away.   I was ruthlessly bullied by a gang when I was a young child who verbally harassed me and sometimes they threw things at me.   This was over 50 years ago but the scars remains.  

I would imagine that any victim of sexual assault would feel traumatized or humiliated by the act.  It could be name calling, being groped or touched in some sexual way.  The point is this is an act of violence (remember violence is not just physically hitting someone).  The incident could have happened 10 minutes, one year, 10 years or 20 years ago.  The issue is that violence occurred and the victim was negatively affected by it. Some guys here recalled being belittled when they were sexually harassed and their complaints not taken seriously.  Now imagined if this happened to you on a more frequent basis - several times a week for the rest of your career.  Would you not want to your concerns to be taken seriously by the chain of command?  Say you were groped and called by some sexual pejorative name over 10 years ago and it deeply hurt you, but you knew that your complaint would not be taken seriously so you had to lived with the pain.  Now with the climate more conducive to the reporting of sexual misconduct and sexual harassment you now have the opportunity to report it.  Would you not do it, especially if you knew that the aggressor was now in a position of higher rank / power and could or had already sexual harassed more victims?

In Ontario there is no limitation period for assault and sexual assault.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Happy Guy said:


> From what I'm seeing here is that many men here are on the defensive and empathize with the sexual aggressors because they thought of their past behaviours and are thinking why I patted that women's butt in the bar/mess and I could be investigated and charged.



Um, no. Not at all.

Many 'men', assuming they identify as such, in the CAF are tired of the hypocrisy and endless virtue signalling.

Just set a standard, enforce it, identify and prosecute the guilty, and stop assuming that everyone else is evil.

But there I go again... Mansplaining


----------



## Happy Guy

You're right there is no consistent standard for the complainant or respondent.  Don't get me going about the virtue signalling from the current gov't.  I just thinking about the hypocrisy already has me foaming at the mouth.

Cheers


----------



## Blackadder1916

brihard said:


> So, if we’re talking about lenses of the past here, how far back are we going?
> 
> Assuming not many CAF members stay longer than 35 years (pension math), that would take us back to 1986. What were the stated rules and expectations back then? What had CAF institutionally decided would be tolerated, and what wouldn’t be?
> 
> What about 25 years- 1996. What was officially OK then?
> 
> I get that the ship takes time to steer, but had the wheel been turned to shift course on the whole sexual harassment thing by that point? Were the expectations and standards that we’re applying now unknown to individuals then? Or was it just ignored because impunity still ruled?
> 
> I’ll also note that most of the really historical stuff that’s coming up either has allegations of a criminal nature, and/or pretty flagrant abuses of power/authority. I don’t see the media dragging generals because they told someone they had a nice ass in 1997.



What was the policy in the "old days"?



			https://cradpdf.drdc-rddc.gc.ca/PDFS/unc342/p811338_A1b.pdf
		



> In *1983*, the CAF issued an initial policy statement that recognized increasing evidence to suggest that sexual harassment of servicewomen by servicemen was becoming a serious problem.6 Five years later, in *1988*, the CAF promulgated its first harassment policy.7



While the first steps towards a specific harassment policy (CFAO 19-39) and a sexual misconduct policy (CFAO 19-36) took much of the 1980s to percolate, it wasn't unknown or undiscussed long before then that such behaviour was wrong and, while rarely used, could be dealt with using existing administrative and disciplinary regulations. Unfortunately, getting widespread acceptance that poor behaviour was disruptive and contrary to good order and discipline was a harder job.  I know that many at CFB Baden-Soellingen BHosp were surprised when, in 1992 (or maybe it was early 1993) we charged (summary trial, found guilty) a Jnr NCO with S. 129 specifically for such conduct aimed at a dependant female.


----------



## brihard

Blackadder1916 said:


> What was the policy in the "old days"?
> 
> 
> 
> https://cradpdf.drdc-rddc.gc.ca/PDFS/unc342/p811338_A1b.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While the first steps towards a specific harassment policy (CFAO 19-39) and a sexual misconduct policy (CFAO 19-36) took much of the 1980s to percolate, it wasn't unknown or undiscussed long before then that such behaviour was wrong and, while rarely used, could be dealt with using existing administrative and disciplinary regulations. Unfortunately, getting widespread acceptance that poor behaviour was disruptive and contrary to good order and discipline was a harder job.  I know that many at CFB Baden-Soellingen BHosp were surprised when, in 1992 (or maybe it was early 1993) we charged (summary trial, found guilty) a Jnr NCO with S. 129 specifically for such conduct aimed at a dependant female.


Thanks for filling in those details.

So- there we go, I guess. While we may be seeing stuff through 'yesterday's lens', it seems like that lens is basically the same one we have now. Just better acted on. There's little that's wrong now that wasn't wrong then, at least in orders and directives.


----------



## OldSolduer

Altair said:


> You will learn shortly how this culture has existed for so long just by reading some of the responses here.
> 
> Don't worry, the Canadian public and in large part politicians are moving on this a lot faster than the military is. I'm not sure to what degree they will be successful but after reading comments here for some time it's clear why the military cannot fix itself.


Really ????? - then why has the PM not intervened and very publicly fired the MND? WHY are average men and women not demonstrating on Parliament Hill against sexual predators in the CAF? 
The Canadian public has little interest in anything military except when snowstorms, fires, floods and pandemics crop up. 

I will state that they were very supportive during the Afghan war.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Journeyman said:


> Yes, the security implications of supermarket and day-care workers being blackmailed for their indiscretions by foreign adversaries is staggering.



Because that is relevant to this particular case.  Right?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Halifax Tar said:


> Snr NCMs and Officers... Pour toi
> 
> And I think that's the key.  If you want to be; are mandated to be; and act as to be superior; be prepared for the expectation that you meet that standard in all aspects.



Right.  And here's the CAF policy...






						DAOD 5019-1, Personal Relationships and Fraternization - Canada.ca
					

Defence Administrative Orders and Directives - DAOD 5019-1 - Personal Relationships and Fraternization




					www.canada.ca
				




*3.1* The CAF is committed to:


respecting the inherent right of CAF members to form personal relationships of their choosing;
respecting the privacy of the personal relationships of CAF members; and
providing fair and unbiased treatment to persons in the care or under the protection of CAF members and preventing the exploitation of vulnerable persons.
*4.2* A CAF member in a personal relationship with another CAF member, DND employee or member of an allied force, contractor or an employee of a contractor must not be involved, regardless of rank or authority, in the other person’s:


performance appraisal or reporting, including training evaluations and audits;
posting, transfer or attached posting;
individual training or education;
duties or scheduling for duties;
documents or records;
grievance process; or
release proceedings.
*4.3* CAF members must notify their chain of command of any personal relationship that could compromise the objectives of this DAOD.


So....we have a policy....according to the story details, what exactly happened that contravenes the DAOD?


----------



## The Bread Guy

Latest on one of the cases ...


> Maj.-Gen. Dany Fortin is challenging a Federal Court judge’s ruling that struck down his request for reinstatement as head of Canada’s COVID-19 vaccine distribution campaign.
> 
> The senior military officer’s legal team filed a notice of appeal on Friday, arguing Justice Ann Marie McDonald erred in her ruling last week that Fortin needed to submit a complaint to the military before bringing his case to court.
> 
> “The judge made numerous and grave legal errors in her decision, which Maj.-Gen. Fortin is asking the Federal Court of Appeal to overturn,” lawyer Natalia Rodriguez said in a statement ...


----------



## GR66

Eye In The Sky said:


> Right.  And here's the CAF policy...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DAOD 5019-1, Personal Relationships and Fraternization - Canada.ca
> 
> 
> Defence Administrative Orders and Directives - DAOD 5019-1 - Personal Relationships and Fraternization
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.canada.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *3.1* The CAF is committed to:
> 
> 
> respecting the inherent right of CAF members to form personal relationships of their choosing;
> respecting the privacy of the personal relationships of CAF members; and
> providing fair and unbiased treatment to persons in the care or under the protection of CAF members and preventing the exploitation of vulnerable persons.
> *4.2* A CAF member in a personal relationship with another CAF member, DND employee or member of an allied force, contractor or an employee of a contractor must not be involved, regardless of rank or authority, in the other person’s:
> 
> 
> performance appraisal or reporting, including training evaluations and audits;
> posting, transfer or attached posting;
> individual training or education;
> duties or scheduling for duties;
> documents or records;
> grievance process; or
> release proceedings.
> *4.3* CAF members must notify their chain of command of any personal relationship that could compromise the objectives of this DAOD.
> 
> 
> So....we have a policy....according to the story details, what exactly happened that contravenes the DAOD?


It's a pretty vague statement from the original CBC article (Sexual Misconduct Allegations in The CAF) but it states:

"The sources, however, say the woman in question provided support to the NORAD command team and her performance evaluations had to be approved by both American and Canadian senior staff."

I guess it's a question of how broadly they are defining the "NORAD command team" and who exactly within the "Canadian senior staff" was providing her performance evaluations, but it does suggest that the relationship may at the very least have been on the fringe of contravening CF policy.  

So while the relationship might _technically _have been within CF policy regulations it certainly may indicate poor judgement on his part if it was on the fringes of what the CF deems an appropriate relationship and clearly in direct contravention of the policies of our partner and host nation.


----------



## Journeyman

Eye In The Sky said:


> Because that is relevant to this particular case.  Right?


It's very relevant to a discussion of Senior Officer inappropriate behaviour (Hint: the thread is titled "Sexual Misconduct Allegations *in the CAF*"), begging the relevance of YOUR posting about supermarket and day-care workers having affairs.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Journeyman said:


> It's very relevant to a discussion of Senior Officer inappropriate behaviour (Hint: the thread is titled "Sexual Misconduct Allegations *in the CAF*"), begging the relevance of YOUR posting about supermarket and day-care workers having affairs.



In the specific case being discussed in the article...is there any indication of blackmail, or information suggesting it happened?

Yes/No

Right...so while I agree with you in general, my comment was directly in relation to this specific case/story.


----------



## MilEME09

Eye In The Sky said:


> In the specific case being discussed in the article...is there any indication of blackmail, or information suggesting it happened?
> 
> Yes/No
> 
> right.


If there was, the case would be a lot quieter, NIS and CSIS would be all over it.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

GR66 said:


> It's a pretty vague statement from the original CBC article (Sexual Misconduct Allegations in The CAF) but it states:
> 
> "The sources, however, say the woman in question provided support to the NORAD command team and her performance evaluations had to be approved by both American and Canadian senior staff."
> 
> I guess it's a question of how broadly they are defining the "NORAD command team" and who exactly within the "Canadian senior staff" was providing her performance evaluations, but it does suggest that the relationship may at the very least have been on the fringe of contravening CF policy.



It is pretty vague...but does it fit the DAOD definitions?  



GR66 said:


> So while the relationship might _technically _have been within CF policy regulations it certainly may indicate poor judgement on his part if it was on the fringes of what the CF deems an appropriate relationship and clearly in direct contravention of the policies of our partner and host nation.



Ok, this is the slippery slope part IMO.   The relationship was either in contravention of CAF policy, or it was not.  There is no "technically" until people start using their own (subjective) values and opinions to 'decide'. 

 In the CAF, we are supposed to make administrative decisions (1) based on policy/law/etc and (2) free of biases.  The Mil Admin Law Manual speaks to this fairly clearly.  It's paramount to procedural fairness, which becomes more important as the jeopardy to a mbr/their career increases.

The DAOD is clear;  it is the measuring stick that has to be used, unless someone knows of another actual CAF policy that supersedes it (I don't).

I can only go from the details in the article;  the mbr and his spouse were separated, he entered into a personal relationship and disclosed that relationship.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

MilEME09 said:


> If there was, the case would be a lot quieter, NIS and CSIS would be all over it.



I only know the details that are in the news story (I'd never even heard about this one before a few days ago).


----------



## McG

Eye In The Sky said:


> In the specific case being discussed in the article...is there any indication of blackmail, or information suggesting it happened?


A security breach is a security breach even if an enemy did not exploit it. We are obliged to protect security.

An ethical laps is an ethical laps even if an explicit rule was not broken. We are obliged to be ethical.

I also assume NORAD HQ has a set of standing orders that outline standards of conduct for the binational command . I don’t know this, but my experience with US  formations is that they tend toward documenting their rules even when higher orders have the topic covered. Regardless, I would not hold up the Canadian DAOD and suggest it is both the first and last word governing the conduct of CAF personnel in NORAD.


----------



## kev994

Eye In The Sky said:


> It is pretty vague...but does it fit the DAOD definitions?
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, this is the slippery slope part IMO.   The relationship was either in contravention of CAF policy, or it was not.  There is no "technically" until people start using their own (subjective) values and opinions to 'decide'.
> 
> In the CAF, we are supposed to make administrative decisions (1) based on policy/law/etc and (2) free of biases.  The Mil Admin Law Manual speaks to this fairly clearly.  It's paramount to procedural fairness, which becomes more important as the jeopardy to a mbr/their career increases.
> 
> The DAOD is clear;  it is the measuring stick that has to be used, unless someone knows of another actual CAF policy that supersedes it (I don't).
> 
> I can only go from the details in the article;  the mbr and his spouse were separated, he entered into a personal relationship and disclosed that relationship.


IIRC he was not administratively punished, he resigned. He was removed from an OUTCAN position, but if you’re breaking the Host Nation’s rules, that seems to me as fair.


----------



## Brad Sallows

The CAF has to "fix" sexual misconduct because of its own standards and needs, not because of society's.

The benchmark for "society" is what is tolerated among politicians, who constitute a more diverse representation of people in Canada and upon whom voters get to pass judgement.  Don't kid yourselves that other institutions and corporations are "better" - I grant they do much more virtue signalling, but they too are composed of people.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Happy Guy said:


> Say you were *groped and called by some sexual pejorative name *over 10 years ago and it deeply hurt you, but you knew that your complaint would not be taken seriously so you had to lived with the hurt and the pain.  Now with the climate more conducive to the reporting of sexual misconduct and sexual harassment you now have the opportunity to report it.  Would you not do it, especially if you knew that the aggressor was now in a position of higher rank / power and could or had already sexual harassed more victims?


This is the context I was talking about. Grouping someone is assault, if it happened 30 years ago hammer them if you're inclined to do so. The same goes with targeted harassment.

But what if you heard a joke you didn't like 25 years ago? Or someone drew a penis in the rifle butts while people were blasting away with FNs? Worth while to go after them now?

Thankfully that doesn't appear to be a current trend but it could be very quickly.

Despite all the progress we tell ourselves we made a cursory look at the the golden handshake that was just given to Danny Croucher begs the question how much really changed?



Happy Guy said:


> *From what I'm seeing here is that many men here are on the defensive and empathize with the sexual aggressors because they thought of their past behaviours*


That's quite the accusation. You could also be projecting your own past bad behavior on to others out of a sense or remorse, embarrassment and attempt at absolution.

I doubt it,  but don't forget the narrative built up around defending yourself or disagreeing with a broad statement, it means you're being defensive.


----------



## OldSolduer

Just a question but did the DComd of NORAD declare he had a personal relationship with this other person? 

Maybe its in the details so if this has been answered my apologies.


----------



## SupersonicMax

brihard said:


> Thanks for filling in those details.
> 
> So- there we go, I guess. While we may be seeing stuff through 'yesterday's lens', it seems like that lens is basically the same one we have now. Just better acted on. There's little that's wrong now that wasn't wrong then, at least in orders and directives.


Beyond the rules and more importantly, culture is the issue.  I remember not too long ago (less than 15 years ago) someone saying that women belonged in the kitchen, not in cockpits.  Again, not that long ago, some behaviours (sexual innuendos and sexually charged jokes for examples) were not only tolerated and accepted (by fairly senior officers - Col and some GOFOs back then), but also encouraged as a means to fit in.  If it was indeed encouraged, why are we blaming individuals when the system as a whole is a much bigger culprit?

If we want the rules to work, institutional culture needs to lead the charge.  Otherwise, we are just paying lip service to our policies.  I think that’s what the « Chief, Professional Conduct and *Culture* » is meant to address. And that’s a long process…


----------



## OldSolduer

SupersonicMax said:


> If we want the rules to work, institutional culture needs to lead the charge.  Otherwise, we are just paying lip service to our policies.  I think that’s what the « Chief, Professional Conduct and *Culture* » is meant to address. And that’s a long process…


You're are correct - culture takes a very long time to change. Changing culture of an organization is not a  magic fix, nor is it the making of more regulations and programs etc. 
Its the consistent and fair application of the current regulations (and some future ones because times do change) that will change the culture. It is leadership by example, starting with the CDS and the rest of the NDHQ lot including civilian employees that will eventually see a shift in culture.


----------



## MilEME09

OldSolduer said:


> You're are correct - culture takes a very long time to change. Changing culture of an organization is not a  magic fix, nor is it the making of more regulations and programs etc.
> Its the consistent and fair application of the current regulations (and some future ones because times do change) that will change the culture. It is leadership by example, starting with the CDS and the rest of the NDHQ lot including civilian employees that will eventually see a shift in culture.


Part of that culture shift I think is enhancing our training, I have been very underwhelmed by Op Honor briefings over the years, at this point I wouldn't trust our selves to deliver this kind of training. Atleast in the short term I think we should bring in an outside organization to deliver training regarding sexual misconduct, if nothing else it would atleast look good to the public, and standardize the training in how it's presented.


----------



## daftandbarmy

MilEME09 said:


> Part of that culture shift I think is enhancing our training, I have been very underwhelmed by Op Honor briefings over the years, at this point I wouldn't trust our selves to deliver this kind of training. Atleast in the short term I think we should bring in an outside organization to deliver training regarding sexual misconduct, if nothing else it would atleast look good to the public, and standardize the training in how it's presented.



Or, at least, ensure that something is actually done about complaints.

I have, in the past, 'expressed concerns' to higher about some things I was seeing at my unit and they were ignored.

In one case, luckily, the person concerned scored an Own Goal later on. Others have never been taken to task, and likely never will.


----------



## Furniture

MilEME09 said:


> Part of that culture shift I think is enhancing our training, I have been very underwhelmed by Op Honor briefings over the years, at this point I wouldn't trust our selves to deliver this kind of training. Atleast in the short term I think we should bring in an outside organization to deliver training regarding sexual misconduct, if nothing else it would atleast look good to the public, and standardize the training in how it's presented.


The training needs to be enhanced, for sure. OP Honour briefs I attended were heavy on the "don't commit crimes"(ie. don't rape), and light on the "lets make the workplace better by being professional, and treating each other with respect".

We wasted a lot of time and effort by focusing on the criminal, rather than the cultural. Due to the heavy focus on criminal acts we lost the attention of people who knew they weren't rapists, but perhaps were active participants in the hyper-sexualized culture. 

<helmets on>

I used to tell jokes in the morning pipe at sea that were inappropriate, very inappropriate.... I enjoyed shocking people in the morning. Nobody ever said a word to me about the jokes, until I pushed it a bit far one morning and someone hit the emergency PA to cut me off. Now, my intent wasn't to hurt anyone, but looking back I can see how my jokes would have hurt people. 

Fast forward two years, and my boss assigned me the task of leading the OP Honour guided discussions/brief for my department. When I read through the report, and the material provided, I had my "come to Jesus" moment. I became more aware of how my own actions had a negative impact on others, and with minor adjustments to my behaviour I could make the workplace better for everyone. I tried to focus on the "act like professionals" more than "don't rape" when leading the discussions, and it seemed to be well received. 

<helmets off>

To your point about outside trainers/coaches, the risk is that they focus on the wrong parts, and by doing so just get everyone to tune out.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Furniture said:


> The training needs to be enhanced, for sure. OP Honour briefs I attended were heavy on the "don't commit crimes"(ie. don't rape), and light on the "lets make the workplace better by being professional, and treating each other with respect".



You guys had OP HONOUR briefings?

Cool, I wonder what happened to the ones we were supposed to get?


----------



## Happy Guy

Jarnhamar said:


> That's quite the accusation. You could also be projecting your own past bad behavior on to others out of a sense or remorse, embarrassment and attempt at absolution.
> 
> I doubt it,  but don't forget the narrative built up around defending yourself or disagreeing with a broad statement, it means you're being defensive.


Not an accusation but a comment based on the reactions that I've been reading on this discussion.

I have knowingly made sexist and racists remarks in the past while in uniform, but I have never made unwanted sexual physical contact with a female.  Could my past bad behaviour/actions come back and haunt me?  Possibly.  It depends on whether the victims were hurt, felt victimized or humiliated enough to report it.  I am not proud of it and it was made when I was trying to be someone I am not. No excuse on my part.


----------



## OldSolduer

daftandbarmy said:


> You guys had OP HONOUR briefings?
> 
> Cool, I wonder what happened to the ones we were supposed to get?


We had them regularly.  In the early days of OP Honour (which was not well received by a large number of CAF pers) we had a few infractions. Once the troops knew that this sort of shit wouldn't be tolerated the incidents went down. 

I agree with bringing in an outside agency to do the training with this caveat: whoever it is they better have some kind of street credibility and not some ivory tower professor or activist.


----------



## dapaterson

We'd do extended Op Honour / CAF Ethics program discussions.  They easily lend themselves to crossover discussion.

But the typical Army method of slideshow of doom doesn't work for a topic where you want people to be engaged and involved and talking and listening.

Plus, besides doing an annual "Here are the CO and RSM yammering", there would be company and platoon level discussions later in the training year as well, to reinforce the message, to get leaders at all levels engaged, and to permit discussions without the CO and RSM present.


----------



## Furniture

dapaterson said:


> We'd do extended Op Honour / CAF Ethics program discussions.  They easily lend themselves to crossover discussion.
> 
> But the typical Army method of slideshow of doom doesn't work for a topic where you want people to be engaged and involved and talking and listening.
> 
> Plus, besides doing an annual "Here are the CO and RSM yammering", there would be company and platoon level discussions later in the training year as well, to reinforce the message, to get leaders at all levels engaged, and to permit discussions without the CO and RSM present.


This is why my department did guided discussions with a max attendance of 10, and had a Sgt leading it.  

We had very interesting chats, and could hash out what inappropriate conduct was, without a CWO/MWO in the corner "gargoyling" over things.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Furniture said:


> This is why my department did guided discussions with a max attendance of 10, and had a Sgt leading it.
> 
> We had very interesting chats, and could hash out what inappropriate conduct was, without a CWO/MWO in the corner *"gargoyling" over things*.



#awesomephraseoftheday


----------



## Eye In The Sky

McG said:


> A security breach is a security breach even if an enemy did not exploit it. We are obliged to protect security.
> 
> An ethical laps is an ethical laps even if an explicit rule was not broken. We are obliged to be ethical.
> 
> I also assume NORAD HQ has a set of standing orders that outline standards of conduct for the binational command . I don’t know this, but my experience with US  formations is that they tend toward documenting their rules even when higher orders have the topic covered. Regardless, I would not hold up the Canadian DAOD and suggest it is both the first and last word governing the conduct of CAF personnel in NORAD.



What security breech?  (I only know the details the article provide)

The article says (1) the mbr was separated when he entered into the relationship and (2) the relationship was reported to his CofC on 29 Dec 2019 and (3) the woman was working outside of the lieutenant-general's direct chain of command.

Ethical lapse;  I don't disagree there (my own [subjective] opinion), specifically on the Integrity value/behaviour (1.1, 1.3, 1.4).  But, that is my own subjective opinion that seems to contradict the DAOD and, while I understand what you're saying about NORAD SOs, CAF policy should be the meter stick used primarily for admin decisions in the CAF, IMO.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

MilEME09 said:


> Part of that culture shift I think is enhancing our training, I have been very underwhelmed by Op Honor briefings over the years, at this point I wouldn't trust our selves to deliver this kind of training. Atleast in the short term I think we should bring in an outside organization to deliver training regarding sexual misconduct, if nothing else it would atleast look good to the public, and standardize the training in how it's presented.



I'll offer the completely opposite side of the coin.  We NEED to be the ones delivering this awareness, trg and change; the uniformed leadership, at all levels.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Furniture said:


> This is why my department did guided discussions with a max attendance of 10, and had a Sgt leading it.
> 
> We had very interesting chats, and could hash out what inappropriate conduct was, without a CWO/MWO in the corner "gargoyling" over things.



And then the troops see someone in the coc break the rules and get a slap on the wrist or it get swept under the rug.


----------



## MilEME09

Eye In The Sky said:


> I'll offer the completely opposite side of the coin.  We NEED to be the ones delivering this awareness, trg and change; the uniformed leadership, at all levels.


Do you think the government and the Canadian public trust us to handle this by our selves? I do not think so at this point


----------



## Takeniteasy

Furniture said:


> The training needs to be enhanced, for sure. OP Honour briefs I attended were heavy on the "don't commit crimes"(ie. don't rape), and light on the "lets make the workplace better by being professional, and treating each other with respect".
> 
> We wasted a lot of time and effort by focusing on the criminal, rather than the cultural. Due to the heavy focus on criminal acts we lost the attention of people who knew they weren't rapists, but perhaps were active participants in the hyper-sexualized culture.
> 
> <helmets on>
> 
> I used to tell jokes in the morning pipe at sea that were inappropriate, very inappropriate.... I enjoyed shocking people in the morning. Nobody ever said a word to me about the jokes, until I pushed it a bit far one morning and someone hit the emergency PA to cut me off. Now, my intent wasn't to hurt anyone, but looking back I can see how my jokes would have hurt people.
> 
> Fast forward two years, and my boss assigned me the task of leading the OP Honour guided discussions/brief for my department. When I read through the report, and the material provided, I had my "come to Jesus" moment. I became more aware of how my own actions had a negative impact on others, and with minor adjustments to my behaviour I could make the workplace better for everyone. I tried to focus on the "act like professionals" more than "don't rape" when leading the discussions, and it seemed to be well received.
> 
> <helmets off>
> 
> To your point about outside trainers/coaches, the risk is that they focus on the wrong parts, and by doing so just get everyone to tune out.


When I left the CAF in 2012 part of my grievance (denied at the end) was to ask for education and awareness across the board. To your admission of inappropriate jokes/comments/attitudes I wrote that one incident would not deem any systemic concern but when you encounter it at many levels and from different people you begin to see how this could erode the integrity and credibility of administrative measures the CAF has put in place.



OldSolduer said:


> We had them regularly.  In the early days of OP Honour (which was not well received by a large number of CAF pers) we had a few infractions. Once the troops knew that this sort of shit wouldn't be tolerated the incidents went down.
> 
> I agree with bringing in an outside agency to do the training with this caveat: whoever it is they better have some kind of street credibility and not some ivory tower professor or activist.





Eye In The Sky said:


> I'll offer the completely opposite side of the coin.  We NEED to be the ones delivering this awareness, trg and change; the uniformed leadership, at all levels.





MilEME09 said:


> Do you think the government and the Canadian public trust us to handle this by our selves? I do not think so at this point


In regards to who best to accomplish this movement towards a more respectful professional environment, it may already be in place if the Restorative Component of the agreed Class Action is utilized to its fullest potential. CAF has set up a mechanism for any member to come forward and participate in these facilitated discussions with former/current members who have direct experience. These experiences will run the spectrum and they will hold "street cred" due to the person sharing being either a former of current member. 

As for only having uniformed leadership delivering the awareness you will continue to perpetuate the internalizing of constructive dismissal and institutional gaslighting internalizations. 

I wanted to continue my career past achieving WO and at 41 but did not see a path, I still for some strange reason want to praise what CAF actually does and not just what's highlighted in the MSM. I may be idealistic but the realities have shown that broader measures are needed.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Eye In The Sky said:


> The DAOD is clear;  it is the measuring stick that has to be used, unless someone knows of another actual CAF policy that supersedes it (I don't).
> 
> I can only go from the details in the article;  the mbr and his spouse were separated, he entered into a personal relationship and disclosed that relationship.


The issue isn't really that he broke DAOD regs (which he may or may not have, depending on your faith in the MND announcement clearing him previously and the reported ongoing investigation); he was on exchange in the US and broke their regs/codes of conduct. Even if he followed our rules, they clearly felt it was inappropriate.

We expect juniour folks to make better judgements than that on exchange, why shouldn't there be repercussions when you do something that gets the 4 star US commander of NORAD calling our diplomats to replace someone for f&cking up? And if you are too stupid to look up local policies for relationships within the picket lines, probably shouldn't be a GOFO (which I don't think is the case here, for the record). So either he knew the regs, and didn't think they applied to him, or he couldn't be arsed to look them up, but neither are really a strong argument that he was fit for that job.

I'm sure General Coates was hyper competent and everything else required to get to the GOFO rank, but doesn't mean this wasn't a colossally bad idea. The consequences are a lot higher when you are a GOFO, and doesn't matter what country you are from when you are embedded in another military, if their local requirements exceed the CAFs, you follow the higher ones. That was the expectation for us when we were over doing training with the RN as SLts, seems pretty simple. GOFOs should be exceeding that basic expectation without anyone having to tell them.

Doesn't really matter if you agree with the US regs on adultery and interpersonal relationships, but that's he fell under when he made the decision, and that's what caused the issue, and why they wanted him gone.

Aside from that though, really difficult for there to not be the potential for a significant power imbalance even if she wasn't in his direct chain, and it's pretty easy to see favouritism (or punishment when things break up) causing a bunch of dissatisfaction in the unit when she's dating someone who her supervisors at least indirectly report to. So even if he technically followed the rules of the DAODs, doesn't mean it wouldn't have had an impact on unit morale here at a Canadian unit, and not really groundbreaking to expect the big giant heads to look outside their small pond for relationships as a result.


----------



## SupersonicMax

He wasn’t on exchange.


----------



## McG

Navy_Pete said:


> he was on exchange in the US


NORAD is a bi-national command. CAF personnel in NORAD are not on exchange.


----------



## KevinB

Happy Guy said:


> From what I'm seeing here is that many men here are on the defensive and empathize with the sexual aggressors because they thought of their past behaviours and are thinking why I patted that women's butt in the bar/mess and I could be investigated and charged.  Most women will not pursue this unless you were persistent, overly aggressive and/or had scaled up the physical touching.  Most guys/women will stop if told "NO!" and the matter would be dropped.


 I agree with the rest of your comments - but I felt I had to take an issue with this.

I think Most people who served or still serve in the CF are somewhat cynical based on previous issues that have been pushed heavily.

Do you remember the "Stop all work and search for the 'missing' Somalia documents.  Clearly they had been hidden/shredded or otherwise nefariously dealt with - but across the world the CF stopped work and searched all desks, drawers, filing cabinets etc.
  There where other issues as well when the bizarre was conducted to "make a show of it".

If it was just focused on punishing the guilty - then I doubt many would care, but when one starts looking for witches - a lot of innocent (or at least not criminally guilty) folks also get burned.


----------



## daftandbarmy

KevinB said:


> I agree with the rest of your comments - but I felt I had to take an issue with this.
> 
> I think Most people who served or still serve in the CF are somewhat cynical based on previous issues that have been pushed heavily.
> 
> *Do you remember the "Stop all work and search for the 'missing' Somalia documents. * Clearly they had been hidden/shredded or otherwise nefariously dealt with - but across the world the CF stopped work and searched all desks, drawers, filing cabinets etc.
> There where other issues as well when the bizarre was conducted to "make a show of it".
> 
> If it was just focused on punishing the guilty - then I doubt many would care, but when one starts looking for witches - a lot of innocent (or at least not criminally guilty) folks also get burned.



You mean:

'That point in time where I first was embarrassed to be a soldier.'

Yes, I remember. And no, there were no Somalia files in OC A Coy's Office at the armoury in New Westminster.


----------



## Happy Guy

My comment was made after reading what people were posting on this discussion board.  This was my impression, but I'm opened to having my mind changed.  I wasn't looking to falsely accusing them of being witches and burning them at the stake.  What I was trying to do, and it failed, was to make people think more about the victim's circumstances.

I, too, get cynical and I must admit that I'm tired of this gov't's attitude and virtue signalling.  

I was at HQ 2 CMBG when the order was given to stop everything and search for all documents related to Somalia.  I remember that we didn't find anything of consequence but these documents were handed over to the commission.  I was in Petawawa when the CAR was disbanded and watching bloody reporters hunting for anyone in a maroon beret to comment.  I do respect the fourth estate but I have contempt for many of the unprepared and unprofessional reporters that I have encountered over the years.

I'm afraid that this whole affair will continue on for a while and the same time our credibility as an institution takes another beating.


----------



## KevinB

Happy Guy said:


> What I was trying to do, and it failed, was to make people think more about the victim's circumstances.


 From my perspective - that is the key.  



Happy Guy said:


> I, too, get cynical and I must admit that I'm tired of this gov't's attitude and virtue signalling.


My concern is a lot of show will be done, and no real go -- thus there will be more victims, and no help to current and future victims.


Happy Guy said:


> I'm afraid that this whole affair will continue on for a while and the same time our credibility as an institution takes another beating.


That's my 0.02 as well.


----------



## OldSolduer

daftandbarmy said:


> You mean:
> 
> 'That point in time where I first was embarrassed to be a soldier.'
> 
> Yes, I remember. And no, there were no Somalia files in OC A Coy's Office at the armoury in New Westminster.



No file found in B Coy Tpt 2VP either after an extensive search of about seven minutes,


----------



## dapaterson

At my old Reserve unit, as a 2Lt I did hand in one file referring to Somalia to the unit Adjt (recently posted in from Petawawa).  His eyes went wide, then he called me an asshole when he opened the folder to see a copy of the CANFORGEN ordering the search.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

MilEME09 said:


> Do you think the government and the Canadian public trust us to handle this by our selves? I do not think so at this point



There's what....6 General/Flag officers who are under the spotlight right now (give or take...).

There's....what....70k members of the CAF, give or take.  That's a pretty small percentage, and I know some exemplary Officers, including one BGen who was my CO and WComd previous, who are DEFINITELY capable of leading the CAF in the direction it needs to go.

I'd say the same for my current CO, and WComd.  

The entire CAF isn't 'guilty by association'.  We need to get THAT message out as well and I'm disappointed that message isn't being sounded louder by current CAF snr leadership.


----------



## KevinB

Eye In The Sky said:


> The entire CAF isn't 'guilty by association'.  We need to get THAT message out as well and I'm disappointed that message isn't being sounded louder by current CAF snr leadership.


The problem with that messaging, is it effectively minimizes the issues at hand -- as well given some of the current GOFO in the spotlight, and others, it can look like an attempt to sweep it under the rug - as well it puts a target on anyone trying that from those who maybe have an axe to grind with the CF and are using this for their own means.

You need to point out 1) It is a Serious issue 2) Previous attempts haven't gone deep enough 3) That all members of the CF are best served by Sexual Assault and Harassment being dealt with strenuously - and close with 4) The majority of CF personnel are law abiding respectful people, who find these activities just as appalling as anyone out of uniform, if not more...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Navy_Pete said:


> The issue isn't really that he broke DAOD regs (which he may or may not have, depending on your faith in the MND announcement clearing him previously and the reported ongoing investigation); he was on exchange in the US and broke their regs/codes of conduct. Even if he followed our rules, they clearly felt it was inappropriate.



As a CAF member, the CAF rules don't apply if I/you/anyone is outside of our national borders?

If he followed "our" rules, and the American's don't like them....so?  What if an OUTCAN mbr home on leave, in Canada, from a US posting and used recreational cannabis (which our regs allow for) and the US General has a meltdown on the mbr's return?



Navy_Pete said:


> We expect juniour folks to make better judgements than that on exchange, why shouldn't there be repercussions when you do something that gets the 4 star US commander of NORAD calling our diplomats to replace someone for f&cking up? And if you are too stupid to look up local policies for relationships within the picket lines, probably shouldn't be a GOFO (which I don't think is the case here, for the record). So either he knew the regs, and didn't think they applied to him, or he couldn't be arsed to look them up, but neither are really a strong argument that he was fit for that job.
> 
> I'm sure General Coates was hyper competent and everything else required to get to the GOFO rank, but doesn't mean this wasn't a colossally bad idea. The consequences are a lot higher when you are a GOFO, and doesn't matter what country you are from when you are embedded in another military, if their local requirements exceed the CAFs, you follow the higher ones. That was the expectation for us when we were over doing training with the RN as SLts, seems pretty simple. GOFOs should be exceeding that basic expectation without anyone having to tell them.



I agree this was probably a bad idea, but...where is the CAF policy that states the rest of this para?  Because if it isn't policy, it's hard to hold a mbr to account.   The Statement of Defence Ethics and DAOD are vague, IMO, while the Personal Relationships one is pretty detailed.



Navy_Pete said:


> Doesn't really matter if you agree with the US regs on adultery and interpersonal relationships, but that's he fell under when he made the decision, and that's what caused the issue, and why they wanted him gone.



I disagree; the mbr 'fell under' CAF policies and regulations IMO.  If an AR was done, would it be void of review/application of CAF policy?  I highly doubt it.



Navy_Pete said:


> Aside from that though, really difficult for there to not be the potential for a significant power imbalance even if she wasn't in his direct chain, and it's pretty easy to see favouritism (or punishment when things break up) causing a bunch of dissatisfaction in the unit when she's dating someone who her supervisors at least indirectly report to. So even if he technically followed the rules of the DAODs, doesn't mean it wouldn't have had an impact on unit morale here at a Canadian unit, and not really groundbreaking to expect the big giant heads to look outside their small pond for relationships as a result.



What "power imbalance"? 

The CAF manages this, at least some units.  I've had COs who were married to Snr NCMs;  not directly in the CofC.  I've been in units where husbands and wives are wearing the same Sqn patch....even been on the same crew briefly....and not in the direct CofC of each other (14 or so people on the crew).  

This isn't new, it isn't rocket science...if we could make it work on a CREW who all worked inside the same aircraft....surely it's possible for it to work in NORAD HQs.  It's not a new thing either;  my Basic platoon in '89, one of my MCpls was a Medic, who was married to a Lt(N) Nurse.  NORAD is surely bigger than CFRS Cornwallis was.

I'm not arguing in support of the General;  I'm challenging the subjective way people are judging his actions.  "Technically, he might not have broken CAF policy but....".  Everything after the _but _is an issue;  it's saying "but my own personal opinion is" and that is not how we're supposed to assess people.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

KevinB said:


> The problem with that messaging, is it effectively minimizes the issues at hand -- as well given some of the current GOFO in the spotlight, and others, it can look like an attempt to sweep it under the rug - as well it puts a target on anyone trying that from those who maybe have an axe to grind with the CF and are using this for their own means.
> 
> You need to point out 1) It is a Serious issue 2) Previous attempts haven't gone deep enough 3) That all members of the CF are best served by Sexual Assault and Harassment being dealt with strenuously - and close with 4) The majority of CF personnel are law abiding respectful people, who find these activities just as appalling as anyone out of uniform, if not more...



You're right, and I didn't intend for my post to make it sound like you're #4 is the only, main or most important message.  I'd just like to see it as part of the message.


----------



## Good2Golf

Eye In The Sky said:


> The entire CAF isn't 'guilty by association'.  We need to get THAT message out as well and I'm disappointed that message isn't being sounded louder by current CAF snr leadership.


That would be seen by many as nothing other than refusal by CAF leadership to acknowledge the severity of the issue.  

Even if let’s say 6:70,000 known to be under investigation is less than, let’s say…(at least) 1:338 ultimate national leaders/represent era confirmed to have behaved in an unacceptable way by sexually assaulting a civilian, it doesn’t matter. CAF is the organization in the spotlight, and it must ne seen to be actively working to better itself through acknowledgement of the issue and take concrete steps to at the very least, live up to conduct what is reinforced by quite comprehensive existing legislation to otherwise address inappropriate sexualized conduct.  Clearly culture is the issue at heart, not regulations.  Reasonable regulations have existed since the 80s…it’s just that the culture of the CAF is that far too many members, the majority males (but not monopolistically), have not been dealt with suitably and sufficiently.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

It's not fair, necessarily, but I guess it is reality. 

I still believe it is the serving members who need to lead the CAF in change;  time will tell if that will be the COA selected.


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:


> There's what....6 General/Flag officers who are under the spotlight right now (give or take...).


11.



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sexual-misconduct-military-senior-leaders-dnd-caf-1.6218683


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I think I liked it a little better when I was (obviously) not keeping a running tally.   😁


----------



## kev994

Eye In The Sky said:


> There's what....6 General/Flag officers who are under the spotlight right now (give or take...).
> 
> There's....what....70k members of the CAF, give or take.  That's a pretty small percentage, and I know some exemplary Officers, including one BGen who was my CO and WComd previous, who are DEFINITELY capable of leading the CAF in the direction it needs to go.
> 
> I'd say the same for my current CO, and WComd.
> 
> The entire CAF isn't 'guilty by association'.  We need to get THAT message out as well and I'm disappointed that message isn't being sounded louder by current CAF snr leadership.


CBC counted 11, but 2 of those were ‘guilty’ of playing golf with Vance, so let’s say somewhere between 9 and 11. But there aren’t 70,000 GOFOs, there’s ~135 or something like that. So 7-8% of GOFOs in the CAF are directly involved in a scandal. Seems pretty serious to me.


----------



## kev994

Eye In The Sky said:


> What if an OUTCAN mbr home on leave, in Canada, from a US posting and used recreational cannabis (which our regs allow for) and the US General has a meltdown on the mbr's return?


Before I went OUTCAN I had to sign an acknowledgment that Uncle SAM had their own rules and that breaking some of those would get me kicked out of the position.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

kev994 said:


> CBC counted 11, but 2 of those were ‘guilty’ of playing golf with Vance, so let’s say somewhere between 9 and 11. But there aren’t 70,000 GOFOs, there’s ~135 or something like that. So 7-8% of GOFOs in the CAF are directly involved in a scandal. Seems pretty serious to me.



7-8% of that one group, so pretty serious for that group.  What % is 9 of 70,000?  That is "the CAF".  

I'm not saying "it is not a big deal", because it is.  I'm saying "the entire CAF isn't represented by those 9-11...or "the average CAF member isn't like those 9 to 11 members".

I know, we all know that.  I just wish...everyone else did, I guess.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

kev994 said:


> Before I went OUTCAN I had to sign an acknowledgment that Uncle SAM had their own rules and that breaking some of those would get me kicked out of the position.



Was there a 'personal relationship' component to that (if you can/should answer that...)?


----------



## kev994

Eye In The Sky said:


> 7-8% of that one group, so pretty serious for that group.  What % is 9 of 70,000?  That is "the CAF".
> 
> I'm not saying "it is not a big deal", because it is.  I'm saying "the entire CAF isn't represented by those 9-11...or "the average CAF member isn't like those 9 to 11 members".
> 
> I know, we all know that.  I just wish...everyone else did, I guess.


The rest of the CAF doesn’t get reported on CBC though, so it’s not 9 of 70,000, there’s bound to be more cases that CBC doesn’t care about.


----------



## kev994

Eye In The Sky said:


> Was there a 'personal relationship' component to that (if you can/should answer that...)?


It was 5 years ago so it’s pretty fuzzy but I think it was only a couple paragraphs so I doubt it went into that much detail.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

kev994 said:


> The rest of the CAF doesn’t get reported on CBC though



They do...if it's _bad_.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Eye In The Sky said:


> They do...if it's _bad_.


They don’t if they go golfing with their friend that is under investigation or if they exposed themselves 30 years ago.  Even for bad things, it rarely makes it to the media.  Look at the court martial list to have an idea.


----------



## Weinie

dapaterson said:


> At my old Reserve unit, as a 2Lt I did hand in one file referring to Somalia to the unit Adjt (recently posted in from Petawawa).  His eyes went wide, then he called me an asshole when he opened the folder to see a copy of the CANFORGEN ordering the search.


My buddy and I, after an exhaustive search through multiple G3 filing cabinets, said "Fuck it," and wrote "Somalia" on a piece of foolscap, which we duly submitted.

And don't get me started on the lead up to, investigations and eventual CAR disbandment.. I was having a relatively happy night until I jumped on this thread.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

SupersonicMax said:


> They don’t if they go golfing with their friend that is under investigation or if they exposed themselves 30 years ago.  Even for bad things, it rarely makes it to the media.  Look at the court martial list to have an idea.



Fair point.   The news does report on the bigger ones, though;  neo-nazi ties, ex-Rangers driving thru gates in the NCR, MWOs putting camera's in washrooms...

Whatever the way ahead will be, there's many thousands of us who will 'lead' at our various levels.  I hope, someday, THAT will be recognized by the media, as well (not holding my breath...).


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Weinie said:


> My buddy and I, after an exhaustive search through multiple G3 filing cabinets, said "Fuck it," and wrote "Somalia" on a piece of foolscap, which we duly submitted.
> 
> And don't get me started on the lead up to, investigations and eventual CAR disbandment.. I was having a relatively happy night until I jumped on this thread.



I remember watching a lot of the testimony on CPAC (I think) during the Somalia Inquiry;  many of the NCOs who testified did not help their cause any.

I also remember, clearly, the morning Collenette announced the disbandment and the words used.  I'd met some very professional soldiers and Officers in '92 from the CAR;  staff at CABC, some guys who were on their JM crse while I was there on BP.  Collateral damage....


----------



## Weinie

Eye In The Sky said:


> I remember watching a lot of the testimony on CPAC (I think) during the Somalia Inquiry;  *many of the NCOs who testified did not help their cause any.*
> 
> I also remember, clearly, the morning Collenette announced the disbandment and the words used.  I'd met some very professional soldiers and Officers in '92 from the CAR;  staff at CABC, some guys who were on their JM crse while I was there on BP.  Collateral damage....


But the utter lack of knowledge on the part of the Commissioners, during the Inquiry, of anything CAF and CAR didn't help the Canadian public reach a reasoned judgement either. I watched every second of the Inquiry, sometimes two and three times, as I was tasked to give a recap at the end of the day. The cherry picking of quotes, without the added context, was sickening.

I will never excuse two Canadian soldiers for beating a 16 year old to death. It was shameful. I will also never excuse the sensationalism that manifested on the CAR and the CAF. It also was shameful.


----------



## FJAG

Weinie said:


> But the utter lack of knowledge on the part of the Commissioners, during the Inquiry, of anything CAF and CAR didn't help the Canadian public reach a reasoned judgement either. I watched every second of the Inquiry, sometimes two and three times, as I was tasked to give a recap at the end of the day. The cherry picking of quotes, without the added context, was sickening.
> 
> I will never excuse two Canadian soldiers for beating a 16 year old to death. It was shameful. I will also never excuse the sensationalism that manifested on the CAR and the CAF. It also was shameful.


I'll second that. I represented one of the parties at his Court Martial Appeal Hearing and at the Inquiry. Had to browse through all the documents and watched the testimony. Was very glad when they shut it down just before my guy's phase of the hearing.

My point of view may have been a bit influenced by my role but I felt that there was just a tad of piling on happening from both outside and inside the department.

🍻


----------



## KevinB

Weinie said:


> But the utter lack of knowledge on the part of the Commissioners, during the Inquiry, of anything CAF and CAR didn't help the Canadian public reach a reasoned judgement either. I watched every second of the Inquiry, sometimes two and three times, as I was tasked to give a recap at the end of the day. The cherry picking of quotes, without the added context, was sickening.
> 
> I will never excuse two Canadian soldiers for beating a 16 year old to death. It was shameful. I will also never excuse the sensationalism that manifested on the CAR and the CAF. It also was shameful.


Also a lot of CF GOFO and Senior Officers had knives out for the Regiment.

I brought up the painful memories because this current debacle reminds me of it.


----------



## OldSolduer

KevinB said:


> Also a lot of CF GOFO and Senior Officers had knives out for the Regiment.
> 
> I brought up the painful memories because this current debacle reminds me of it.


You will find - hell you know this already - that SOF are not always well thought of by non SOF types. I have no idea why. Jealousy? Envy?


----------



## KevinB

OldSolduer said:


> You will find - hell you know this already - that SOF are not always well thought of by non SOF types. I have no idea why. Jealousy? Envy?


I think some people believed that white wings was a requirement to higher command and success, which made a Have/Have Not aspect - then with the CAR gone - there seems to be some similar thoughts on having a SOF background a a ticket punch.


   All three Regiments violently protected the command cycle of the CAR - and when LCol. Morneault was sacked for incompetence - the Vandoos got an equally incompetent CO in as a replacement - as their time "wasn't over" (Carol Mathieu replaced Morneault) - and the track toad mafia decided they would benefit from the Regiment being gone, and to strike while the getting was good.

(Oh and shocker a CDS destroyed evidence back then too) -- the fact that since 1997 at the conclusion of the Somalia Inquiry 
_After the events the leaders of the Canadian Forces had been far more concerned with self-preservation than in trying to find the truth. The inquiry report singled out Major-General Lewis MacKenzie as a major exception, as he took full responsibility for any errors he made._


I mean holy fuck batman - 1997, it was pointed out that CF GOFO's have been full of crap for a large part - did not one stop to think, WTF is wrong -- or since Politicians where the same way - they never batted an eye.


Frankly at any GOFO level - what qual courses etc you have done earlier don't really mean a shit -- look at Gen Petraeus (okay having the affair was stupid) non SOF background - and understood COIN a lot better than most SOF GOFO - AND then look at our (US) current CJCS Gen Mark Milley - who with both long tab and short tabs, can't find his way to a spine.
    Obviously its hard to be a CO of a Para unit without being a jumper - but you need to put the correct people in the seats, based on their ability and skill -- not a course they took 20 years ago - or a unit they where in 15 years ago...


----------



## daftandbarmy

KevinB said:


> I think some people believed that white wings was a requirement to higher command and success, which made a Have/Have Not aspect - then with the CAR gone - there seems to be some similar thoughts on having a SOF background a a ticket punch.



The British Army had this problem, and might still. 

We had the occasional Officer transfer in to the Parachute Regiment from a 'Hat' unit (they had to pass P Company first, of course) and suffered under their - generally crappy - leadership.

Often they turned out to be 'users' who built their careers on the backs of the huddled masses, and frequently sported shoulder chips they defended with a variety of bizarre behaviour. Being mainly self-centred they were never trusted, and we breathed a sigh of relief when they were promoted upwards and away from us, or killed in action as happened occasionally.

Yes, we celebrated the untimely death of selfish bullies. Oh well, how sad...

All that to say the 'special' units need to guard the gates a little closer to make sure that socio-paths like these don't find their way in during their personal career enhancement missions.


----------



## MilEME09

KevinB said:


> I think some people believed that white wings was a requirement to higher command and success, which made a Have/Have Not aspect - then with the CAR gone - there seems to be some similar thoughts on having a SOF background a a ticket punch.
> 
> 
> All three Regiments violently protected the command cycle of the CAR - and when LCol. Morneault was sacked for incompetence - the Vandoos got an equally incompetent CO in as a replacement - as their time "wasn't over" (Carol Mathieu replaced Morneault) - and the track toad mafia decided they would benefit from the Regiment being gone, and to strike while the getting was good.
> 
> (Oh and shocker a CDS destroyed evidence back then too) -- the fact that since 1997 at the conclusion of the Somalia Inquiry
> _After the events the leaders of the Canadian Forces had been far more concerned with self-preservation than in trying to find the truth. The inquiry report singled out Major-General Lewis MacKenzie as a major exception, as he took full responsibility for any errors he made._
> 
> 
> I mean holy fuck batman - 1997, it was pointed out that CF GOFO's have been full of crap for a large part - did not one stop to think, WTF is wrong -- or since Politicians where the same way - they never batted an eye.
> 
> 
> Frankly at any GOFO level - what qual courses etc you have done earlier don't really mean a shit -- look at Gen Petraeus (okay having the affair was stupid) non SOF background - and understood COIN a lot better than most SOF GOFO - AND then look at our (US) current CJCS Gen Mark Milley - who with both long tab and short tabs, can't find his way to a spine.
> Obviously its hard to be a CO of a Para unit without being a jumper - but you need to put the correct people in the seats, based on their ability and skill -- not a course they took 20 years ago - or a unit they where in 15 years ago...


I think the new PACE system will go a long way to start fixing our PER system that has allowed people who look good in paper but are actually a dog's breakfest in actuality.


----------



## dimsum

MilEME09 said:


> I think the new PACE system will go a long way to start fixing our PER system that has allowed people who look good in paper but are actually a dog's breakfest in actuality.


Hopefully.


----------



## OldSolduer

MilEME09 said:


> I think the new PACE system will go a long way to start fixing our PER system that has allowed people who look good in paper but are actually a dog's breakfest in actuality.


I don't recall how many times the PER system has changed to prevent the average person's PER being overinflated and the dunderheads being made average to avoid defending an adverse PER - all because nothing was documented. 

There will be system gamers, you can count on that.


----------



## FJAG

OldSolduer said:


> I don't recall how many times the PER system has changed to prevent the average person's PER being overinflated and the dunderheads being made average to avoid defending an adverse PER - all because nothing was documented.
> 
> There will be system gamers, you can count on that.


Any performance evaluation system that does not have a scoring method will make it extremely difficult to rank candidates.

Any performance evaluation system with a scoring method can, and will be, gamed.

There are hundreds of articles about why performance appraisal systems fail. Unfortunately most of them recommend a new methodology which eventually will also fail.

🍻


----------



## OldSolduer

FJAG said:


> Any performance evaluation system that does not have a scoring method will make it extremely difficult to rank candidates.
> 
> Any performance evaluation system with a scoring method can, and will be, gamed.
> 
> There are hundreds of articles about why performance appraisal systems fail. Unfortunately most of them recommend a new methodology which eventually will also fail.
> 
> 🍻


And thus keep valuable people employed inventing new systems where they could be employed elsewhere.

AND more importantly keeps us retired geezer crayon eaters entertained......


----------



## daftandbarmy

Fowler's latest. IMHO it's nicely on target in a variety of areas:

"I left the CF because I cannot abide bullies.

Last Monday (25 October 2021), Murray Brewster, of the CBC, reported on statements made by the Acting Chief of the Defence Staff (A/CDS), General Wayne Eyre, at the Kingston Conference on International Security.  The crux of the article was the difficulty the Canadian Forces (CF) is facing in the twin objectives of retention and recruiting.

According to General Eyre, “We need our mid-level leaders to dig deep and do this for the institution, to put service before self, not to retreat into retirement but to advance forward and face the challenges head-on …”.  General Eyre also observed that morale is low among officers, upon whom he must rely to ‘rebuild’ the institution, as Murray Brewster put it: “… in the wake of the sexual misconduct crisis.”

Respectfully, that’s not actually the crisis that the CF is facing.   Yes, that’s the crisis that has caught the eye of the Canadian public at the urging of repeated (and, sometimes, less than objective) reporting by news media.  This is often the same news media that group all of the General Officers and Flag Officers (GOFO), who have faced criticism, together, in one homogenous group, even though the allegations against them vary significantly both in terms of nature and merit.  And some of those allegations are not for ‘sexual misconduct’.  And the Canadian public has certainly not had a full sounding of all relevant facts and factors.  Unfortunately, that is what arises when some reporters abandon the role of reporting objectively on the news, and instead adopt the role of advocate."

"While some suggest that the CF is facing a crisis of sexual misconduct, I contend that the CF faces a greater crisis regarding decision-making.  The senior leadership is largely reactive to the advocacy of select news media.  Amidst the pursuit of ‘culture change’ within the CF, the senior leadership is failing to promote a culture of justification in public decision-making.  Instead, it is retreating to the security of condemnation based upon an arbitrary and one-sided approach to decision-making.  And the CF leadership is not alone in that approach."









						I left the CF because I cannot abide bullies …
					

I left the CF because I cannot abide bullies.  Last Monday (25 October 2021), Murray Brewster, of the CBC, reported on statements made by the Acting Chief of the Defence Staff (A/CDS), General Wayne Eyre, at the Kingston Conference on International Security.  The crux of the article was the...




					roryfowlerlaw.com


----------



## Eye In The Sky

MilEME09 said:


> I think the new PACE system will go a long way to start fixing our PER system that has allowed people who look good in paper but are actually a dog's breakfest in actuality.



I sincerely hope no one is putting their faith in PaCE to sort out leadership issues and "mafias" in the CAF...PaCE is the guy, the CAFs problems are the balls....  😁


----------



## Eye In The Sky

daftandbarmy said:


> Fowler's latest. IMHO it's nicely on target in a variety of areas:
> 
> "I left the CF because I cannot abide bullies.
> 
> Last Monday (25 October 2021), Murray Brewster, of the CBC, reported on statements made by the Acting Chief of the Defence Staff (A/CDS), General Wayne Eyre, at the Kingston Conference on International Security.  The crux of the article was the difficulty the Canadian Forces (CF) is facing in the twin objectives of retention and recruiting.
> 
> According to General Eyre, “We need our mid-level leaders to dig deep and do this for the institution, to put service before self, not to retreat into retirement but to advance forward and face the challenges head-on …”.  General Eyre also observed that morale is low among officers, upon whom he must rely to ‘rebuild’ the institution, as Murray Brewster put it: “… in the wake of the sexual misconduct crisis.”
> 
> Respectfully, that’s not actually the crisis that the CF is facing.   Yes, that’s the crisis that has caught the eye of the Canadian public at the urging of repeated (and, sometimes, less than objective) reporting by news media.  This is often the same news media that group all of the General Officers and Flag Officers (GOFO), who have faced criticism, together, in one homogenous group, even though the allegations against them vary significantly both in terms of nature and merit.  And some of those allegations are not for ‘sexual misconduct’.  And the Canadian public has certainly not had a full sounding of all relevant facts and factors.  Unfortunately, that is what arises when some reporters abandon the role of reporting objectively on the news, and instead adopt the role of advocate."
> 
> "While some suggest that the CF is facing a crisis of sexual misconduct, I contend that the CF faces a greater crisis regarding decision-making.  The senior leadership is largely reactive to the advocacy of select news media.  Amidst the pursuit of ‘culture change’ within the CF, the senior leadership is failing to promote a culture of justification in public decision-making.  Instead, it is retreating to the security of condemnation based upon an arbitrary and one-sided approach to decision-making.  And the CF leadership is not alone in that approach."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I left the CF because I cannot abide bullies …
> 
> 
> I left the CF because I cannot abide bullies.  Last Monday (25 October 2021), Murray Brewster, of the CBC, reported on statements made by the Acting Chief of the Defence Staff (A/CDS), General Wayne Eyre, at the Kingston Conference on International Security.  The crux of the article was the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> roryfowlerlaw.com



I had to think about replying to this post, and article.

I'm a 'victim' of the type of admin decision making described in the article and living, walking proof what is described in the article re: adverse/unfair admin decision making happens.  It happened to me, which means it also happened to my wife.  For 3 years.  3 years of our lives, stained and ruined because of a handful of Senior Officers and CWOs who had an agenda.

I had a clear case, in which any reasonable IA would have granted redress, based on clearly worded, black and white policy.  The IA (Comd RCAF) analyst was in direct communications with my CO.  The analyst blew past any and all mandated timelines in the grievance process;  "mulligan" doesn't begin to describe it.  It got to the point about the 1.5 - 2 year mark, my wife contacted and was in communications with the MND, then Minister MacKay.  His office inquired down, and eventually the question was answered by the very people who were fucking me about on the Air Staff;  with disclosure, I was able to see their direct reply to the MND staff.

After 2 years and change, I was provided the IA decision and rationale.  It was void of any real policy I'd provided, and denied "because", basically.  I did not hesitate to direct the IA to forward to the FA.

Luck was on my side;  DGCFGA opted to forward my file to the Grievance Board;  several months later, they produced a 22 page Finding and Recommendation for the FA;  they were very critical of how my file was handled by the unit, and were not kind in their assessment of the IA decision and rationale.

The F & R closed with words to the effect of "_rarely do we see files of this nature, where the member is still serving and the CAF has the ability to correct a gross injustice to our most important asset;  Canadians who serve Canada.  This is one of those cases, and as the FA you have the opportunity to act quickly and decisively.  It is our hope that you do_".  Something like that.

Not long after, the CDS himself (Gen Lawson) rendered his decision and granted full redress, taking it even farther than the adjudication I'd asked for all along.  His final words were the closet thing thing to a written apology I believe possible in a grievance file.

Despite this 12 page letter from the CDS, some CWO and Officers still tried to stall and tamper with my career for a short time after;  it was only when the FA staff 'encouraged' them to carry out the FA decision did things actually happen.

At the end of the day, I have an Addidas gym bag full of documents.  I have a DVD from an ATIP with 3,000+ pages of documents and emails.  The level of effort used to try to affect/end the career of me (then, the illustrious rank of Corporal after my 2nd remuster) was baffling.

My career track was re-set, but the damage to my name, my wife, our marriage...can't be 'taken back'.

My next unit after FA decision gave me a 'clean sheet' opportunity, which I took advantage of;  I arrived as a Cpl, and left 6 years later with my promotion to WO pending.

I never went after civil legal action;  my legal advisor advised me there is no statue of limitations in this regard.  And...well, I still have that Addidas bag of documents, emails....the F and R and CDS letters are damaging to the CAF themselves.  When the time is right...there will be no slack left in that trigger. 


3 years, a career nearly ruined, a marriage tested...all because of an agenda that was pushed forward by 1 CWO and LCol, which was carried on because no one was willing to look at a file unbiasedly.  Until, that is, the Grievance Board received my file.  2.5 years later...

Interesting, but probably unrelated fact; the Cmdt and my CO were golf buddies and had flown together.  Ya...not related.

"Because they could"

I was also able to resolve a related admin item (RMs) thru informal resolution with my then-Wing Comd, and another one thru a separate grievance thru D Mil C (Career Shop).

All told, it took me approx 4 years of effort to right all the wrongs that were done to me (and my wife).

"Because they could".





__





						# 2012-072 - Harassment, Progress Review Board (PRB) - Canada.ca
					

Military Grievances External Review Committee, formerly the Canadian Forces Grievance Board's Case Summary for Case # 2012-072




					www.canada.ca
				





That article...it is correct because it sees beyond the "sexual misconduct" aspect, which is a symptom of the bigger problem.  I've lived it, I had thousand of pages of documents that support it.  The bigger problem is "_accountability for conduc_t", which diminishes as one goes up in rank...it should be the other way around.

While there remains no repercussions for conduct/performance deficiencies by snr ranks in the CAF....we will never be successful at changing that particular piece of our culture.


----------



## Good2Golf

Yes, EITS, the Four Horsemen and their ability to favour friends and impact those they wish to keep down, are another example of the rot in the system.


----------



## dimsum

Good2Golf said:


> Yes, EITS, the Four Horsemen and their ability to favour friends and impact those they wish to keep down, are another example of the rot in the system.


One would hope that since most (all?) are retired, things will be better in that regard.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

> Good2Golf said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, EITS, the Four Horsemen and their ability to favour friends and impact those they wish to keep down, are another example of the rot in the system.
Click to expand...

A few of them, then, had a significant part in my torment.  _But_, it was the Cmdt and Sqn CO and then, CO and IA Analyst talking/communicating directly that was especially villainous.  CWOs, after all, do not command...

The F & R took a hard look at the actions of my then-CO and none of the observations were...flattering.  Leaders such as this exist in the CAF, and are very specifically the problem in the CAF, IMO.  And, they are not limited to either the Officer or NCM side - they exist at all ranks.

Start taking fucksticks like he was...and holding them accountable.  Disciplinary and admin actions shouldn't just be for Jnr Officers and NCMs...

Until "we" do, we'll continue to have leadership that is wanting from a morale/ethical perspective.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

dimsum said:


> One would hope that since most (all?) are retired, things will be better in that regard.



They are;  but they would have 'trained and influenced' others....so, the cycle 'may' continue.

Anyone who knows/understands HIs;  5 days to conduct.  TORs were issued to the HI (who was the School HA, and not qual'd as a HI) on a Thursday afternoon with the report due to the RO (Cmdt) the following Monday morning.  The HI was "conducted" over a weekend.  The SME the case summary refers to who reviewed the HI was the 2 snr HIs at the HITO at CFSTG Borden.  They were curious as to why a Cmdt would order a student to be informed of a harassment complaint just before flying their final checkride.  

And what career consequences were imposed on the Cmdt?  If you guessed "nothing"....you'd be right.

That is the issue, IMO.  The "zero consequences" culture for the higher ranks.


----------



## dapaterson

The CAF does not do lateral entry (with minimal exceptions).  Thus its leaders are shaped and selected by the environment their leaders create.  Bad leadership therefore has a cascading, multi-generational effect.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Eye In The Sky said:


> They are;  but they would have 'trained and influenced' others....so, the cycle 'may' continue.



Too bad Lawson didn't charge these idiots.

There should be no statute of limitations on ruining someone's life.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

daftandbarmy said:


> Too bad Lawson didn't charge these idiots.
> 
> There should be no statute of limitations on ruining someone's life.



This is part of the culture shift I really believe needs to happen.   There's plenty of policy to support discip/admin actions in these cases....so why is the "next level up" in the CofC so reluctant to hold Snr Officer accountable?

What example is observed by the Jnr Officers and Maj/LCdr levels...and how do we think they will act as they become COs?


----------



## OldSolduer

Good2Golf said:


> Yes, EITS, the Four Horsemen and their ability to favour friends and impact those they wish to keep down, are another example of the rot in the system.





dapaterson said:


> The CAF does not do lateral entry (with minimal exceptions).  Thus its leaders are shaped and selected by the environment their leaders create.  Bad leadership therefore has a cascading, multi-generational effect.


I was going to say something similar. Good leaders create an environment that sees their juniors thrive. Bad leadership drives the good up and comers away. 

I learned a LOT from poor leaders.


----------



## MilEME09

OldSolduer said:


> I was going to say something similar. Good leaders create an environment that sees their juniors thrive. Bad leadership drives the good up and comers away.
> 
> I learned a LOT from poor leaders.


I'd say I learned more of what not to do on my PLQ from my staff then what to do as a leader. Sadly that seems to be common these days.


----------



## Remius

MilEME09 said:


> I'd say I learned more of what not to do on my PLQ from my staff then what to do as a leader. Sadly that seems to be common these days.


Same.  And you could tell who, on my course, was learning what not to do and those that were going to become what was teaching them.


----------



## Furniture

MilEME09 said:


> I'd say I learned more of what not to do on my PLQ from my staff then what to do as a leader. Sadly that seems to be common these days.


I was hated by one of my course staff, maybe not entirely unjustly... I learned quickly that they hated my ability to not really pay attention in class, and still answer the questions/pass any test(I learned the exact same stuff from 12-18 in cadets. Actually I learned it better, from people who cared more). 

The staff member gave me a barely passing mark on my drill instruction PC, because my personal drill and commands were very weak. Two weeks later, the school chiefs of a couple of the schools in Borden decided I should be parade commander for grad because my personal drill, and commands were the best of the top candidates competing for it. 

The only reason I was in the competition is my Flight WO liked "winning", and wanted one of his students to be the parade commander. He had watched the practice tests, and PCs, and picked me to compete for a position regardless of my PC mark. He, and the other Flight WOs kept pushing me up the competition ladder until I was competing for parade commander. 

While I realize PLQ parade commander means nothing, it was instructive to me, in that I learned very fast that a single bully can ruin your career. I was lucky the staff member was just assessing me on drill lessons, not writing my PER, or pushing remedial measures.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Furniture said:


> *While I realize PLQ parade commander means nothing,* it was instructive to me, in that I learned very fast that a single bully can ruin your career. I was lucky the staff member was just assessing me on drill lessons, not writing my PER, or pushing remedial measures.



You're wrong there... it's a great honour. Well done!


----------



## trigger324

Eye In The Sky said:


> They are;  but they would have 'trained and influenced' others....so, the cycle 'may' continue.



I’m convinced it did, does, and will. In many occupations


----------



## CBH99

MilEME09 said:


> I'd say I learned more of what not to do on my PLQ from my staff then what to do as a leader. Sadly that seems to be common these days.


<random tangent, but topic related>

I’ve realized after reading many posts here over the last few months just how lucky I was when I first joined, to have the people in place that I did.   

For anybody familiar with the Calgary Highlanders (MilEME09? 😉) there was a rather infamous member who was my Sgt when I first got in.   (This member may have been British, Badass, hilarious, and a solid role model for a young 16yo kid like myself.)

Within my first few parade nights, all of us noobs (didn’t have uniforms yet) had learned:  


leaders eat last, subordinates eat first
all things being equal, subordinates received medical attention first, rest first, food first.  (Higher the rank, the more people in front of you to be taken care of before you)
just admit mistakes and learn what to do differently next time.  (Always having an excuse is annoying, dishonest, and unprofessional.  Just say “Sorry boss, I screwed up.  It was my first time doing this kind of thing, I’ve learned what to do so this won’t be an issue next time.”)
if he caught any sort of bullying, especially a higher ranking member bullying a lower ranking member, he would end that shit on the spot.
he always hammered home that the punishment for misconduct should be above and beyond what a civilian would receive, as we are expected to behave and conduct ourselves to a higher standard.


As a 16yo kid, I soaked this all up like a sponge.  I truly actually give credit to that time period in my life of having him as my boss, as having a direct impact on who I try to be now.  

I had always assumed that _that_ mentality was more common, which is why I struggled at first when this whole sexual assault scandal came to light.  I found myself being naive, as I can honestly say I really lucked out in my time in the CAF as having plenty of leaders like that.   

(He also bluntly threatened - _kidding ofcourse_ - that if he ever caught wind of us being involved in a sexual assault, or physically abusing our spouse, he would ‘f**king end us’.  Gosh I loved having him as my Sgt, and later my WO.)


<tangent off>


----------



## KevinB

CBH99 said:


> I had always assumed that _that_ mentality was more common, which is why I struggled at first when this whole sexual assault scandal came to light.  I found myself being naive, as I can honestly say I really lucked out in my time in the CAF as having plenty of leaders like that.


The CF is a mirror on society for the most part.
   Some excellent, some good, some average, and some trash.

Some excellent folks get out because they get in positions of a "No Win"
   LCOL Shandy Vida resigned while CO of 1 VP due to the position he was placed in with the Bn 
Some excellent folks get the shaft due to less excellent people wanting to screw them, and/or the system completely fails them.
  Maj Dave Hirter is one of my examples for this (several folks know him here), and I already mentioned Kevin and Annalise earlier in this thread.

Some excellent folks bail out when they can because they just see a mountain of crap they can't fix.

Some excellent folks become jaded and devolve to simply good - or worse.

Etc.






CBH99 said:


> (He also bluntly threatened - _kidding ofcourse_ - that if he ever caught wind of us being involved in a sexual assault, or physically abusing our spouse, he would ‘f**king end us’.  Gosh I loved having him as my Sgt, and later my WO.)


I doubt it was actually kidding...


----------



## daftandbarmy

CBH99 said:


> <random tangent, but topic related>
> 
> I’ve realized after reading many posts here over the last few months just how lucky I was when I first joined, to have the people in place that I did.
> 
> For anybody familiar with the Calgary Highlanders (MilEME09? 😉) there was a rather infamous member who was my Sgt when I first got in.   (This member may have been British, Badass, hilarious, and a solid role model for a young 16yo kid like myself.)
> 
> Within my first few parade nights, all of us noobs (didn’t have uniforms yet) had learned:
> 
> 
> leaders eat last, subordinates eat first
> all things being equal, subordinates received medical attention first, rest first, food first.  (Higher the rank, the more people in front of you to be taken care of before you)
> just admit mistakes and learn what to do differently next time.  (Always having an excuse is annoying, dishonest, and unprofessional.  Just say “Sorry boss, I screwed up.  It was my first time doing this kind of thing, I’ve learned what to do so this won’t be an issue next time.”)
> if he caught any sort of bullying, especially a higher ranking member bullying a lower ranking member, he would end that shit on the spot.
> he always hammered home that the punishment for misconduct should be above and beyond what a civilian would receive, as we are expected to behave and conduct ourselves to a higher standard.
> 
> 
> As a 16yo kid, I soaked this all up like a sponge.  I truly actually give credit to that time period in my life of having him as my boss, as having a direct impact on who I try to be now.
> 
> I had always assumed that _that_ mentality was more common, which is why I struggled at first when this whole sexual assault scandal came to light.  I found myself being naive, as I can honestly say I really lucked out in my time in the CAF as having plenty of leaders like that.
> 
> (He also bluntly threatened - _kidding ofcourse_ - that if he ever caught wind of us being involved in a sexual assault, or physically abusing our spouse, he would ‘f**king end us’.  Gosh I loved having him as my Sgt, and later my WO.)
> 
> 
> <tangent off>




_The 'eathen in 'is blindness bows down to wood an' stone --
  'E don't obey no orders unless they is 'is own.
  The 'eathen in 'is blindness must end where 'e began
  But the backbone of the Army is the Non-commissioned Man!

 Keep away from dirtiness -- keep away from mess,
  Don't get into doin' things rather-more-or-less!
  Let's ha' done with abby-nay, kul, and hazar-ho;
  Mind you keep your rifle an' yourself jus' so!



			Poetry Lovers' Page - Rudyard Kipling: The 'eathen
		

_


----------



## CBH99

KevinB said:


> The CF is a mirror on society for the most part.
> Some excellent, some good, some average, and some trash.
> 
> Some excellent folks get out because they get in positions of a "No Win"
> LCOL Shandy Vida resigned while CO of 1 VP due to the position he was placed in with the Bn
> Some excellent folks get the shaft due to less excellent people wanting to screw them, and/or the system completely fails them.
> Maj Dave Hirter is one of my examples for this (several folks know him here), and I already mentioned Kevin and Annalise earlier in this thread.
> 
> Some excellent folks bail out when they can because they just see a mountain of crap they can't fix.
> 
> Some excellent folks become jaded and devolve to simply good - or worse.
> 
> Etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt it was actually kidding...


Oh he wasn’t.  But I didn’t want to insinuate he actually threatened members, so I italicized that part to hint at it.  

Solid guy.  I could quote so many things from him now that I’m thinking about him, can’t help but chuckle out loud  😅


----------



## OldSolduer

KevinB said:


> LCOL Shandy Vida resigned while CO of 1 VP due to the position he was placed in with the Bn
> Some excellent folks get the shaft due to less excellent people wanting to screw them, and/or the system completely fails them.
> Maj Dave Hirter is one of my examples for this (several folks know him here), and I already mentioned Kevin and Annalise earlier in this thread.


I think Dave Hirter was sold down the river by CO 1VP Comd 1 CMBG.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

We are hammering this stuff into our  senior Cadets, stuff like Leadership is a 3 legged stool; Disciplinarian, teacher, manager. Then we work them through examples of each and how to use them simultaneously. The eating last thing really helps them see the price of being a leader. We also tell them that if they don't enjoy the responsibility, that they can surrender their rank and enjoy being just a Cadet. so far none have taken up that offer. We can already see the dividends with how they treat the young Cadets and how those young Cadets respond to their leadership. I find from watching my daughters go through the public schools, that there is pretty much zero leadership training. So it's not surprising the school system pumps out a lot of poor leaders.


----------



## KevinB

OldSolduer said:


> Dave Hirter was sold down the river by CO 1VP Comd 1 CMBG.


Fixed it for you -- two totally despicable individuals who skated away for their just rewards and in process of jumping out of their self created shit feast - threw Dave into the fire to save their skins.


----------



## Takeniteasy

Eye In The Sky said:


> That article...it is correct because it sees beyond the "sexual misconduct" aspect, which is a symptom of the bigger problem.  I've lived it, I had thousand of pages of documents that support it.  The bigger problem is "_accountability for conduc_t", which diminishes as one goes up in rank...it should be the other way around.
> 
> While there remains no repercussions for conduct/performance deficiencies by snr ranks in the CAF....we will never be successful at changing that particular piece of our culture.


I also believe this to be true. My experience with submitting and then grieving the actions of the leadership were very similar. My grievance was denied due to very insignificant administrative actions that were taken but the Grievance Board did not address the CoC and my COs threating to send me home if I pursued a formal complaint, the inclusion of false information in the Letter of Administrative Closure and more. 

It can be extremely isolating when this happens and it resulted in me leaving the CAF in 2012. The administrative courage and precedents needed to establish positive cultures is ad hoc at best and like you said the accountability should be greater as you move up in rank. I believe the CAF and certain leaders have established a constructive dismissal and institutional gas lighting culture that gets perpetuated down the ranks. 

Like you I have a few emails due to information requests and its amazing what they will put in an email thinking that it will never be seen. Imagine what has transpired verbally!


----------



## daftandbarmy

Colin Parkinson said:


> We are hammering this stuff into our  senior Cadets, stuff like Leadership is a 3 legged stool; Disciplinarian, teacher, manager. Then we work them through examples of each and how to use them simultaneously. The eating last thing really helps them see the price of being a leader. We also tell them that if they don't enjoy the responsibility, that they can surrender their rank and enjoy being just a Cadet. so far none have taken up that offer. We can already see the dividends with how they treat the young Cadets and how those young Cadets respond to their leadership. I find from watching my daughters go through the public schools, that there is pretty much zero leadership training. So it's not surprising the school system pumps out a lot of poor leaders.



I've had nothing but admiration for the leadership skills I've seen from some kids:

A 10-year-old boy who used to get in trouble for doodling in school got a job drawing on the wall of a restaurant​







Joe Whale is a 10-year-old artist from Shrewsbury, England, whose clever doodles landed him a gig creating a huge mural at a local restaurant.
Insider spoke with Joe's dad, Greg, and the artist himself, who revealed his favorite drawing supplies: Sharpies and Paper Mate pens.
Greg Whale said he was "blown away" by his son's work at the restaurant: "I was sitting there in awe a little bit."
The family is now selling products designed by Joe, and any earnings will help fund his art education.









						A 10-year-old boy who used to get in trouble for doodling in school got a job drawing on the wall of a restaurant
					

Joe Whale needs only a blank canvas and a trusty black marker to bring his imagination to life.




					www.insider.com


----------



## MilEME09

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/anita-anand-arbour-justice-1.6236969
		


The move we all saw coming


----------



## lenaitch

MilEME09 said:


> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/anita-anand-arbour-justice-1.6236969
> 
> 
> 
> The move we all saw coming




I agree, and I await the parade of police service leaders lining up at their respective ministers' offices seeking more funding.  I would expect provinces to try and get some sort of funding or cost recovery agreement.  It a population that they are not typically funded for and anything that is historic and/or involves travel can get expensive and jurisdictionally complicated.


----------



## KevinB

MilEME09 said:


> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/anita-anand-arbour-justice-1.6236969
> 
> 
> 
> The move we all saw coming


Well it is missing several major issues.
Legislation for the CCC to go after offenses committed (or alleged to be committed) outside of Canada would be one.


----------



## QV

MilEME09 said:


> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/anita-anand-arbour-justice-1.6236969
> 
> 
> 
> The move we all saw coming


Can't wait to see the reaction when civilian agencies or courts announce consensual work place flings gone awry are not crimes and kick those back to the military.  Because a DAOD defined "adverse personal relationship" is not a thing for them, neither does the broad definition of "sexual misconduct" necessarily infer a crime was committed. Not all cases mind you, but this will be in many cases. Perhaps very few cases even get referred because there are just very few actual criminal code sex crime cases in the CAF, but still many "sexual misconduct" cases because of the broad definition which are going to be straight up NDA (disciplinary, not criminal) anyway. 

All that needed to happen was for the military police investigating sex crime cases (and all criminal code/CDSA cases that occur in Canada for that matter) to send their files to civilian courts for prosecution. The military justice system is not set up for and doesn't have the support mechanisms to handle anything beyond strict military offences by CAF members.   

The big mistake here was trying to rope every crime that occurred in Canada into the military justice system by misusing S.130. I suspect the CAF wanted this to reduce the optics of CAF personnel parading in front of civilian courts. The solution, as I've re-iterated time and again, is for the CAF not to treat discipline like crimes and crimes like discipline and this necessitates separating how those two things are handled and by who. 

This should be interesting to follow.


----------



## KevinB

QV said:


> All that needed to happen was for the military police investigating sex crime cases (and all criminal code/CDSA cases that occur in Canada for that matter) to send their files to civilian courts for prosecution. The military justice system is not set up for and doesn't have the support mechanisms to handle anything beyond strict military offences by CAF members.


Incompetence and CoC interference...
     I'm not saying ALL MP's or NCIS Investigators are incompetent - but given what has occurred of late - there are some major issues in MP Land, and this is a must needed change.

Also note the release isn't saying the CF won't go forward with things on an Admin or NDA side - but that for Sexual Assault/Harassment issues those will go to CIVPOL 


QV said:


> The big mistake here was trying to rope every crime that occurred in Canada into the military justice system by misusing S.130. I suspect the CAF wanted this to reduce the optics of CAF personnel parading in front of civilian courts. The solution, as I've re-iterated time and again, is for the CAF not to treat discipline like crimes and crimes like discipline and this necessitates separating how those two things are handled and by who.


Agreed 


QV said:


> This should be interesting to follow.


Like a train wreck...


----------



## McG

KevinB said:


> Incompetence and CoC interference...
> I'm not saying ALL MP's or NCIS Investigators are incompetent - but given what has occurred of late - there are some major issues in MP Land, and this is a must needed change.


So, are we missing an opportunity to develop experience & competence if we don't attach an MP to every investigation handed to civilian police? The civilian police remain in charge but the MP can observe and support.

... maybe that MP could also lay an NDA charge if the civilian system decides not to pursue criminal charges.


----------



## QV

KevinB said:


> Incompetence and CoC interference...
> I'm not saying ALL MP's or NCIS Investigators are incompetent - but given what has occurred of late - there are some major issues in MP Land, and this is a must needed change.
> 
> Also note the release isn't saying the CF won't go forward with things on an Admin or NDA side - but that for Sexual Assault/Harassment issues those will go to CIVPOL
> 
> Agreed
> 
> Like a train wreck...



There is a little incompetence like anywhere and definitely some interference... really where this stuff tends to go off the rails is how the case is *managed *not necessarily how it was investigated. That includes combining disciplinary _offences _with actual crimes and moving that through the MJ system. 

The bottom line is that if the military police investigators dealt directly with civilian prosecutors for criminal cases occurring in Canada, the military CoC (and their emotion) is taken out of it, if the case proceeds or doesn't based on crown review that decision is out of the military's hands too. The MPs used to be far more involved with civilian prosecutors, but that all changed dramatically I think in about 2011... IIRC. There were some procedural changes/directives that would make your eyes bleed for anyone with a moral compass.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Are there any details wrt what is going to be encompassed in the 'sexual misconduct' being referred to outside police? That's a pretty massive brush under our policies.


----------



## MilEME09

Navy_Pete said:


> Are there any details wrt what is going to be encompassed in the 'sexual misconduct' being referred to outside police? That's a pretty massive brush under our policies.


I've read else where it's anything that the already falls under the criminal code.


----------



## KevinB

McG said:


> So, are we missing an opportunity to develop experience & competence if we don't attach an MP to every investigation handed to civilian police? The civilian police remain in charge but the MP can observe and support.
> 
> ... maybe that MP could also lay an NDA charge if the civilian system decides not to pursue criminal charges.


My belief is the MP trade is being significantly misused in the CF.   Frankly in a small Army/Military, the MP trade should probably be limited to traditional old school MP duties - and the investigation side handled by the RCMP - to the point I would attach RCMP to the CF on rotations.
   IF the CF wants an in-depth LE entity out of the MP's - then they need to expand it more, and have significantly higher standards - and have significantly more oversight/input from CIVPOL.
Admittedly my experience with CF MP's is dated - but I was not impressed by the majority of the trade I interacted with, there where some really good one, but a lot of duds (and worse). 



QV said:


> There is a little incompetence like anywhere and definitely some interference...


I would disagree greatly with that - with the caveat background is based on the time frame of 1987-2004



QV said:


> really where this stuff tends to go off the rails is how the case is *managed *not necessarily how it was investigated. That includes combining disciplinary _offences _with actual crimes and moving that through the MJ system.


No disagreement here.


QV said:


> The bottom line is that if the military police investigators dealt directly with civilian prosecutors for criminal cases occurring in Canada, the military CoC (and their emotion) is taken out of it, if the case proceeds or doesn't based on crown review that decision is out of the military's hands too.


 Perhaps a blended mix of MP and CIV LE then?


QV said:


> The MPs used to be far more involved with civilian prosecutors, but that all changed dramatically I think in about 2011... IIRC. There were some procedural changes/directives that would make your eyes bleed for anyone with a moral compass.


A lot of that stemmed from significant issues on the MP side --with the Civilian system  asking for that Y2K.
   Now I'm am also sure some of the changes where accepted due to parts of the CoC wanting to do some rug sweeping too.


----------



## QV

KevinB said:


> My belief is the MP trade is being significantly misused in the CF.   Frankly in a small Army/Military, the MP trade should probably be limited to traditional old school MP duties - and the investigation side handled by the RCMP - to the point I would attach RCMP to the CF on rotations.
> IF the CF wants an in-depth LE entity out of the MP's - then they need to expand it more, and have significantly higher standards - and have significantly more oversight/input from CIVPOL.
> Admittedly my experience with CF MP's is dated - but I was not impressed by the majority of the trade I interacted with, there where some really good one, but a lot of duds (and worse).
> 
> 
> I would disagree greatly with that - with the caveat background is based on the time frame of 1987-2004
> 
> 
> No disagreement here.
> 
> Perhaps a blended mix of MP and CIV LE then?
> 
> A lot of that stemmed from significant issues on the MP side --with the Civilian system  asking for that Y2K.
> Now I'm am also sure some of the changes where accepted due to parts of the CoC wanting to do some rug sweeping too.


I'd say your experience is dated somewhat, though many MP "clients" tend to agree with you  (that's a joke not implying anything). The Military Police Complaints Commission provides the civilian oversight and reports to parliament through the MND, so there is already oversight similar to what the RCMP have. Probably a contributing factor of present problems is the MP officer cadre who are more close to the CAF officer cadre ("to support operations") than their MP organization should be.

With that said... and I may hurt some feelings here...

I believe the CAF should take the word "police" entirely out of the "MP" along with any police related task. The CFMP Gp should be a FP or Force Protection unit (CFFP Gp) only specializing in:

Base Security (replace the Commissionaire entirely with an armed professional security force - actual security not the appearance we have now)
Deployed base/FOB security
Convoy Escort/Security
Close Protection
Air Marshal
Airfield security
Port Security Teams
Prisoners of war/DB
NCIU
Dog handling
National Ident program

The "CFFP Gp" would be closely linked with DGDS, it would be it's operational arm. Military discipline would handled entirely by the CoC, as it should be. Actual crimes would be handled by the police, RCMP most likely (newly formed M Division where RCMP members rotate in and out like other posts, supported by nearest detachment).

This would accomplish probably everything the CAF actually needs (with respect to FP) and everyone can stop pretending the CAF needs it's own private police service.


----------



## KevinB

QV said:


> I'd say your experience is dated somewhat, though many MP "clients" tend to agree with you  (that's a joke not implying anything). The Military Police Complaints Commission provides the civilian oversight and reports to parliament through the MND, so there is already oversight similar to what the RCMP have. *Probably a contributing factor of present problems is the MP officer cadre who are more close to the CAF officer cadre ("to support operations") than their MP organization should be.*


* Yup *


QV said:


> With that said... and I may hurt some feelings here...
> 
> I believe the CAF should take the word "police" entirely out of the "MP" along with any police related task. The CFMP Gp should be a FP or Force Protection unit (CFFP Gp) only specializing in:
> 
> Base Security (replace the Commissionaire entirely with an armed professional security force - actual security not the appearance we have now)
> Deployed base/FOB security
> Convoy Escort/Security
> Close Protection
> Air Marshal
> Airfield security
> Port Security Teams
> Prisoners of war/DB
> NCIU
> Dog handling
> National Ident program
> 
> The "CFFP Gp" would be closely linked with DGDS, it would be it's operational arm. Military discipline would handled entirely by the CoC, as it should be. Actual crimes would be handled by the police, RCMP most likely (newly formed M Division where RCMP members rotate in and out like other posts, supported by nearest detachment).
> 
> This would accomplish probably everything the CAF actually needs (with respect to FP) and everyone can stop pretending the CAF needs it's own private police service.



I would strike Air Marshal from the list - but agree with you on the others wholeheartedly.
  *Having friends who are US AM's and having done the Flying Armed program here - I believe in the need for a Federal LEO to fill that role, which in Canada would then fall to the RCMP to make a subset for that mission (which I think they do currently).


----------



## QV

KevinB said:


> * Yup *
> 
> 
> I would strike Air Marshal from the list - but agree with you on the others wholeheartedly.
> *Having friends who are US AM's and having done the Flying Armed program here - I believe in the need for a Federal LEO to fill that role, which in Canada would then fall to the RCMP to make a subset for that mission (which I think they do currently).



IIRC the air marshals in the CAF only handle certain military operated flights for protective purposes, I'd combine this with the airfield security task. 
RCMP handle commercial airlines I believe.


----------



## Navy_Pete

MilEME09 said:


> I've read else where it's anything that the already falls under the criminal code.


So thing like groping up to rape make sense, but would that exclude things like jokes or comments someone found offensive?

I think the example of the Senior Navy pers making comments about a 'red room' in the big teams call are a good example. I don't think it was criminal, but definitely wasn't professional. I don't see this direction changing anything around how something like that is investigated, unless I missed something in the high level direction.

I'm not sure if this is progress on the obviously bad things; the military conviction rate isn't great, but how does it compare to civilian side? Similarly, how often does someone get off on a sexual harassment/assault charge but still gets dinged under a lesser 'conduct unbecoming' charge that wouldn't be available on a civilian court? The CAF is a reflection of Canadian society (good and bad) but expecting to rid it of this is pretty unrealistic. As far as I can tell though, we already have all the tools in place to deal with things if we choose to enforce the rules, so not really sure how substituing an external system with it's own problems doesnt' just add on another layer of possible failures.


----------



## KevinB

QV said:


> IIRC the air marshals in the CAF only handle certain military operated flights for protective purposes, I'd combine this with the airfield security task.
> RCMP handle commercial airlines I believe.


Okay tracking now.


----------



## brihard

CIVPOL won’t touch sexual harassment issues, or most of what CAF calls “HISB”. If it’s not a suspected criminal code offence, it’s not a matter for police. That remains an administrative matter.

What CAF could do is what a number of police services have done- harassment matters will no longer be investigated by the organization’s own members. Instead, allegations go to an independent firm that specializes in such things, they investigate, write a report, and give their findings to the contracting organization. A senior decision makes within the contracting organization makes their decision based on the findings and recommendation of the independent investigator. This eliminates chain of command influence in the investigation, and allows the complainant to more effectively challenge any divergence between the recommendation and the organization’s finding.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

QV said:


> I'd say your experience is dated somewhat, though many MP "clients" tend to agree with you  (that's a joke not implying anything). The Military Police Complaints Commission provides the civilian oversight and reports to parliament through the MND, so there is already oversight similar to what the RCMP have. Probably a contributing factor of present problems is the MP officer cadre who are more close to the CAF officer cadre ("to support operations") than their MP organization should be.
> 
> With that said... and I may hurt some feelings here...
> 
> I believe the CAF should take the word "police" entirely out of the "MP" along with any police related task. The CFMP Gp should be a FP or Force Protection unit (CFFP Gp) only specializing in:
> 
> Base Security (replace the Commissionaire entirely with an armed professional security force - actual security not the appearance we have now)
> Deployed base/FOB security
> Convoy Escort/Security
> Close Protection
> Air Marshal
> Airfield security
> Port Security Teams
> Prisoners of war/DB
> NCIU
> Dog handling
> National Ident program
> 
> The "CFFP Gp" would be closely linked with DGDS, it would be it's operational arm. Military discipline would handled entirely by the CoC, as it should be. Actual crimes would be handled by the police, RCMP most likely (newly formed M Division where RCMP members rotate in and out like other posts, supported by nearest detachment).
> 
> This would accomplish probably everything the CAF actually needs (with respect to FP) and everyone can stop pretending the CAF needs it's own private police service.


This fundamentally about the question of whether we want a police *for* the CAF, or a police *of* the CAF.  The MP Gp has privileged the latter, and the former has just about disappeared.


----------



## OldSolduer

brihard said:


> CIVPOL won’t touch sexual harassment issues, or most of what CAF calls “HISB”. If it’s not a suspected criminal code offence, it’s not a matter for police. That remains an administrative matter.
> 
> What CAF could do is what a number of police services have done- harassment matters will no longer be investigated by the organization’s own members. Instead, allegations go to an independent firm that specializes in such things, they investigate, write a report, and give their findings to the contracting organization. A senior decision makes within the contracting organization makes their decision based on the findings and recommendation of the independent investigator. This eliminates chain of command influence in the investigation, and allows the complainant to more effectively challenge any divergence between the recommendation and the organization’s finding.


I think these ideas have merit. CCC violations should be investigated by civilian authorities.  Now having said that, two "salty corporals" decide in the mess one night to disagree and play smash mouth. Is this a police matter or military matter - or both? I think I know.


----------



## QV

OldSolduer said:


> I think these ideas have merit. CCC violations should be investigated by civilian authorities.  Now having said that, two "salty corporals" decide in the mess one night to disagree and play smash mouth. Is this a police matter or military matter - or both? I think I know.


A consensual fight is not a crime, but fighting is an NDA discipline matter.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

QV said:


> A consensual fight is not a crime, but fighting is an NDA discipline matter.


It very well can be if one "wins" too much.  Ex-coworker of mine got a year house arrest for 'winning' against 4 guys on a golf course even though the first guy came at him swinging a club.    We didn't call him 'cement-head' for nuddin'.......


----------



## brihard

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> It very well can be if one "wins" too much.  Ex-coworker of mine got a year house arrest for 'winning' against 4 guys on a golf course even though the first guy came at him swinging a club.    We didn't call him 'cement-head' for nuddin'.......


You can consent to fight. You cannot consent to bodily harm.


----------



## brihard

News is now breaking that crown is considering charges against VAdm Haydn Edmunson for rape thirty years ago, as previously disclosed by a complainant that has gone public.



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/haydn-demundson-possible-charges-historial-1.6239129


----------



## OldSolduer

brihard said:


> News is now breaking that crown is considering charges against VAdm Haydn Edmunson for rape thirty years ago, as previously disclosed by a complainant that has gone public.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/haydn-demundson-possible-charges-historial-1.6239129


WOW that did not take long. This should be very interesting.

One of the articles listed all the GOFOs under investigation. I did not realize it was that many.


----------



## trigger324

Sit back and enjoy the show 🍿


----------



## ModlrMike

The most positive outcome to this is that investigations and determinations should be made within a reasonable time span. Civpol are quite good at determining if something meets the threshold for charges or not.


----------



## daftandbarmy

brihard said:


> News is now breaking that crown is considering charges against VAdm Haydn Edmunson for rape thirty years ago, as previously disclosed by a complainant that has gone public.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/haydn-demundson-possible-charges-historial-1.6239129


----------



## Weinie

daftandbarmy said:


>


But it is "she said, he said" in this case. If no physical evidence, and no corroborating witnesses, it will be very hard for prosecutors to win this case.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Weinie said:


> But it is "she said, he said" in this case. If no physical evidence, and no corroborating witnesses, it will be very hard for prosecutors to win this case.



That's a quaint shout out to due process and our (centuries old) legal system, but I think we've already discovered that it's the court of public opinion that really runs things around here these days. Sadly.


----------



## kev994

KevinB said:


> Well it is missing several major issues.
> Legislation for the CCC to go after offenses committed (or alleged to be committed) outside of Canada would be one.


It’s perhaps more important to be seen to be doing something than to be actually accomplishing anything.


----------



## KevinB

Weinie said:


> But it is "she said, he said" in this case. If no physical evidence, and no corroborating witnesses, it will be very hard for prosecutors to win this case.


There is an eye witness - that popped up a few months ago...


----------



## lenaitch

OldSolduer said:


> I think these ideas have merit. CCC violations should be investigated by civilian authorities.  Now having said that, two "salty corporals" decide in the mess one night to disagree and play smash mouth. Is this a police matter or military matter - or both? I think I know.


Perhaps 'walk before run'.  Start with the sexual offences which seem to be a current sticking point.

If a victim reports directly to the civilian police, fine, but there would have to be fairly ironclad internal policy if the alleged crime is reported to the chain of command.

I know nothing about it other than popular media, but I'm wondering if the US military federal agent type of system might work.  A body of federally empowered civilians - like the RCMP but not the RCMP.


----------



## OldSolduer

daftandbarmy said:


> That's a quaint shout out to due process and our (centuries old) legal system, but I think we've already discovered that it's the court of public opinion that really runs things around here these days. Sadly.


A timely reminder. Thank you.


----------



## brihard

lenaitch said:


> Perhaps 'walk before run'.  Start with the sexual offences which seem to be a current sticking point.
> 
> If a victim reports directly to the civilian police, fine, but there would have to be fairly ironclad internal policy if the alleged crime is reported to the chain of command.
> 
> I know nothing about it other than popular media, but I'm wondering if the US military federal agent type of system might work.  A body of federally empowered civilians - like the RCMP but not the RCMP.


DNDIS?


----------



## FJAG

lenaitch said:


> Perhaps 'walk before run'.  Start with the sexual offences which seem to be a current sticking point.
> 
> If a victim reports directly to the civilian police, fine, but there would have to be fairly ironclad internal policy if the alleged crime is reported to the chain of command.
> 
> I know nothing about it other than popular media, but I'm wondering if the US military federal agent type of system might work.  A body of federally empowered civilians - like the RCMP but not the RCMP.


It might work but I don't think its much different from our system except in scale. 

There are clearly differences even within the US as between NCIS, CID and AFOSI and their line military police and our NIS and our line military police. Also there are differences in the structure of our CSD and the US UCMJ. But essentially there is a fundamental similarity as to the investigative processes and the functioning of the military justice process. 

Perhaps one of the most important differences is that unlike Canada which has removed court martial convening processes to a civilian administrator, in the US it is still retained by the Chain of Command which creates a possibility of undue command influence in both the investigative and convening processes. Our JAG and even our Provost Marshall have a considerable separation from the CoC. Our judges are fully separate (except when the CoC issues silly memorandums as to who their CO is  )

I'm not a particular fan of turning investigative services over to the RCMP. About 70% of the RCMP are street cops--municipal and provincial police--which is a growth industry within the force while federal policing is declining primarily due to funding problems. I would expect that the RCMP would definitely seek funding from DND to cover any policing services it provided. The result is that while many of them are experts in quite a few categories, few would have any greater experience at the type of policing that NIS does than NIS itself. 

The CAF is a small organization, about the size of a small city which would probably have a need for no more than a half dozen to a dozen detectives to look after all the more serious crimes. To complicate matters our "city" is spread across the whole country. With a small group like NIS like we have the quality of investigation is much more dependent on the quality of the individuals, their individual training and their individual experience rather than a systemic short falling. I'm not saying that one is better than the other but I expect all things being equal having an NIS investigator who has come up through the military system is better than a constable or corporal who is rotated into and out of the job every three to six years or so.

🍻


----------



## Ostrozac

FJAG said:


> To complicate matters our "city" is spread across the whole country.


Not just a country; on any given day we have thousands of military personnel spread over the world. The logistics, and cost, of sending civilian investigators around the planet has to be considered. The NIS has maintained detachments overseas and is ready to send investigators anywhere they are needed. Any follow-on civilian agency needs that same global deployability.


----------



## brihard

FJAG said:


> I'm not a particular fan of turning investigative services over to the RCMP. About 70% of the RCMP are street cops--municipal and provincial police--which is a growth industry within the force while federal policing is declining primarily due to funding problems. I would expect that the RCMP would definitely seek funding from DND to cover any policing services it provided. The result is that while many of them are experts in quite a few categories, few would have any greater experience at the type of policing that NIS does than NIS itself.


Not sure you’ve got the right read on the future of the RCMP. While there’s some growth in contract policing (municipal/provincial) simply due to population growth, that’s not the RCMP’s future. The writing is very much on the walls. Until recently the RCMP were getting paid something like $15k a year less than most other police. That’s no longer the case. While the feds still subsidize RCMP contract policing, it’s now a much smaller margin. The RCMP’s largest municipal contract in Surrey BC is turning into a municipal police service as we speak. That’s >800 Mountie jobs disappearing. Alberta and New Brunswick are both talking about or actively exploring provincial services.

Conversely, the federal mandate is only getting more and more complicated. Cyber is a major growth area (or is trying to be). Financial crimes has been inexplicably left to fester, but is now a bigger priority again. National security definitely isn’t getting any prettier. COVID has stopped Mounties from being released from provincial contract policing, but that will open up again soon.

Most criminal acts committed by CAF members can easily be absorbed by the civilian justice system and local police, be it Halifax, Victoria, or Edmonton police, OPP, Sureté du Quebec, or local RCMP detachments. For the relatively rare cases that would require overseas travel to investigate something in theatre/host nation, there are Mounties getting on planes all the time. There would simply need to be appropriate statutory authority to investigate and prosecute extraterritorial offences (the Crim Code already has such a provision for public servants in the course of their employ), and some unit(s) in the RCMP would need to assume this mandate, presumably with funding for a few more bodies.


----------



## FJAG

brihard said:


> Not sure you’ve got the right read on the future of the RCMP. While there’s some growth in contract policing (municipal/provincial) simply due to population growth, that’s not the RCMP’s future. The writing is very much on the walls. Until recently the RCMP were getting paid something like $15k a year less than most other police. That’s no longer the case. While the feds still subsidize RCMP contract policing, it’s now a much smaller margin. The RCMP’s largest municipal contract in Surrey BC is turning into a municipal police service as we speak. That’s >800 Mountie jobs disappearing. Alberta and New Brunswick are both talking about or actively exploring provincial services.


Yeah. I was citing some recent stats, but I agree that things might very well change in the future.


brihard said:


> Conversely, the federal mandate is only getting more and more complicated. Cyber is a major growth area (or is trying to be). Financial crimes has been inexplicably left to fester, but is now a bigger priority again. National security definitely isn’t getting any prettier. COVID has stopped Mounties from being released from provincial contract policing, but that will open up again soon.


I totally agree that there is a greater need for more fed policing. My concern is that the government has been chocking on funding and with the pay increases its going to be a matter of getting less people for more funding.


brihard said:


> Most criminal acts committed by CAF members can easily be absorbed by the civilian justice system and local police, be it Halifax, Victoria, or Edmonton police, OPP, Sureté du Quebec, or local RCMP detachments.


That's where I think this thing will go. But remember, we're only talking a very limited number of classes of offences at this time. There's no talk of a wholesale turnover of all CSD offences


brihard said:


> For the relatively rare cases that would require overseas travel to investigate something in theatre/host nation, there are Mounties getting on planes all the time. There would simply need to be appropriate statutory authority to investigate and prosecute extraterritorial offences (the Crim Code already has such a provision for public servants in the course of their employ), and some unit(s) in the RCMP would need to assume this mandate, presumably with funding for a few more bodies.


Same as the above. There is no talk of turning over all investigations to civilian agencies. My expectation is that NIS will survive and continue to function in all areas except sexual offences. Which does leave open the questions of sexual offences down in a foreign jurisdiction and how those will be investigated. My gut tells me we're going back to the pre 1985 legislation where there is no CSD jurisdiction for sexual offences committed in Canada but that DND will have jurisdiction to investigate and try sexual offences outside Canada.

I really can't see getting the RCMP involved. It's just too small a number of offences and the idea of having someone come in from outside just seems inefficient.

🍻


----------



## brihard

Yeah, extraterritorial military sex offences is likely a very small niche. I'm not sure there is a particularly efficient way to handle that. Sometimes you need to simply throw money at certain types of files to get them done. Although, certainly, the costs would increase greatly when sending over RCMP or other non-military investigators who get overtime and such, versus simply telling a couple MPs that they're getting on a plane tomorrow. Anything involving short notice rescheduling and/or significant travel can get expensive fast.

Flip side to that- could NIS maintain sufficient expertise in sex crimes to handle this very limited number of cases effectively? How many extraterritorial sex assaults does CAF prosecute in a year?


----------



## Haggis

brihard said:


> Flip side to that- could NIS maintain sufficient expertise in sex crimes to handle this very limited number of cases effectively? How many extraterritorial sex assaults does CAF prosecute in a year?


Probably not enough to gain sufficient expertise.  But seconding NIS to large local/provincial CIVPOL sexual assault/sex crimes units for a period of professional development would rack up the experience level quickly.


----------



## MilEME09

'I felt completely betrayed:' Canadian veteran speaks out on sexual assault
					

A Canadian veteran has come forward to speak about being sexually assaulted during training, saying he felt 'completely betrayed' by the chain of command.




					www.ctvnews.ca
				




Oh boy get ready for a few more cards to fall


----------



## FJAG

I would presume that within the NIS there is either an individual or team responsible for supervising/conducting investigations of cases involving sexual misconduct.

Within JAG there has been a policy for many years regarding such cases and occasional cross-training with experienced civilian counsel. In 2017 the office of the JAG designated a LCol position as Deputy Director Military Prosecutions - Sexual Misconduct Action Response Team (DDMP- SMART) to mentor prosecutors and oversee any prosecution involving sexual misconduct. I'm not sure about the current individual holding that position but from the start until 2020 the position was held by a Reserve Force Leg O who is a civilian prosecutor in Toronto with experience in the field.

Not sure if this has been posted yet:



> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joint Statement of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal and the Director of Military Prosecutions - Canada.ca
> 
> 
> We all recognize that allegations of sexual misconduct against senior leaders have had a detrimental effect on the credibility of the CAF and the morale of its members.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.canada.ca



🍻


----------



## dimsum

MilEME09 said:


> 'I felt completely betrayed:' Canadian veteran speaks out on sexual assault
> 
> 
> A Canadian veteran has come forward to speak about being sexually assaulted during training, saying he felt 'completely betrayed' by the chain of command.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ctvnews.ca


I read everything, then I saw this:



> In the future, Hudson says he wishes to go back to the military career he was so looking forward to having before his ordeal.
> 
> He has filed a new complaint against his alleged assaulters.
> 
> “I’m in a good state of mind,” he said. “I’m mentally ready to rejoin the military, I want to rejoin the military.”


Wait what?  If the organization was so bad that it caused me to leave the country and change my name, the _last_ thing I'd want to do is rejoin it.


----------



## ballz

If civilian authorities can't investigate/prosecute criminal offences because they "just don't know enough about the military," why are we convinced that Infantry WOs and MWOs can investigate a crime when they don't know anything about law, prosecution, investigative procedures, evidence, etc.? What am I missing here, being in the military makes all that stuff no longer important? They're not exactly _trivial_ details. I would think the fact that a crime took place in a military setting is a lot less difficult to overcome than not knowing about all that other stuff.


----------



## daftandbarmy

dimsum said:


> I read everything, then I saw this:
> 
> 
> Wait what?  If the organization was so bad that it caused me to leave the country and change my name, the _last_ thing I'd want to do is rejoin it.



Well, there's this possibility:


Battered woman syndrome, or battered person syndrome, is a psychological condition that can develop when a person experiences abuse, usually at the hands of an intimate partner.

People who find themselves in an abusive relationship often do not feel safe or happy. However, they may feel unable to leave for many reasons. These include fear and a belief that they are the cause of the abuse.

Abuse can affect people of any gender, age, social class, or education. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)Trusted Source refer to the type of abuse that occurs within a relationship as intimate partner violence (IPV).










						Intimate partner violence (battered woman syndrome): How to get help
					

Intimate partner violence (previously battered woman syndrome) can develop as a result of an abusive intimate relationship. Find out what it involves how to get help.




					www.medicalnewstoday.com


----------



## CBH99

ballz said:


> If civilian authorities can't investigate/prosecute criminal offences because they "just don't know enough about the military," why are we convinced that Infantry WOs and MWOs can investigate a crime when they don't know anything about law, prosecution, investigative procedures, evidence, etc.? What am I missing here, being in the military makes all that stuff no longer important? They're not exactly _trivial_ details. I would think the fact that a crime took place in a military setting is a lot less difficult to overcome than not knowing about all that other stuff.


Whether the crown knows anything about the military is irrelevant.  Or should be, anyway.  

-  are there reasonable grounds to believe that a member committed a crime?

-  is the nature of the crime worth pursuing to the full extent possible, or can it be dealt with alternatively?

-  is there enough evidence to support a reasonable expectation of a conviction?


It doesn’t/shouldn’t matter if the accused wears a shirt & tie to work, or business casual, or a CADPAT uniform.   It doesn’t matter if they wear NCD.  It doesn’t matter if they wear a clown nose & a rainbow wig. 


0.02


----------



## Haggis

CBH99 said:


> It doesn’t matter if they wear a clown nose & a rainbow wig.


We don't want politicians doing criminal investigations.


----------



## CBH99

Haggis said:


> We don't want politicians doing criminal investigations.


Totally agreed.  But I don’t think that was suggested??  (I may have missed a few posts, I’ll take a few mins and scroll.)

My post was in response to the suggestion that because civilian crown prosecutors may not necessarily be familiar with the military, they may have challenges in prosecuting charges.  

My post was simply saying it doesn’t matter if the accused is a military member or not.  Nor does the crown need to know anything about the military in order to present evidence to a court, especially if all of this is happening in the civilian criminal justice system.


----------



## FJAG

CBH99 said:


> Totally agreed.  But I don’t think that was suggested??  (I may have missed a few posts, I’ll take a few mins and scroll.)
> 
> My post was in response to the suggestion that because civilian crown prosecutors may not necessarily be familiar with the military, they may have challenges in prosecuting charges.
> 
> My post was simply saying it doesn’t matter if the accused is a military member or not.  Nor does the crown need to know anything about the military in order to present evidence to a court, especially if all of this is happening in the civilian criminal justice system.


I agree with that. Fundamentally when it comes to criminal law, the law is the same in both civilian and military courts. The more significant difference is in procedures under the CCC/provincial court system and under the CSD and the court martial. That difference doesn't matter for CCC offences tried in a provincial court because it will follow the standard provincial court procedure assuming whatever legislation that they come up with doesn't stuff it up ... and there are plenty of places where it can get stuffed up such as in CSD scales of punishment (many of which do not exist in civilian courts), where will detention take place on a shorter sentence, etc etc.

🍻


----------



## SeaKingTacco

It will be interesting to see if the various Provincial Court Judges are given the ability to sentence any military members found guilty to serve their time in the DB in Edmonton. Or do they have to use Provincial Jail?


----------



## FJAG

SeaKingTacco said:


> It will be interesting to see if the various Provincial Court Judges are given the ability to sentence any military members found guilty to serve their time in the DB in Edmonton. Or do they have to use Provincial Jail?


Judges don't choose the jail. In part the offence and length of sentence determines the class of institution but its up to the appropriate department of corrections to determine the specific institute. Legislation can always address that issue but the debate is whether it should or not. 

🍻


----------



## SeaKingTacco

FJAG said:


> Judges don't choose the jail. In part the offence and length of sentence determines the class of institution but its up to the appropriate department of corrections to determine the specific institute. Legislation can always address that issue but the debate is whether it should or not.
> 
> 🍻


Thanks for that. IMHO, DB would be likely be a better option for incarceration for military members- it does not add more load to the prison system and it is not like DB is a walk in the park.


----------



## ballz

CBH99 said:


> Totally agreed.  But I don’t think that was suggested??  (I may have missed a few posts, I’ll take a few mins and scroll.)



He was making a joke about "clown noses and rainbow wigs," the inference is that people who wear clown noses and rainbow wigs are politicians.



CBH99 said:


> My post was in response to the suggestion that because civilian crown prosecutors may not necessarily be familiar with the military, they may have challenges in prosecuting charges.
> 
> My post was simply saying it doesn’t matter if the accused is a military member or not.  Nor does the crown need to know anything about the military in order to present evidence to a court, especially if all of this is happening in the civilian criminal justice system.



Just so we're clear here, since it was my post you were replying to, my post was not a suggestion of such. My post was pointing out the hypocrisy in people who are questioning whether a civilian system can prosecute military members competently, given that our current system is asking for a far taller order.... completely unqualified WOs and MWOs to play the role investigators/prosecutors*.

I'm of the same mindset that there's no reason a civilian authority can't investigate/prosecute.

*I know they aren't literally prosecutors, but when you look at a summary trial, they are essentially the version of the prosecutor, putting forth the argument/evidence of why someone is guilty.


----------



## CBH99

ballz said:


> He was making a joke about "clown noses and rainbow wigs," the inference is that people who wear clown noses and rainbow wigs are politicians.
> 
> 
> 
> Just so we're clear here, since it was my post you were replying to, my post was not a suggestion of such. My post was pointing out the hypocrisy in people who are questioning whether a civilian system can prosecute military members competently, given that our current system is asking for a far taller order.... completely unqualified WOs and MWOs to play the role investigators/prosecutors*.
> 
> I'm of the same mindset that there's no reason a civilian authority can't investigate/prosecute.
> 
> *I know they aren't literally prosecutors, but when you look at a summary trial, they are essentially the version of the prosecutor, putting forth the argument/evidence of why someone is guilty.


Wow - my brain is processing things just a wee bit slow tonight 😅🤦🏼‍♂️   That was a good joke too!

I have a side hustle on the weekends which I’m realizing isn’t sustainable.  Since I woke up on Friday late morning, I haven’t slept for more than an hour - and it’s 11:24pm on Sunday.  

Now that I’ve re-read those posts… 🤦🏼‍♂️


----------



## KevinB

FJAG said:


> Which does leave open the questions of sexual offences down in a foreign jurisdiction and how those will be investigated. My gut tells me we're going back to the pre 1985 legislation where there is no CSD jurisdiction for sexual offences committed in Canada but that DND will have jurisdiction to investigate and try sexual offences outside Canada.
> 
> I really can't see getting the RCMP involved. It's just too small a number of offences and the idea of having someone come in from outside just seems inefficient.
> 
> 🍻


Given the fiasco with two former CDS I strongly suggest either a two tier option - to go forward in Civilian Criminal Justice System or the Military Legal System, and if not, I would drop the Military system for the Civilian in a heart beat.


----------



## ueo

Mention made of the DB in Edmonton. Does it still exist? Thought it was closed along with the CF hospitals.


----------



## H11F

ueo said:


> Mention made of the DB in Edmonton. Does it still exist? Thought it was closed along with the CF hospitals.


CFSPDB is still functioning, though likely empty or close to.


----------



## kev994

The only thing I ever hear is complaints that it’s always empty. Related note: I did POCT recently and the JAG indicated that under the new summary trial system about to drop there will not be detention as a punishment available for COs.


----------



## H11F

kev994 said:


> The only thing I ever hear is complaints that it’s always empty. Related note: I did POCT recently and the JAG indicated that under the new summary trial system about to drop there will not be detention as a punishment available for COs.


This is also correct. Bill C-77 will see the replacement of the Summary Trials system with the Summary Hearings system. A new list of service infractions will be published through QR&O, eventually, which will be the basis for the summary hearings. Tied to that is the lowered powers of punishment - specifically, no detention. Code of Service Discipline offences will continue to be heard through the courts martial system.


----------



## OldSolduer

kev994 said:


> The only thing I ever hear is complaints that it’s always empty. Related note: I did POCT recently and the JAG indicated that under the new summary trial system about to drop there will not be detention as a punishment available for COs.



A double edged sword IMO.

If DB were to close what would be the alternative? Civilian jail? That’s not a good solution that I can tell you.


----------



## Blackadder1916

H11F said:


> . . .  Tied to that is the lowered powers of punishment - specifically, *no detention*.



Is that specifically lowered powers of punishment for COs (i.e. summary trials) or is the punishment of "detention" (as opposed to "imprisonment") to be eliminated altogether?  Will courts martial continue to have "detention" as a punishment?

The notes to QR&O 104.09 – DETENTION includes


> (A) In keeping with its disciplinary nature, the punishment of detention seeks to rehabilitate service detainees, by re-instilling in them the habit of obedience in a structured, military setting, through a regime of training that emphasizes the institutional values and skills that distinguish the Canadian Forces member from other members of society. Specialized treatment and counselling programmes to deal with drug and alcohol dependencies and similar health problems will also be made available to those service detainees who require them. Once the sentence of detention has been served, the member will normally be returned to his or her unit without any lasting effect on his or her career.



Whereas notes to QR&O 104.04 – IMPRISONMENT FOR SHORTER TERM states


> (A) Although specialized treatment and counselling programmes to deal with drug and alcohol dependencies and similar health problems will be made available to a person serving a term of imprisonment, a member serving a sentence that includes imprisonment will in most cases be considered unfit for further military service. As a result, service prisoners and service convicts will ordinarily not be subjected to the same regime of training that service detainees undergo. In certain cases, exceptions may be made for service prisoners serving a short term of imprisonment provided that it has either been decided to retain the member or no decision to release the member has been made but the circumstances suggest that retention in the Canadian Forces is likely. A punishment of imprisonment will be considered to be of short duration where the term does not exceed 90 days.
> 
> (B) Service prisoners and service convicts typically require an intensive programme of retraining and rehabilitation to equip them for their return to society following completion of the term of incarceration. Civilian prisons and penitentiaries are uniquely equipped to provide such opportunities to inmates. Therefore, to facilitate their reintegration into society, service prisoners and service convicts who are to be released from the Canadian Forces will typically be transferred to a civilian prison or penitentiary as soon as practical within the first 30 days following the date of sentencing. The member will ordinarily be released from the Canadian Forces before such a transfer is effected.



If detention was eliminated altogether as a punishment, does that mean that "rehabilitation" (and return to the ranks - a second chance as it were) is no longer considered a course of action?


----------



## dapaterson

Powers of punishment of COs will be constrained; a court martial will still have those options.


----------



## H11F

Blackadder1916 said:


> Is that specifically lowered powers of punishment for COs (i.e. summary trials) or is the punishment of "detention" (as opposed to "imprisonment") to be eliminated altogether?  Will courts martial continue to have "detention" as a punishment?


Aye, what @dapaterson just said above.


----------



## Blackadder1916

dapaterson said:


> Powers of punishment of COs will be constrained; a court martial will still have those options.



So, if detention remains a CSD punishment then there remains a requirement for a "detention barracks" even if it is mostly empty.


----------



## H11F

Blackadder1916 said:


> So, if detention remains a CSD punishment then there remains a requirement for a "detention barracks" even if it is mostly empty.


I'd like to think so, but logic doesn't always apply. Armour and air remain threats in the world, and yet our ability to deal with them...

I honestly know very little about CFSPDB, other than that dated video that floated around, so I cannot speak to any future intentions with the establishment. I suspect it would remain, but again, no clue.


----------



## daftandbarmy

dapaterson said:


> Powers of punishment of COs will be constrained; a court martial will still have those options.



I recommend a diversion program be delegated to COs to help keep offenders on the straight and narrow.

It should also do wonders for their fitness


----------



## FJAG

dapaterson said:


> Powers of punishment of COs will be constrained; a court martial will still have those options.


Just an observation from reading the fine print and unless I'm completely out to lunch, while a COs power to sentence someone to detention is gone, the sentence of reduction in rank is expanded. It used to be under s 163(3)(b) of the NDA that a CO could reduce by "one" rank. Under s 167.1(a) set out in Bill 77 it now just says "reduction in rank". s 162.8 sets out some limitations which include a provision as to some regulations. I'm not aware of any regulations that impact this but they may very well be new regulations under the revised Act.

Bill 77 is here. I expect we're still awaiting a number of regulations to be made (such as one listing what the service infractions are) before it is put into force.

🍻


----------



## MilEME09

Canadian veteran says he was forced out of military after sexual assaults, misconduct - Kingston | Globalnews.ca
					

Justin Hudson says he was consistently sexually harassed, sometimes in front of groups of people, and claims his superiors were made aware of the issue but nothing was done.




					globalnews.ca
				




Well public affairs is the busiest trade in the CAF
 now. This story raises some questions in my mind...


----------



## SeaKingTacco

H11F said:


> I'd like to think so, but logic doesn't always apply. Armour and air remain threats in the world, and yet our ability to deal with them...
> 
> I honestly know very little about CFSPDB, other than that dated video that floated around, so I cannot speak to any future intentions with the establishment. I suspect it would remain, but again, no clue.


I’ve toured the DB. It is an outstanding facility. The staff is dedicated to rehabilitating soldiers in every possible way. Not that I would ever want spend a night there as a guest…


----------



## dangerboy

SeaKingTacco said:


> I’ve toured the DB. It is an outstanding facility. The staff is dedicated to rehabilitating soldiers in every possible way. Not that I would ever want spend a night there as a guest…


A lot of people do not know about or downplay the rehabilitation services that DB offers, they only look at the punishment aspects of the detention barracks. It is easy to punish, a lot hard to rehabilitate.


----------



## dimsum

MilEME09 said:


> Canadian veteran says he was forced out of military after sexual assaults, misconduct - Kingston | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> Justin Hudson says he was consistently sexually harassed, sometimes in front of groups of people, and claims his superiors were made aware of the issue but nothing was done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well public affairs is the busiest trade in the CAF
> now. This story raises some questions in my mind...


I thought that article sounded familiar, then I realized it was posted on Saturday.



MilEME09 said:


> 'I felt completely betrayed:' Canadian veteran speaks out on sexual assault
> 
> 
> A Canadian veteran has come forward to speak about being sexually assaulted during training, saying he felt 'completely betrayed' by the chain of command.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ctvnews.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy get ready for a few more cards to fall


----------



## MilEME09

dimsum said:


> I thought that article sounded familiar, then I realized it was posted on Saturday.


And yet sounds slightly different


----------



## OldSolduer

dimsum said:


> I thought that article sounded familiar, then I realized it was posted on Saturday.


Maybe I’m biased- I am - but I only recall one attempt of a male in male assault in the unit. He was caught and released in less than a month


----------



## ModlrMike

Had an email today that nominated me to sit on a CM, which I will likely not get selected for due to language reasons.  I thought I would look up the case on the CM calendar, and while there I noticed that 22 of 39 CM between now and June 22 are related to sexual assault. I admit that I can't remember a time where there were so many SA cases. Pte and Cpl make up the lion's share of the accused.


----------



## FJAG

ModlrMike said:


> Had an email today that nominated me to sit on a CM, which I will likely not get selected for due to language reasons.  I thought I would look up the case on the CM calendar, and while there I noticed that 22 of 39 CM between now and June 22 are related to sexual assault. I admit that I can't remember a time where there were so many SA cases. Pte and Cpl make up the lion's share of the accused.


And yet the press says that the CAF isn't taking it seriously.


----------



## SupersonicMax

FJAG said:


> And yet the press says that the CAF isn't taking it seriously.


Just like an increase in flight safety incident reporting isn’t necessarily a sign that things are worst, the increase im CM could simply be an increase in reporting rather than an increase in assaults.  I view an increase in reporting a great thing.  It means people are more comfortable reporting those events, which is a good step forward.


----------



## dimsum

SupersonicMax said:


> Just like an increase in flight safety incident reporting isn’t necessarily a sign that things are worst, the increase im CM could simply be an increase in reporting rather than an increase in assaults.  I view an increase in reporting a great thing.  It means people are more comfortable reporting those events, which is a good step forward.


Bingo.


----------



## KevinB

dimsum said:


> Bingo.


But that is UNpossible


----------



## ModlrMike

I'm appalled that there are so many, while simultaneously being glad that people are being held to account.


----------



## Kat Stevens

dangerboy said:


> A lot of people do not know about or downplay the rehabilitation services that DB offers, they only look at the punishment aspects of the detention barracks. It is easy to punish, a lot hard to rehabilitate.


If by "rehabilitate" you mean "put the fear of ever having to go back there again in you", then yes, I was rehabilitated. Mostly it was just 12 days out of a 14 day sentence of Belt Fed Cock.


----------



## MilEME09

SupersonicMax said:


> Just like an increase in flight safety incident reporting isn’t necessarily a sign that things are worst, the increase im CM could simply be an increase in reporting rather than an increase in assaults.  I view an increase in reporting a great thing.  It means people are more comfortable reporting those events, which is a good step forward.


Also means people trust their CoC to handle it properly,  which is also important


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Kat Stevens said:


> If by "rehabilitate" you mean "put the fear of ever having to go back there again in you", then yes, I was rehabilitated. Mostly it was just 12 days out of a 14 day sentence of Belt Fed Cock.


If you get sent there for a “long haul”, in addition to “BFC”, there is a healthy dose of counselling and lifestyle rehabilitation that is also added in.


----------



## KevinB

SeaKingTacco said:


> If you get sent there for a “long haul”, in addition to “BFC”, there is a healthy dose of counselling and lifestyle rehabilitation that is also added in.


My stint (like Kat's) was 14 days - my boots never looked better, and my drill was pretty sharp.

   Given the point system anyone in for over 30 days could get it fairly easy (relatively) after that with the pack drill being phased out - and getting books beyond the Bible.   

   My understanding having seen a few in for the Long Haul was mostly anyone in for 90+ was getting released - but that wasn't a large sample size.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

ballz said:


> He was making a joke about "clown noses and rainbow wigs," the inference is that people who wear clown noses and rainbow wigs are politicians.
> 
> 
> 
> Just so we're clear here, since it was my post you were replying to, my post was not a suggestion of such. My post was pointing out the hypocrisy in people who are questioning whether a civilian system can prosecute military members competently, given that our current system is asking for a far taller order.... completely unqualified WOs and MWOs to play the role investigators/prosecutors*.
> 
> I'm of the same mindset that there's no reason a civilian authority can't investigate/prosecute.
> 
> *I know they aren't literally prosecutors, but when you look at a summary trial, they are essentially the version of the prosecutor, putting forth the argument/evidence of why someone is guilty.



Re the part about unqualified WOs and MWOs;  I have to semi-agree.  I’ve done the UDI/CL training and thought “there’s no practical aspect”.  The course should be 5 days and include an actual qual (therefore having a QS and TEP with actual testing of knowledge/competency).  Same as the DLN course and qual on Summary Investigation.  

I say semi-agree because some of us are fairly capable when it comes to a simple UDI.


----------



## ballz

Eye In The Sky said:


> Re the part about unqualified WOs and MWOs;  I have to semi-agree.  I’ve done the UDI/CL training and thought “there’s no practical aspect”.  The course should be 5 days and include an actual qual (therefore having a QS and TEP with actual testing of knowledge/competency).  Same as the DLN course and qual on Summary Investigation.



Improved education/training can certainly help, but there's only so much you can learn in 5 days and it certainly isn't going to measure up to the combination of education and experience of civilian authorities.



Eye In The Sky said:


> I say semi-agree because some of us are fairly capable when it comes to a simple UDI.



I have no doubt that some are. However, there are many who aren't, and quite honestly were never cut from the right cloth to be.

It's not exactly in the job description for most trades, not exactly we can expect someone to have any inclination toward doing.... what the Army does is like going to Syncrude and giving a bunch of labourers, tradesmen, safety inspectors, etc. a shitty course and then saying "well these guys understand Syncrude's operations better than civilian authorities, so the RCMP shouldn't have jurisdiction here." Yeah sure, a small minority of guys will be alright for some simple things (i.e. drunkenness, AWOL, etc.), but the vast majority, no....

Not to mention that you can pick whoever you want, the smartest one available, chances are that WO is juggling numerous jobs because they're doing their normal Ops WO duty which is it's own gongshow at the best of times in today's "everything is last minute" Army, the CSM is gone so they're covering off for him, and the unit is deploying for a 3-week field ex next week.... and now you've asked them to do a UDI on a complaint that someone in the unit forged a signature on a claim... moderately simple but they're now distracted by the fact that it's a financial document, involves FSAs, HRAs, etc. all stuff they're not familiar with. Even if they were the smartest most experience person available, real surprise they botch the investigation.......................

But the Army treats it as, "we received a complaint, we tasked an expert to investigate, there were no grounds for charges, phew, glad that's behind us."


----------



## dapaterson

Or you get an Adjt who watched Law and Order when on TD once, thinks they are the world's greatest lawyer, based on the UDI draft a long list of complex charges, and Cpl Bloggins, on getting marched in says "Yeah, I'd like to elect court martial".


----------



## MJP

dapaterson said:


> Or you get an Adjt who watched Law and Order when on TD once, thinks they are the world's greatest lawyer, based on the UDI draft a long list of complex charges, and Cpl Bloggins, on getting marched in says "Yeah, I'd like to elect court martial".


That was my life as Adjt except it was the RSM who was the issue.  On the plus side he was not immune to saying he was wrong, made our relationship stronger for it.


----------



## Haggis

dapaterson said:


> Or you get an Adjt who watched Law and Order when on TD once, thinks they are the world's greatest lawyer, based on the UDI draft a long list of complex charges, and Cpl Bloggins, on getting marched in says "Yeah, I'd like to elect court martial".


Sometimes the JAGs are no better. I drafted an RDP for a soldier in my Coy who had lost a rather expensive piece of kit on a deployment.  I sent it to the TF JAG for review (the charge was electable) and when it came back the recommended wording bore no resemblance to the actual alleged offence.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

ballz said:


> Improved education/training can certainly help, but there's only so much you can learn in 5 days and it certainly isn't going to measure up to the combination of education and experience of civilian authorities.



But what level education and experience do we need to investigate the simplest cases;  most minor service offences, no election for CM (para's 5 -> 8 at link.)






						Chapter 12: Election - Canada.ca
					

Chapter 12 of the Military Justice at the Summary Trial Level Manual discusses the purpose and procedure of an Election by an accused during a summary trial process.




					www.canada.ca
				






ballz said:


> I have no doubt that some are. However, there are many who aren't, and quite honestly were never cut from the right cloth to be.
> 
> It's not exactly in the job description for most trades, not exactly we can expect someone to have any inclination toward doing.... what the Army does is like going to Syncrude and giving a bunch of labourers, tradesmen, safety inspectors, etc. a shitty course and then saying "well these guys understand Syncrude's operations better than civilian authorities, so the RCMP shouldn't have jurisdiction here." Yeah sure, a small minority of guys will be alright for some simple things (i.e. drunkenness, AWOL, etc.), but the vast majority, no....
> 
> Not to mention that you can pick whoever you want, the smartest one available, chances are that WO is juggling numerous jobs because they're doing their normal Ops WO duty which is it's own gongshow at the best of times in today's "everything is last minute" Army, the CSM is gone so they're covering off for him, and the unit is deploying for a 3-week field ex next week.... and now you've asked them to do a UDI on a complaint that someone in the unit forged a signature on a claim... moderately simple but they're now distracted by the fact that it's a financial document, involves FSAs, HRAs, etc. all stuff they're not familiar with. Even if they were the smartest most experience person available, real surprise they botch the investigation.......................
> 
> But the Army treats it as, "we received a complaint, we tasked an expert to investigate, there were no grounds for charges, phew, glad that's behind us."



The problem in the context above isn't the skill of the WO/MWO, IMO, it is the decisions of the CO/Snr Leadership. 

I'm not sure what your experiences are but, speaking for myself, my first exposure and trg to Mil Law/CSD was during CLC in '93 where we had dedicated classes and trg in the subj.  I have no idea what PLQ has/does/will provide but it should include Mil Law, and throughout DP2/3/4 so when NCMs are WO/PO1 they are comfortable with things like UDIs.

A WO+ should be able to ask the necessary question after providing the required cautions, etc for "Cpl Bloggins was late for Coy PT" or other non-CM electable type minor offences.  We shouldn't need civilian investigators in these cases where the consequences/jeopardy to the mbr and CAF is low/negligible.  Late for Platoon PT/tasking, proof of clear direction given for timings/location, witnesses that will confirm it was passed to the platoon, a review of the mbr's history to see if this is isolated or a pattern...no requirement for a LEO to be involved in this, IMO.

As for the Ops WO who is the Acting SWO part...that is literally me this month;  I have also been working away from normal place of duty on high priority task and without DVPNI.  If I was suddenly tasked with a UDI, I'd be speaking to my Flt Comd and DCO saying "something has to fall off" be being replaced on the hi-pri task, or the UDI. 


I do share a concern, with the level of UDI/CL trg I was provided...I also have concerns for the level of trg an Assisting Officer receives.  I was on the receiving end of several charge reports earlier in my career;  the last ST the Sgt-Major came up to me shortly before it proceeded to say "your AO can't make it, we are to delay".  I said "no need to delay sir".  The AO was of no use to me, basically....


----------



## daftandbarmy

dapaterson said:


> Or you get an Adjt who watched Law and Order when on TD once, thinks they are the world's greatest lawyer, based on the UDI draft a long list of complex charges, and Cpl Bloggins, on getting marched in says "Yeah, I'd like to elect court martial".



The worst military law experience I ever had was watching the chaos ensure when the CO (a lawyer) and one of my Pl Comds (a lawyer who worked for him in civvy street) were arguing during a charge parade for a fairly simple 'crime'.

I never wanted to subject anyone, accused of anything, to that again.


----------



## MilEME09

daftandbarmy said:


> The worst military law experience I ever had was watching the chaos ensure when the CO (a lawyer) and one of my Pl Comds (a lawyer who worked for him in civvy street) were arguing during a charge parade for a fairly simple 'crime'.
> 
> I never wanted to subject anyone, accused of anything, to that again.


Atleast the were passionate about what they did?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

daftandbarmy said:


> The worst military law experience I ever had was watching the chaos ensure when the CO (a lawyer) and one of my Pl Comds (a lawyer who worked for him in civvy street) were arguing during a charge parade for a fairly simple 'crime'.
> 
> I never wanted to subject anyone, accused of anything, to that again.



My brain automatically played this while reading your post...


----------



## daftandbarmy

MilEME09 said:


> Atleast the were passionate about what they did?



It was the first and, thankfully, only time I ever heard the phrase 'I submit to you....' during a charge parade...


----------



## ballz

Eye In The Sky said:


> But what level education and experience do we need to investigate the simplest cases;  most minor service offences, no election for CM (para's 5 -> 8 at link.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chapter 12: Election - Canada.ca
> 
> 
> Chapter 12 of the Military Justice at the Summary Trial Level Manual discusses the purpose and procedure of an Election by an accused during a summary trial process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.canada.ca



We use in-house WOs to investigate a lot more than just the baby five..... 



Eye In The Sky said:


> The problem in the context above isn't the skill of the WO/MWO, IMO, it is the decisions of the CO/Snr Leadership.



It's a leadership issue for sure.... trying to do more than we have the resources for. Outsourcing all the stuff we try to do ourselves is a pretty good solution to that.



Eye In The Sky said:


> We shouldn't need civilian investigators in these cases where the consequences/jeopardy to the mbr and CAF is low/negligible.  Late for Platoon PT/tasking, proof of clear direction given for timings/location, witnesses that will confirm it was passed to the platoon, a review of the mbr's history to see if this is isolated or a pattern...no requirement for a LEO to be involved in this, IMO.



Agreed, but I was never arguing we should need civilian investigators for baby 5 offences. But like I said, we go well-beyond that, including things with criminal record implications. Hard to argue that 30 days in jail and a criminal record are "low/negligible" consequences to someone's life.

And I have personally witnessed examples where the MPs were asked to investigate because of 1. the complexity and 2. the weight of the issue, and the MPs just flip it back to the unit.



Eye In The Sky said:


> As for the Ops WO who is the Acting SWO part...that is literally me this month;  I have also been working away from normal place of duty on high priority task and without DVPNI.  If I was suddenly tasked with a UDI, I'd be speaking to my Flt Comd and DCO saying "something has to fall off" be being replaced on the hi-pri task, or the UDI.



And if the leadership's decision is, "no, do all tasks, we accept that it might take you longer to do the UDI" ?

And then a UDI which should take a week, takes 3, 4, 5 or 6 months because the people you need to talk to end up on their own taskings, you just get another "last-minute task" dropped on your plate when the FTX ends, etc. People's memories fade effecting the investigation. It tarnishes the investigation, even if a conviction occurs and someone is finally punished for being AWOL 6 months later, and ultimately undermines discipline.

Yes, we have a leadership issue.... obviously, or we wouldn't have this thread. But there are solutions available to  help mitigate that and give us a functioning system. If the current system works in theory but not in reality, what good is it?



Eye In The Sky said:


> I do share a concern, with the level of UDI/CL trg I was provided...I also have concerns for the level of trg an Assisting Officer receives.  I was on the receiving end of several charge reports earlier in my career;  the last ST the Sgt-Major came up to me shortly before it proceeded to say "your AO can't make it, we are to delay".  I said "no need to delay sir".  The AO was of no use to me, basically....



No arguments here.


----------



## MilEME09

AO needs to be a full on course taught by JAG, also all officers need to be briefed on when a member needs an AO. I had a friend go under investigation for harassment, only to find out near the end he was entitled to an AO and the CoC never notified him or assigned him one. He was thankful cleared but he was ready to elect court martial just to argue that the process wasn't followed correctly to investigate him.


----------



## OldSolduer

If I remember correctly every soldier charged under the NDA must be assigned an AO. And they should be trained - not just given a book and told to get on with it.


----------



## dangerboy

As Old Soldier says in In accordance with QR&O article 108.14 (Assistance to Accused), as soon as possible after a charge has been laid, a commanding officer *shall *appoint an officer to assist the accused. A non-commissioned member above the rank of sergeant may be appointed in exceptional circumstances. It is taught that you must have an assisting officer and in fact, you need to fill in the name of the assisting officer on the Record of Disciplinary Proceedings.


----------



## Kat Stevens

dangerboy said:


> As Old Soldier says in In accordance with QR&O article 108.14 (Assistance to Accused), as soon as possible after a charge has been laid, a commanding officer *shall *appoint an officer to assist the accused. A non-commissioned member above the rank of sergeant may be appointed in exceptional circumstances. It is taught that you must have an assisting officer and in fact, you need to fill in the name of the assisting officer on the Record of Disciplinary Proceedings.


"Who do you choose as your AO, Sapper A?"
"Lt. Z, sir"
"Not available, choose another."
"Lt Y, then, sir."
"Busy, try again"
"Lt X?"
"Nope, it seems only either WO B or Lt W are available"
"But both of them hate my guts, sir"
"Justice is served! Next!"


----------



## LittleBlackDevil

OldSolduer said:


> If I remember correctly every soldier charged under the NDA must be assigned an AO. And they should be trained - not just given a book and told to get on with it.


I recall being assigned to be AO for a private who got caught shoplifting while in uniform ... they made me AO because I was "in law school" (I think I was about a month into law school). No training given, I was just an infantry officer fresh from Gagetown military-wise. Fortunately it worked out ok in the end, frankly I thought the kid got off quite light.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil

ModlrMike said:


> I'm appalled that there are so many, while simultaneously being glad that people are being held to account.



I highly highly doubt that there is any more sexually assaultive behaviour in the CAF than there is anywhere else. The reason you are seeing high numbers is because there is a major crack-down going on. Has or will the "crack-down" descend into the level of witch hunt only time will tell.

But there seems to be an increase in sex assaults being reported and acted upon across the board. I've never seen so many sex assault cases in my career as a criminal lawyer as I've seen over the past year. I think that there are several factors including heightened awareness, greater willingness to come forward, but I also think it's a factor of our hyper-sexualized society. When sex is everywhere and sexual activity promoted all across media, I think it's inevitable that young people will engage in increasingly risky behaviour.


----------



## ModlrMike

LBD, I couldn't agree more. I have some friends who are staff at different universities, and our problems pale in comparison. While we must educate the CF as a whole, I think that the group that needs the most direct attention are our youngest members. This needs to start during recruit training, and continue through the member's career. When we draw our recruits from general society, and that society's norm is hyper macho (females can be macho too), hyper aggressive, hyper sexualization, then  we're asking for trouble if we don't address it from day one.


----------



## dimsum

ModlrMike said:


> LBD


As a complete aside, it took me at least three reads before I figured it wasn't "little black dress"


----------



## daftandbarmy

ModlrMike said:


> LBD, I couldn't agree more. I have some friends who are staff at different universities, and our problems pale in comparison. While we must educate the CF as a whole, I think that the group that needs the most direct attention are our youngest members. This needs to start during recruit training, and continue through the member's career. When we draw our recruits from general society, and that society's norm is hyper macho (females can be macho too), hyper aggressive, hyper sexualization, then  we're asking for trouble if we don't address it from day one.



From 2014...

"What has happened in the military is not that different from what has happened in other places of employment where men outnumber women and have more power. When women start moving into male sanctuaries, some men feel threatened so they strike back by using humiliation or intimidation, explains psychologist Jennifer Berdahl, professor of organizational behaviour at the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management, and a specialist in workplace mistreatment. The same thing happens in the construction industry, even some university faculties, in fire departments and with police. Sexual harassment doesn’t always escalate to sexual assault, says Berdahl, but the two behaviours go together. If one is tolerated, there’s a risk the other will happen. A 2003 study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Defense and published in the _American Journal of Industrial Medicine_ backs this up. Researchers in Iowa interviewed some 500 women veterans about the risk factors that lead to rape. The women who described the army environment as hostile—a place where they felt targeted by sexual comments and unwanted advances—were six times more likely to have been raped over the course of their career. If one of their superiors used or tolerated the use of sexually demeaning comments or gestures, the likelihood of being raped was three to four times higher."






						Our military's disgrace
					

An eight-month investigation uncovers the sexual violence plaguing our soldiers—and a military hierarchy with its own justice system, and its own rules




					www.macleans.ca


----------



## LittleBlackDevil

ModlrMike said:


> LBD, I couldn't agree more. I have some friends who are staff at different universities, and our problems pale in comparison. While we must educate the CF as a whole, I think that the group that needs the most direct attention are our youngest members. This needs to start during recruit training, and continue through the member's career. When we draw our recruits from general society, and that society's norm is hyper macho (females can be macho too), hyper aggressive, hyper sexualization, then  we're asking for trouble if we don't address it from day one.



Agreed with this approach although I'm not sure exactly how the best way to do it is, but certainly something to be looked into carefully.


----------



## mariomike

"When sex is everywhere and sexual activity promoted all across media, I think it's inevitable that young people will engage in increasingly risky behaviour."


I'm no sociologist, but, are young guys getting laid any more frequently now than in the pre-AIDS era?

Not to say they did not exist, but you didn't hear about Incels back then.



> When women start moving into male sanctuaries, some men feel threatened so they strike back by using humiliation or intimidation, explains psychologist Jennifer Berdahl, professor of organizational behaviour at the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management, and a specialist in workplace mistreatment.



I read that during the war, when "Rosie the Riverters" were hired by defence plants, they faced resentment from some of the men. Because the women made them eligible for "the draft".

For the first ten years of my municipal employment, there were no women in our department. Not even as dispatchers.

Seems sort of funny, in a way, now looking back.

But, at the time, not all the wives were on-board with the idea of their husbands being cooped up with another woman - just the two of them - 12 hours overnight in a station house.   “How am I going to explain to my children why their daddy goes to work and sleeps next to another woman?"

There were no women in my PRes company when I joined.

 Not trying to justify any of it. That's just the way it was.


----------



## lenaitch

^^ Yup.  As a 9 year, single, constable in the 80s, I was assigned to coach the first female member at our small detachment, partially (I like to think) by virtue of the fact that a couple of the more senior and qualified members' wives would have no part of it.


----------



## OldSolduer

lenaitch said:


> ^^ Yup.  As a 9 year, single, constable in the 80s, I was assigned to coach the first female member at our small detachment, partially (I like to think) by virtue of the fact that a couple of the more senior and qualified members' wives would have no part of it.


Women can be just as mysogonistic as men and sometimes worse.


----------



## Brad Sallows

No-one should pretend that impulses running deep for millennia are going to be entirely overcome because people say it must be so.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Brad Sallows said:


> No-one should pretend that impulses running deep for millennia are going to be entirely overcome because people say it must be so.


That’s the excuse?  We can’t control impulses?  Are we Neanderthals or what?


----------



## Ostrozac

Brad Sallows said:


> No-one should pretend that impulses running deep for millennia are going to be entirely overcome because people say it must be so.


People overcome deep impulses every day. People patrol at night, leave their families for months at a time, sail underwater, jump out of airplanes and even (worst of all!) get up before dawn. And all of those wholly unnatural skills are acquired through training and structure. The whole ‘biological wiring’ argument? I don’t buy it. If people can be trained to be test pilots and astronauts, they can be trained not to bully and assault their colleagues.


----------



## KevinB

Brad Sallows said:


> No-one should pretend that impulses running deep for millennia are going to be entirely overcome because people say it must be so.


I seem to have managed not to club women and drag them back to my cave - and I am not exactly the PC poster boy...

Sexual Assault has been a NoGo for ages - that excuse won't fly anywhere - the Harassment issues, while things have come a long way in my life time, I have a daughter so I hope they keep moving forward.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Interesting where some people jump on that one.

I mean when men and women are together, sometimes new relationships start, to the detriment of old ones.  It's hard to stop insecure people from feeling insecure.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Brad Sallows said:


> Interesting where some people jump on that one.
> 
> I mean when men and women are together, sometimes new relationships start, to the detriment of old ones.  It's hard to stop insecure people from feeling insecure.


Nah.  If someone feels that compelled to cheat, there are underlying issues in the relationship.


----------



## KevinB

Brad Sallows said:


> Interesting where some people jump on that one.
> 
> I mean when men and women are together, sometimes new relationships start, to the detriment of old ones.  It's hard to stop insecure people from feeling insecure.


Your phrasing left it a little to be desired IMHO.

While I agree in part of what you said above - I think 


SupersonicMax said:


> Nah.  If someone feels that compelled to cheat, there are underlying issues in the relationship.


SSM nailed it - stable relationships don't just drift into new arms on a whim.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> If someone feels that compelled to cheat, there are underlying issues in the relationship.



Not necessarily.  Sometimes relationships unwind because the third party in applies sustained pressure.


----------



## KevinB

Brad Sallows said:


> Not necessarily.  Sometimes relationships unwind because the third party in applies sustained pressure.


It still takes two to tango in that respect -- which means someone was amenable to the pressure.
  Or it rolls back into Assault.


----------



## YZT580

SupersonicMax said:


> Nah.  If someone feels that compelled to cheat, there are underlying issues in the relationship.


So all of you were virgins before your marriage?  I doubt it very much.  The rules that you lived by then suddenly became taboo the moment you said I do.  I believe that many truly believe that but the mind set was established under the dashboard lights and for many it lurks just over the horizon.  All it takes is opportunity.  That isn't assault or harassment however.  Within the last week I counted over a dozen programmes on the tely that had one or the other as at the very least a sub-plot if not the main theme.  A sexual relationship is always part of the episode and it almost never features a married couple.  Now most are marked 14 or over.  Do you want to bet that much of the audience was under 14?  An 18 year old individual goes out and tries to emulate their favourite actor.  He isn't thinking assault he is thinking 'getting laid'.  Now 20 years later she recollects the experience and brings up charges.  Or maybe she brings up charges right away.  Either way he is toast.  Here is the punch line: it is what has been taught as being OK and he is too immature to appreciate it is only TV.  It is a fortunate youth whose parents have been wise enough to supplement the TV with a good straightforward standard to live by.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Flirting is one thing. Insisting can quickly become harassment. Groping is sexual assault. It’s a matter of learning to accept a no, and keeping your hands to yourself until consent is received.


----------



## mariomike

> Women can be just as mysogonistic as men and sometimes worse.



I don't have any scientific data to support my opinion, but I believe a female work partner has a soothing and calming effect on a man.  

Just say, "Yes, Dear."


----------



## Jarnhamar

mariomike said:


> I don't have any scientific data to support my opinion, but I believe a female work partner has a soothing and calming effect on a man.
> 
> Just say, "Yes, Dear."


Women absolutely love being called Dear and other pet names by male coworkers.


----------



## mariomike

I think "Yes, Dear" was the correct answer my partner wanted to hear. With the emphasis on the word "yes".

Unless her sentence started, "You know what your problem is?"

I only had one female work partner, so you are probably more of an expert.



​


----------



## SupersonicMax

mariomike said:


> I think "Yes, Dear" was the answer my partner liked to hear. With the emphasis on the word "yes".
> 
> Unless her sentence started, "You know what your problem is?"
> 
> I only worked with one woman, so you are probably more of an expert.
> 
> 
> 
> ​


Calling someone that is not your wife « Dear » can be seen as disrespectful and also as a means to establish a power relationship.  In professional setting, I strictly use neutral language and tone.


----------



## mariomike

SupersonicMax said:


> Calling someone that is not your wife « Dear » can be seen as disrespectful and also as a means to establish a power relationship.  In professional setting, I strictly use neutral language and tone.


Power? She was the boss in our partnership. That's where the "Yes" comes in. You guys seem focused on the second word.

Professional setting? We weren't in an office. Just two people stuck alone in a station or automoble with each other for company.

She was the best partner I ever had.


----------



## SupersonicMax

mariomike said:


> Power? She was the boss in our partnership. That's where the "Yes" comes in. You guys seem focused on the second word.
> 
> Professional setting? We weren't in an office. Just two people stuck alone in a station or automoble with each other for company.
> 
> She was the best partner I ever had.


There are multiple types of power, one of which is derived from a position and another by more informal cues.  Since it is your job, I would argue this is a professional setting.  Just like I despise when someone (of any age) calls me « hun, » many women hate being called pet names…. I would never recommend anyone calling their female co-workers « dear. »


----------



## mariomike

SupersonicMax said:


> I would never recommend anyone calling their female co-workers « dear. »


It always had a "Yes" in front of it.

If you think that was bad, she had a pet name for me. I wasn't offended.

After all these years, I'll have to ask her on Facebook if she was as bothered as you guys seem to be. Hope she doesn't unfriend me.


----------



## CBH99

SupersonicMax said:


> There are multiple types of power, one of which is derived from a position and another by more informal cues.  Since it is your job, I would argue this is a professional setting.  Just like I despise when someone (of any age) calls me « hun, » many women hate being called pet names…. I would never recommend anyone calling their female co-workers « dear. »


With the exception, as I’ve observed anyway, of when a handsome & polished British man calls them “luv” in a passing manner.  

I work with a well built, handsome, very polite British guy.  In the office, or anytime we are our & about, a woman hands him or does anything for him, he will always say “Thank You Luv…”

That man has a fan club, I tell you 😅 🇬🇧


----------



## OldSolduer

SupersonicMax said:


> That’s the excuse?  We can’t control impulses?  Are we Neanderthals or what?



Yes we are - and Neanderthals were a completely different species btw.

Millions of years of evolution will not be undone by a few orders or guidelines. That’s evident.


----------



## daftandbarmy

CBH99 said:


> With the exception, as I’ve observed anyway, of when a handsome & polished British man calls them “luv” in a passing manner.
> 
> I work with a well built, handsome, very polite British guy.  In the office, or anytime we are our & about, a woman hands him or does anything for him, he will always say “Thank You Luv…”
> 
> That man has a fan club, I tell you 😅 🇬🇧


----------



## mariomike

CBH99 said:


> SupersonicMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since it is your job, I would argue this is a professional setting.
Click to expand...


Although my "professional setting" had only one female partner,  in a city with many hospitals, it also included many nurses.

I liked one in particular so much I married her.



> I despise when someone (of any age) calls me « hun, »



I've been called worse.



CBH99 said:


> With the exception, as I’ve observed anyway, of when a handsome & polished British man calls them “luv” in a passing manner.
> 
> I work with a well built, handsome, very polite British guy.  In the office, or anytime we are our & about, a woman hands him or does anything for him, he will always say “Thank You Luv…”
> 
> That man has a fan club, I tell you 😅 🇬🇧



I bet he does.


----------



## CountDC

Have to admit I am a bit confused on some of this probably due to lack of experience and knowledge outside of the military.     

I see a lot of calling for an outside group to deal with all sexual investigations with the most quoted reason as the military cannot charge the CDS under our system.   Often the push I see is that these cases would be handed over to outside police agencies.  Now I know from experience that the military can and has handed sexual assault case to local authorities for what ever reason rather than dealing with it in house so that is already an option.     The area I do not have the knowledge on and am wondering about is that some of the cases appear to me to be sexual misconduct which the military has regulations on but does the civilian world have the same?  Using the CDS example apparently it was a long term affair that started when they were equals and continued until he retired which due to promotions and appointments crossed into him eventually being in a position of power over her which the military frowns on.   In the civilian world would this be a criminal matter?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

CountDC said:


> Have to admit I am a bit confused on some of this probably due to lack of experience and knowledge outside of the military.
> 
> I see a lot of calling for an outside group to deal with all sexual investigations with the most quoted reason as the military cannot charge the CDS under our system.   Often the push I see is that these cases would be handed over to outside police agencies.  Now I know from experience that the military can and has handed sexual assault case to local authorities for what ever reason rather than dealing with it in house so that is already an option.     The area I do not have the knowledge on and am wondering about is that some of the cases appear to me to be sexual misconduct which the military has regulations on but does the civilian world have the same?  Using the CDS example apparently it was a long term affair that started when they were equals and continued until he retired which due to promotions and appointments crossed into him eventually being in a position of power over her which the military frowns on.   In the civilian world would this be a criminal matter?


The CDS isn't in criminal trouble for his affair, he is in trouble for his attempt to cover up said affair.


----------



## QV

Humphrey Bogart said:


> The CDS isn't in criminal trouble for his affair, he is in trouble for his attempt to cover up said affair.


I guess we'll see if it is a crime to want private non-criminal matters to stay private.


----------



## Good2Golf

QV said:


> I guess we'll see if it is a crime to want private non-criminal matters to stay private.


When you’re not married (hence no element of spousal non-incrimination) and you attempt to influence someone to ‘agree’ to a situation that did not exist for subsequent testimony (ie. to lie) to a judicially-supported investigation, it has gone beyond wanting “private non-criminal matters to stay private.”


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

QV said:


> I guess we'll see if it is a crime to want private non-criminal matters to stay private.


I should have added: allegedly to that 😁


----------



## QV

Good2Golf said:


> When you’re not married (hence no element of spousal non-incrimination) and you attempt to influence someone to ‘agree’ to a situation that did not exist for subsequent testimony (ie. to lie) to a judicially-supported investigation, it has gone beyond wanting “private non-criminal matters to stay private.”


Once the police determined no sex assault or other crime existed, the investigation should be over. To lie about the existence of an affair to protect from personal embarrassment is not material to the commission of a crime because it was already established there was no crime in this. 

It seems to me this is a very cheap jab at the former CDS. 

Ask the currently serving police officers how many people get charged with obstruct for asking someone to lie about a personal matter, I can't think that number is very high especially in cases where the police have determined no crime has taken place. 

Even accusers of sex assault who later confess they lied to the police are rarely if ever charged with public mischief, and that is by far a more serious matter.


----------



## brihard

QV said:


> Once the police determined no sex assault or other crime existed, the investigation should be over. To lie about the existence of an affair to protect from personal embarrassment is not material to the commission of a crime because it was already established there was no crime in this.
> 
> It seems to me this is a very cheap jab at the former CDS.
> 
> Ask the currently serving police officers how many people get charged with obstruct for asking someone to lie about a personal matter, I can't think that number is very high especially in cases where the police have determined no crime has taken place.
> 
> Even accusers of sex assault who later confess they lied to the police are rarely if ever charged with public mischief, and that is by far a more serious matter.


Was an investigation being conducted to determine if offences may have been committed under the National Defense Act Code of Service Discipline? Crim Code obstruction doesn’t have to rely on a criminal predicate offence. You can go Crim Code obstruction for someone giving you a fake name at a traffic stop. The elements of the offence of obstruction allow for numerous different fact sets.

Clearly there was at least enough information available for someone to feel comfortable laying a charge and for crown to b going with it. Might be we need to wait to see how this plays out.


----------



## CountDC

Humphrey Bogart said:


> The CDS isn't in criminal trouble for his affair, he is in trouble for his attempt to cover up said affair.


I get that but it does not cover what I was asking.   The government and public has pushed for outside agency investigation of matters based on his affair and the military not able to prosecute him as CDS.    How having this investigated by an outside agency would help?   I think the RCMP or local police would have looked at this and in seconds determined there was no criminal action to it, only in the military does this have any form of possible criminal tone that I am aware of.    If the military investigators were to find a case for sexual assault then they could hand it over to local authorities for legal action which has been done in at least one case I know of.

Basically I am trying to fathom the benefit of having outside investigators vice our military other than for political grand standing by mister "I am sorry our perception of events are different" groper PM.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

CountDC said:


> I get that but it does not cover what I was asking.   The government and public has pushed for outside agency investigation of matters based on his affair and the military not able to prosecute him as CDS.    How having this investigated by an outside agency would help?   I think the RCMP or local police would have looked at this and in seconds determined there was no criminal action to it, only in the military does this have any form of possible criminal tone that I am aware of.    If the military investigators were to find a case for sexual assault then they could hand it over to local authorities for legal action which has been done in at least one case I know of.
> 
> Basically I am trying to fathom the benefit of having outside investigators vice our military other than for political grand standing by mister "I am sorry our perception of events are different" groper PM.


It eliminates the perception of inside interference and bias.  It's a political move my dude.  

The results of which will probably result in less cases moving forward in any sort of way.  

Has anyone ever considered that the Government doesn't actually want anything to change because they are actually, politically speaking, quite happy with the political status quo?  

The CAF continues to provide a valuable doormat they can beat with a broom from time to time.  😁


----------



## QV

brihard said:


> Was an investigation being conducted to determine if offences may have been committed under the National Defense Act Code of Service Discipline? Crim Code obstruction doesn’t have to rely on a criminal predicate offence. You can go Crim Code obstruction for someone giving you a fake name at a traffic stop. The elements of the offence of obstruction allow for numerous different fact sets.
> 
> Clearly there was at least enough information available for someone to feel comfortable laying a charge and for crown to b going with it. Might be we need to wait to see how this plays out.


I'm with you on what can constitute obstruct. So what was obstructed exactly in this case? Agree, we'll need to wait and see what details emerge but on it's face this seems weak as hell. 

Where I'm at a loss is where the CDS's conduct contravened a NDA disciplinary offence that would necessitate an investigation. 

He had a personal relationship, for years. Clearly the CAF allows relationships or there would not be such a thing as "service couples". There is even a DAOD on the topic and this circumstance doesn't seem to even meet the definition of "adverse personal relationship". 

I've never ever heard of anyone in the CAF being under investigation for disciplinary offences stemming from a consensual relationship. Once it was determined there was no sex assault, IMHO this was over. But let's see what happens I guess.


----------



## SupersonicMax

QV said:


> I'm with you on what can constitute obstruct. So what was obstructed exactly in this case? Agree, we'll need to wait and see what details emerge but on it's face this seems weak as hell.
> 
> Where I'm at a loss is where the CDS's conduct contravened a NDA disciplinary offence that would necessitate an investigation.
> 
> He had a personal relationship, for years. Clearly the CAF allows relationships or there would not be such a thing as "service couples". There is even a DAOD on the topic and this circumstance doesn't seem to even meet the definition of "adverse personal relationship".
> 
> I've never ever heard of anyone in the CAF being under investigation for disciplinary offences stemming from a consensual relationship. Once it was determined there was no sex assault, IMHO this was over. But let's see what happens I guess.


The victim mentioned the Mr Vance used his authority to influence her postings.  That could warrant an investigation.


----------



## Blackadder1916

QV said:


> I've never ever heard of anyone in the CAF being under investigation for disciplinary offences stemming from a consensual relationship. . . .



Well, there was that general officer (later colonel) who engaged in a consensual sexual relationship with a junior rank but strayed contrary to other regulations and orders, and obstructed justice (by telling the junior rank to deny the affair).  Almost on point.






						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
				





> Ménard J.B.D. (Brigadier-General), R. v.​
> Charges
> •Charges 1,2: S. 129 NDA, conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline.
> 
> Results
> •FINDINGS: Charges 1, 2: Guilty.
> •SENTENCE: A reduction in rank to the rank of colonel and a fine in the amount of $7000.
> 
> The objective seriousness of the two offences. You have been found guilty of two service offences under section 129 of the _National Defence Act _for having taken part in activities of a sexual nature with a person at the rank of master corporal, contrary to the JTF Afghanistan Theatre Standing Orders, and for having obstructed the inquiries into the facts regarding the proper performance of your duties as commander. You are therefore liable to dismissal with disgrace from Her Majesty’s service or less punishment.



And a search of CM decisions using the word "obstruction" brings up numerous examples of individuals charged with obstruction.






						Chief Military Judge
					

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




					decisia.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca


----------



## Haggis

Blackadder1916 said:


> Well, there was that general officer (later colonel) who engaged in a consensual sexual relationship with a junior rank but strayed contrary to other regulations and orders, and obstructed justice (by telling the junior rank to deny the affair).  Almost on point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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


That was Ménard's second trip before a Court Martial for an "ND".  The other occurred  roughly a year earlier with his carbine.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Haggis said:


> That was Ménard's *second trip before a Court Martial for an "ND"*.  The other occurred  roughly a year earlier with his carbine.


----------



## Good2Golf

I think they’re classified as BNDs…biological negligent discharges.


----------



## McG

SupersonicMax said:


> The victim mentioned the Mr Vance used his authority to influence her postings.  That could warrant an investigation.


She did say that but she was also PRes and not subject to postings, so there is more behind that allegation than what is being said.
It might be that he used CFTPO to drag her across the country (which is no better), that he circumvented proper PRes hiring processes (which might actually be worse), or something else all together.


----------



## QV

Blackadder1916 said:


> Well, there was that general officer (later colonel) who engaged in a consensual sexual relationship with a junior rank but strayed contrary to other regulations and orders, and obstructed justice (by telling the junior rank to deny the affair).  Almost on point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And a search of CM decisions using the word "obstruction" brings up numerous examples of individuals charged with obstruction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chief Military Judge
> 
> 
> Get quick, easy access to all Government of Canada services and information.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> decisia.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca


Not the same.

Menard's activities were contrary to theatre standing orders. Breaking a standing order would constitute an offence under NDA 129. And by his actions Menard may have obstructed that legitimate investigation. Moreover, Menard's activities would negatively affect (or prejudice) good order and discipline of his subordinates in theatre if his tryst was widely known. The boss is breaking the rules.

As for Vance, what standing orders exist in Canada preventing relationships between CAF members? And if none exist how could he obstruct an investigation into that which does not exist? If an investigation is illegitimate, can it be obstructed? I understand any lawful investigation could be obstructed even if the investigative outcome bears no fruit. What I'm contending is, once sex assault was ruled out, the disciplinary investigation itself was illegitimate because (from what I understand) he broke no rules by merely engaging in a consensual relationship. 

There has to be something else more to the Vance case, because if that is all there is to it... that is weak.


----------



## daftandbarmy

McG said:


> She did say that but *she was also PRes* and not subject to postings, so there is more behind that allegation than what is being said.
> It might be that he used CFTPO to drag her across the country (which is no better), that he circumvented proper PRes hiring processes (which might actually be worse), or something else all together.



An interesting metaphor for what the Reg F does to the Reserves, in microcosm


----------



## lenaitch

I'm not familiar with NDA or military jurisprudence, but I would think that so long as the investigation was entered into in good faith and not outside the authority of the investigators, a subject party in the investigation trying to influence the evidence of another involved party seems, to me, the fit the offence of Obstruction.  Somebody (the female witness in question?) raised an allegation of improper behavior.  Investigators have three choices; dismiss it out of hand, pass it on or investigate it.


----------



## winds_13

QV, there are a lot more rules that Vance potentially broke outside of sexual assault. Yes, consensual relationships are allowed in the CAF but they must be reported to the CoC, particularly when one is subordinate to the other. Vance signed her PER, that alone was a conflict of interest if they were engaged in a consensual relationship. He is accused of under evaluating her potential on said PER, in order to maintain control over her. As mentioned, he potentially abused his authority to post her under his command. He may have ordered her to his office where she alleges they engaged in sexual acts. She stated that she felt powerless to deny his requests due to the power that he had over her career. He may have provided her direct advice on what information to include and not to include in her class action lawsuit claim, stating that he ensured it was designed so that offenders did not have to be named. When being investigated for these offences, he then directly told her to lie. He lied publicly that their physical relationship had ended at a point in time prior to when he apparently fathered children with her. Just because the relationship started consensually does not mean that he did not commit sexual misconduct. Having sex in the office alone, or signing her PER when they are involved in an intimate relationship, would be worthy of investigation and charge, if true.

There is a lot more to this case than a simple consensual relationship between two members of the CAF. I recommend you watch the Global News interviews with Maj Brennan where she describes their relationship.


----------



## MilEME09

Over 40 per cent of military sexual misconduct class action claims are from men: Eyre - National | Globalnews.ca
					

Gen. Wayne Eyre said fixing the military's culture is vital because the world is "probably more dangerous now than it has been since the end of the Cold War."




					globalnews.ca
				




New interview reveals class action lawsuit has reaching 19000 claims, 42% of which are filed by men.


----------



## kev994

Does anyone have any idea what % of the CAF is men? I’m guessing it’s pretty high.


----------



## dimsum

kev994 said:


> Does anyone have any idea what % of the CAF is men? I’m guessing it’s pretty high.


I can't remember where and when I saw it, but I thought women made up about 15% of the CAF as a whole.  

Probably very dated info but I can't see it being that different now...?


----------



## dangerboy

dimsum said:


> I can't remember where and when I saw it, but I thought women made up about 15% of the CAF as a whole.
> 
> Probably very dated info but I can't see it being that different now...?


From the 2019-2020 Department of National Defence departmental progress report for Canada’s National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security: 2019-2020 Department of National Defence departmental progress report for Canada’s National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security


----------



## kev994

So 58% of 19000 claims is ~11,020 claims from women. And if 15.7% of 60,000 reg force is women, that’s only 9,420. Understanding that my sample size is off, there’s more people than just reg force in the pool, it seems like most of them have made a claim. That’s kinda hidden in the story about the number of claims that are from men.


----------



## dangerboy

The 15.7% of women in the CAF are those that are currently in. I suspect a lot of the claims submitted are from people that are no longer serving in the CAF.


----------



## FJAG

Rory Fowler's blog of the 25th or 26th of November respecting the circumstances of the investigation and removal of Admiral MacDonald.



> Admiral McDonald and Procedural Fairness in the Canadian Forces
> 
> 
> Admiral McDonald and Procedural Fairness in the Canadian Forces     [Editorial Comment: Regular readers of this Blog will be aware that the content of this Blog typically relates to legislation, policies, processes, and practices pertaining to the Canadian Forces and their application to the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> roryfowlerlaw.com


----------



## dapaterson

I admire the chutzpah of a lawyer taking on a client that they previously pilloried for contempt of the law, arguing that "not charged means didn't commit the acts alleged".


----------



## Kilted

MilEME09 said:


> Over 40 per cent of military sexual misconduct class action claims are from men: Eyre - National | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> Gen. Wayne Eyre said fixing the military's culture is vital because the world is "probably more dangerous now than it has been since the end of the Cold War."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New interview reveals class action lawsuit has reaching 19000 claims, 42% of which are filed by men.


That's not surprising, there are likely many that didn't.  I suspect that had this occurred 10-20 years ago that not nearly as many men would have come forward because the organizational (warrior?) culture at the time would not have allowed it.


----------



## Eaglelord17

There is also many who I am sure also didn't join in either.


----------



## kev994

Yeah, over on Reddit there’s an astounding number of arguments that men weren’t eligible, apparently they listened to gossip instead of reading the thousands of posters and emails plastered everywhere.


----------



## dimsum

kev994 said:


> Yeah, over on Reddit there’s an astounding number of arguments that men weren’t eligible, apparently they listened to gossip instead of reading the thousands of posters and emails plastered everywhere.


While there are gems of good info in that sub sometimes, I pretty much only go there for SCS and to catch up on the latest snark.


----------



## brihard

FJAG said:


> Rory Fowler's blog of the 25th or 26th of November respecting the circumstances of the investigation and removal of Admiral MacDonald.


Maybe I’m missing something here- but Fowler cites as evidence the fact that no charges were laid under the CSD. Hasn’t it been determined that there’s no viable way to proceed under the CSD for someone as senior as the Chief of the Defence Staff?

Regarding no laying of criminal charges, am I mistaken in recalling that the alleged event took place aboard a deployed HMCS, and that S.130 NDA would be the only way to proceed? But which then fails for the reason mentioned above?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Well ... knock me down with a feather. That should solve all the CAF's problems 

Hopefully there will be more (substance) to follow.

Defence minister and Canada's top soldier to apologize to sexual misconduct victims​Dec. 13 apology will be streamed on Canadian Armed Forces Facebook page​
Defence Minister Anita Anand will formally apologize to military survivors of sexual misconduct Dec. 13.  (Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press)
Canada's defence minister will join the country's top soldier in delivering a formal apology to survivors of sexual misconduct in the armed forces on December 13.

"All Defence Team members should be treated fairly in a workplace that is safe and free of any kind of harassment and discrimination," says a joint statement from the federal government.

"We know there is much more work to do to create lasting and positive culture change, and we will continue to listen to and learn from those affected to ensure we are taking the necessary action to make that change."

Defence Minister Anita Anand will apologize on behalf of the Government of Canada. Her deputy, Jody Thomas, will apologize on behalf of the Department of National Defence. Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Wayne Eyre will apologize on behalf of the armed forces.

The apology will take place at 1 p.m. and will be streamed live on the Canadian Armed Forces Facebook page. Afterwards, the video of the apology will be posted to the Forces Twitter and YouTube accounts and the Sexual Misconduct Apology web page.



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sexual-misconduct-apology-livestream-1.6267121


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I think public acknowledgment is important to the government, the CAF and victims.  Maybe it can be a pivotal point collectively?


----------



## PPCLI Guy

kev994 said:


> So 58% of 19000 claims is ~11,020 claims from women. And if 15.7% of 60,000 reg force is women, that’s only 9,420. Understanding that my sample size is off, there’s more people than just reg force in the pool, it seems like most of them have made a claim. That’s kinda hidden in the story about the number of claims that are from men.


Eligibility is for all serving or former serving members who experienced Sexual Misconduct prior to Nov 2019so sample size is dramatically bigger than the current population of CAF....



> *“CAF Class Members”* have been defined as follows:
> 
> _All current or former CAF members who experienced Sexual Misconduct up to and including November 25, 2019, who have not opted out of the Heyder or Beattie Class Actions._
> 
> *“DND/SNPF Class Members”* have been defined as follows:
> 
> _All current and former employees of DND and of the Staff of the Non-Public Funds, Canadian Forces, who experienced Sexual Misconduct up to and including November 25, 2019, who have not Opted Out of the Heyder or Beattie Class Actions._
> 
> *“Sexual Misconduct”* means the following, _in Connection with Military Service for the CAF Class and in Connection with Employment for the DND/SNPF Class:_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Sexual harassment;_
> _Sexual assault; and/or_
> _Discrimination on the grounds of sex, gender, gender identity or sexual orientation._
> 
> 
> *“Eligible Class Member”* is defined as a Class Member who was alive as of March 15, 2019, and whose application for an Individual Payment is approved in accordance with the provisions of the Final Settlement Agreement.


----------



## Kilted

Has there not been an official apology already?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Kilted said:


> Has there not been an official apology already?



Apparently not.

Maybe that's a good example of one of the cultural issues in the CAF.


----------



## Booter

Sexual misconduct victims to receive apology from Canadian Armed Forces
					

The commander of the Canadian Armed Forces is preparing to formally apologize to victims of sexual misconduct as the military seeks to turn the page on its record of failing to prevent inappropriate and criminal behaviour.




					www.nationalobserver.com
				




It looks like it’s been in the works a while. But the timing wasn’t right for maximum political points


----------



## The Bread Guy

The info-machine's version of the apology announcement ...


> The Minister of National Defence, the Honourable Anita Anand, the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Wayne Eyre, and the Deputy Minister, Jody Thomas, issued the following statement:
> 
> “There must be absolutely no place in our organization for sexual assault, sexual harassment or discrimination based on sex, gender, gender identity or sexual orientation. We know that our collective failure to build an inclusive workplace culture free from these unacceptable behaviours has hurt our people.
> 
> “As part of our efforts to restore relationships with those harmed, we will offer a public apology to all current and former members of the Defence Team who have been affected by sexual assault and sexual misconduct, including harassment, and discrimination.”
> 
> The Honourable Anita Anand, Minister of National Defence, will offer an apology on behalf of the Government of Canada. General Wayne Eyre, Chief of the Defence Staff, will offer an apology on behalf of the Canadian Armed Forces. Jody Thomas, Deputy Minister of National Defence, will offer an apology on behalf of the Department of National Defence.
> 
> The apology will take place virtually at 1 p.m. EST on December 13 and will be livestreamed on the Canadian Armed Forces Facebook page. Viewers can watch the video stream without an account or signing in to Facebook. A link to the video will be posted shortly before the event on the CAF and DND Facebook and Twitter pages, and will also be available on the DND/CAF Sexual Misconduct Apology web page. The event will also be recorded and available afterwards on YouTube for those who are unable to watch it live or prefer to view it at a later time.
> 
> Everyone will process the apology in their own way. The apology may evoke strong emotional responses and/or cause trauma to resurface – either in the moment or later on. Should you or someone you know require support, a list of available support services can be found here.
> 
> If you, or someone you know has experienced an incident of sexual misconduct, there is help available. Here are the services available to Defence Team members.
> 
> “All Defence Team members should be treated fairly in a workplace that is safe and free of any kind of harassment and discrimination. We know there is much more work to do to create lasting and positive culture change, and we will continue to listen to and learn from those affected to ensure we are taking the necessary action to make that change.”
> 
> – 30 –​


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

There is an article out there today, that can't be mentioned here, about one of army.ca's former members being exonerated for his attempt to stop sexual misconduct at RMC.

Well done Mark......a pox on their houses.


----------



## Remius

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> There is an article out there today, that can't be mentioned here, about one of army.ca's former members being exonerated for his attempt to stop sexual misconduct at RMC.
> 
> Well done Mark......a pox on their houses.


Saw it.   Wow, so these psychopaths get to continue their careers so that in 30 years we’ll be dealing with some effed up CDS who will be named as one of these participants and we’ll be no further ahead. 

No wonder people have lost faith.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> There is an article out there today, that can't be mentioned here, about one of army.ca's former members being exonerated for his attempt to stop sexual misconduct at RMC.
> 
> Well done Mark......a pox on their houses.



That is a very damning article.


----------



## Good2Golf

Halifax Tar said:


> That is a very damning article.


It should be.  That a BGen was upset at the use of the F-word while giving tomorrow’s leaders a pass on sexual harassment of under-aged girls pretty much tells you the characteristics of that individual and the system that supports him. 😠


----------



## dapaterson

That the GOFOs in Ottawa intervened for their snowflakes also says a lot...


----------



## daftandbarmy

dapaterson said:


> That the GOFOs in Ottawa intervened for their snowflakes also says a lot...



Rings be like...


----------



## Good2Golf

dapaterson said:


> That the GOFOs in Ottawa intervened for their snowflakes also says a lot...


Yeah, that was my use of “system” above, but yes, there is a problem, and they (GOFOs who continue to support those of such ilk as BGen Friday) remain a large part of the problem.


----------



## OldSolduer

Good2Golf said:


> It should be.  That a BGen was upset at the use of the F-word while giving tomorrow’s leaders a pass on sexual harassment of under-aged girls pretty much tells you the characteristics of that individual and the system that supports him. 😠




Under aged girls are children. These people should have known better


----------



## OldSolduer

Halifax Tar said:


> That is a very damning article.


Can you somehow link me to it?


----------



## Navy_Pete

OldSolduer said:


> Can you somehow link me to it?


It's on the Ottawa Citizen for 29 November; I'll send you a PM with the link.


----------



## Good2Golf

OldSolduer said:


> Can you somehow link me to it?


PM sent


----------



## KevinB

Usually I like Rory Fowlers articles - I don't always agree with him, but that post was utter tripe.

I read the Ottawa Citizen article - it makes me weep, but I am not shocked at all.
   For those who watch Yellowstone - I think the CF should adopt the "Long Black Train" HR Model to deal with this issue...


----------



## dimsum

KevinB said:


> but that post was utter tripe.


So...delicious if stewed in a light ginger and chicken broth?   

(I'm always the only one eating it when going for dimsum.)


----------



## OldSolduer

Thanks all. That’s who I thought it was


----------



## kev994

Can we split this thread? We’ve been off track for several pages


----------



## OceanBonfire

> The Canadian military says actions taken so far against Adm. Art McDonald are “significant” and there are no plans to pursue measures like stripping or lowering his rank.
> 
> ...
> 
> “Admiral McDonald will be releasing from the CAF, and the prior actions taken, including his suspension from the performance of his duties, as well as the subsequent termination of his appointment are considered significant actions,” said a spokesperson for the Department of National Defence.
> 
> “Further information regarding conditions of release is protected by the Privacy Act.”
> 
> ...
> 
> He has said he intends to retire from the military.
> 
> In contrast, military police sources emphasized the issue of rank in September when questioned by Global News on the decision not to pursue code of service penalties against McDonald’s predecessor, retired general Jonathan Vance.
> 
> Those sources cited the findings from former Supreme Court of Canada justice Morris Fish in June that it would be “legally impossible” for the military to charge and try someone in the role of chief of the defence staff because they have no peers to sit on the military panel weighing the charges.
> 
> However, that determination was specifically in relation to courts martial.
> 
> ...











						Military says Adm. Art McDonald already faced ‘significant’ action as police report released - National | Globalnews.ca
					

Global News obtained a copy of the military police sexual misconduct investigation into Adm. Art McDonald via access to information laws.




					globalnews.ca


----------



## KevinB

OceanBonfire said:


> Military says Adm. Art McDonald already faced ‘significant’ action as police report released - National | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> Global News obtained a copy of the military police sexual misconduct investigation into Adm. Art McDonald via access to information laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> globalnews.ca


JFC 
  I mean it seems to be par for the course these days but can the CAF just stop stepping on its dick for once?

AAM should be dragged through the street and drawn and quartered (legally not physically) if for nothing more than to make a clear statement that the CAF isn't going to tolerate these sort of shenanigan any further - and rank will not count for anything if one violates the law.


----------



## Halifax Tar

KevinB said:


> JFC
> I mean it seems to be par for the course these days but can the CAF just stop stepping on its dick for once?
> 
> AAM should be dragged through the street and drawn and quartered (legally not physically) if for nothing more than to make a clear statement that the CAF isn't going to tolerate these sort of shenanigan any further - and rank will not count for anything if one violates the law.



Isn't there a quote or something about sacrificing a General every once in a while just to reinforce discipline ?


----------



## KevinB

Halifax Tar said:


> Isn't there a quote or something about sacrificing a General every once in a while just to reinforce discipline ?


If not there should be more than a quote


----------



## Infanteer

Halifax Tar said:


> Isn't there a quote or something about sacrificing a General every once in a while just to reinforce discipline ?


That was an Admiral.  (Byng)


----------



## OldSolduer

Halifax Tar said:


> Isn't there a quote or something about sacrificing a General every once in a while just to reinforce discipline ?


Yes and it was an admiral - for encouragement of the others.


----------



## McG

> … said a spokesperson for the Department of National Defence.





> The Canadian Military says …



Not to be pedantic but, is this message from DND or the CAF?  Is there anyone in the military with authorities to pursue stronger actions than those taken by the government? If no, is this a policy statement (ministerial/departmental responsibility space as opposed to military) explaining that civilian leadership is not interested or n pressing the matter further?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

My only question....

What consulting firm will Admiral McDonald be working for in retirement? 😁


----------



## daftandbarmy

Humphrey Bogart said:


> My only question....
> 
> What consulting firm will Admiral McDonald be working for in retirement? 😁



I'll help narrow the field here for you a bit: Not mine.


----------



## FJAG

I'm keeping my powder dry at this point.

I've seen nothing yet which convinces me on even a balance of probabilities, much less a reasonable doubt, the he's guilty of anything.

Quite frankly I can see Rory's viewpoint that this is a railroad job being done on a very flimsy "Caesar's wife must be above superstition" premise. If the same standard was applied to the PM he'd have been out on his ear long ago.

McDonald's public statement a few weeks back was questionable and troubling but quite frankly, if I was innocent and being treated the way that he was I'd be squawking too. 

This has nothing to do with him being a privileged person who should get away with things but has everything to do with being treated with procedural fairness and a modicum of respect and dignity due to every serving member.

I would very much like to go through the unredacted police investigation report to see what's in it and what is not in it.

I'm generally a trusting sort but in this case I don't trust anyone.

🍻


----------



## KevinB

FJAG said:


> I'm keeping my powder dry at this point.
> 
> I've seen nothing yet which convinces me on even a balance of probabilities, much less a reasonable doubt, the he's guilty of anything.


Two different eyewitnesses have come forward to corroborate one of the allegations of sexual assault.


FJAG said:


> Quite frankly I can see Rory's viewpoint that this is a railroad job being done on a very flimsy "Caesar's wife must be above superstition" premise. If the same standard was applied to the PM he'd have been out on his ear long ago.


PM probably should be in jail too - just my 0.02


FJAG said:


> McDonald's public statement a few weeks back was questionable and troubling but quite frankly, if I was innocent and being treated the way that he was I'd be squawking too.
> 
> This has nothing to do with him being a privileged person who should get away with things but has everything to do with being treated with procedural fairness and a modicum of respect and dignity due to every serving member.


Look back earlier in this thread - the MP's basically squashed two witnesses.
   One of them came out to a media outlet.


FJAG said:


> I would very much like to go through the unredacted police investigation report to see what's in it and what is not in it.
> 
> I'm generally a trusting sort but in this case I don't trust anyone.
> 
> 🍻


Neither do I - so I'd rather a NON DND entity take it over - and re-interview a bunch of people -- because quite frankly MP's have shown they know how to use a shredder a little too well.


----------



## kev994

KevinB said:


> I mean it seems to be par for the course these days but can the CAF just stop stepping on its dick for once?


I think we’re supposed to say ‘non-gender-specific genitalia.


----------



## kev994

Humphrey Bogart said:


> My only question....
> 
> What consulting firm will Admiral McDonald be working for in retirement? 😁


The one charged with eliminating sexual-misconduct based on having experience ‘within the system’


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

FJAG said:


> I'm keeping my powder dry at this point.
> 
> I've seen nothing yet which convinces me on even a balance of probabilities, much less a reasonable doubt, the he's guilty of anything.
> 
> Quite frankly I can see Rory's viewpoint that this is a railroad job being done on a very flimsy "Caesar's wife must be above superstition" premise. If the same standard was applied to the PM he'd have been out on his ear long ago.
> 
> McDonald's public statement a few weeks back was questionable and troubling but quite frankly, if I was innocent and being treated the way that he was I'd be squawking too.
> 
> This has nothing to do with him being a privileged person who should get away with things but has everything to do with being treated with procedural fairness and a modicum of respect and dignity due to every serving member.
> 
> I would very much like to go through the unredacted police investigation report to see what's in it and what is not in it.
> 
> I'm generally a trusting sort but in this case I don't trust anyone.
> 
> 🍻


I agree but I think the strategic error McDonald made was making statements, sending letters to other GOFOs, etc.  Anyone with half a brain knew his career was over.  

The best course of action IMO was to just say nothing or do what General Cadieu did and gracefully withdraw.  

Everyone would have forgotten about it and his reputation would have largely remained intact. Now his reputation is also destroyed..... and for what?

Ego and stubborness.


----------



## dapaterson

Ego and stubborness are NWO selection criteria.

Besides, I prefer Rory's earlier musings about his now client, back when Art was trying to do by CANFORGEN what requires GiC approval.


----------



## FJAG

KevinB said:


> Two different eyewitnesses have come forward to corroborate one of the allegations of sexual assault.


You see, that's what I'm not sure of. Fowler said this from reviewing the redacted police report:



> Nevertheless, the heavily redacted information that was provided confirmed that, of 38 witnesses interviewed by the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS), not one corroborated the complaint against Admiral McDonald that he pushed the head or face of a third person into the chest of the complainant.


I know Rory and he doesn't pull crap out of his hat. I'll be the first to admit though that a "heavily redacted" police report is worth - crap. IMHO the evidence is conflicted and until it's clear I won't go throwing stones.



KevinB said:


> Look back earlier in this thread - the MP's basically squashed two witnesses.
> One of them came out to a media outlet.


That doesn't make the report true - it just raises a question in my mind of how valuable this witness actually is. I'm one of them folks from Missouri.

I have to admit that that I've found one or more screwed up police reports in my limited travels on both the prosecution and defence side. The one thing that I've learned is that you never take an investigator's report at face value. I always interviewed the witnesses personally before trial to see if what was on paper was there in fact and how the witness appeared to me while saying it. There's been more than one occasion where I flat out wouldn't believe a witness. (and one occasion where I was convinced my client was flat out lying to me because his story sounded so implausible but on further investigation found corroborative witnesses and paperwork to confirm his cock and bull story was absolutely true - go figure) - end result - I refuse to make snap judgements based on news reports and even police reports.



KevinB said:


> Neither do I - so I'd rather a NON DND entity take it over - and re-interview a bunch of people -- because quite frankly MP's have shown they know how to use a shredder a little too well.



If you'd asked me a year ago, I would have - and did - argue against it. This case in particular has made me change my mind. The extent of the redaction in this case to McDonald's counsel is IMHO, highly suspicious as I can't think that any of the normal exclusions on disclosure would apply. Then again this isn't a Stinchcombe disclosure but a piece of crap run through the _Privacy Act _ so the usual government obscuration was applied. Bloody sad, IMHO when dealing with someone who has give his life to the service and a few short months ago was trusted with its highest office.

I've always said: "The Forces are a 'what have you done for us today?' organization." The moment you leave you are forgotten about. Class A's are forgotten about until they are Class Bs or Cs. The moment you can't be used, you are a nothing. McDonald stopped being a something the moment he stepped aside.

I no longer trust them to look after anyone's interest and, in the case of criminal matters, it would be better if an outside agency that doesn't even pretend to care took over. That way at least you know where you stand.

🍻


----------



## KevinB

FJAG said:


> I know Rory and he doesn't pull crap out of his hat. I'll be the first to admit though that a "heavily redacted" police report is worth - crap. IMHO the evidence is conflicted and until it's clear I won't go throwing stones.


I like Rory - I tend to heavily disagree with him, but he is intelligent and honest - which I value.



FJAG said:


> That doesn't make the report true - it just raises a question in my mind of how valuable this witness actually is. I'm one of them folks from Missouri.


Agreed - which again makes me want to get outside looks.


FJAG said:


> I have to admit that that I've found one or more screwed up police reports in my limited travels on both the prosecution and defence side. The one thing that I've learned is that you never take an investigator's report at face value. I always interviewed the witnesses personally before trial to see if what was on paper was there in fact and how the witness appeared to me while saying it. There's been more than one occasion where I flat out wouldn't believe a witness. (and one occasion where I was convinced my client was flat out lying to me because his story sounded so implausible but on further investigation found corroborative witnesses and paperwork to confirm his cock and bull story was absolutely true - go figure) - end result - I refuse to make snap judgements based on news reports and even police reports.


Agreed - my motto these days is Distrust and Verify.



FJAG said:


> If you'd asked me a year ago, I would have - and did - argue against it. This case in particular has made me change my mind. The extent of the redaction in this case to McDonald's counsel is IMHO, highly suspicious as I can't think that any of the normal exclusions on disclosure would apply. Then again this isn't a Stinchcombe disclosure but a piece of crap run through the _Privacy Act _ so the usual government obscuration was applied. Bloody sad, IMHO when dealing with someone who has give his life to the service and a few short months ago was trusted with its highest office.


I found it really odd that Rory mentioned heavily redacted - given he was the defense counsel.   



FJAG said:


> I've always said: "The Forces are a 'what have you done for us today?' organization." The moment you leave you are forgotten about. Class A's are forgotten about until they are Class Bs or Cs. The moment you can't be used, you are a nothing. McDonald stopped being a something the moment he stepped aside.
> 
> I no longer trust them to look after anyone's interest and, in the case of criminal matters, it would be better if an outside agency that doesn't even pretend to care took over. That way at least you know where you stand.
> 
> 🍻


Usually I believe tie go to the runner - based on what we have seen from the CAF recently in Sexual Assault cases etc, I tend to think tie means something stinks and needs much deeper digging.


----------



## FJAG

KevinB said:


> I found it really odd that Rory mentioned heavily redacted - given he was the defense counsel.


Yeah. Here in Canada defence counsel get disclosure respecting charges from the prosecutors under a doctrine from the SCC Stinchcombe decision. Since no charges were laid Stinchcombe is not applicable and there is no obligation for the police to release investigative reports. That left it to Rory to get an access to information release from DND. DND likes using its various redaction tools.

🍻


----------



## KevinB

FJAG said:


> Yeah. Here in Canada defence counsel get disclosure respecting charges from the prosecutors under a doctrine from the SCC Stinchcombe decision. Since no charges were laid Stinchcombe is not applicable and there is no obligation for the police to release investigative reports. That left it to Rory to get an access to information release from DND. DND likes using its various redaction tools.
> 
> 🍻


Ah yes I keep forgetting he wasn't actually charged.
   Which makes this even more messy -


----------



## MilEME09

FJAG said:


> Yeah. Here in Canada defence counsel get disclosure respecting charges from the prosecutors under a doctrine from the SCC Stinchcombe decision. Since no charges were laid Stinchcombe is not applicable and there is no obligation for the police to release investigative reports. That left it to Rory to get an access to information release from DND. DND likes using its various redaction tools.
> 
> 🍻


Redaction tools like code names so ATI requests turn up a blank?


----------



## dapaterson

Aggressive use of exemptions under the Access To Information Act and Privacy Act.

Although I commend DND for actually getting the package out in something resembling their statutory obligatory timeframe to do so.  That's a rare event.


----------



## trigger324

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/haydn-edmundson-sexual-assault-1.6276726


----------



## dimsum

trigger324 said:


> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/haydn-edmundson-sexual-assault-1.6276726


Wasn't he charged months ago?


----------



## brihard

dimsum said:


> Wasn't he charged months ago?


I think you’re thinking of Fortin?


----------



## KevinB

dimsum said:


> Wasn't he charged months ago?


Well to your point, there are a troubling number of GOFO's in this mess it is hard to keep straight.


----------



## daftandbarmy

trigger324 said:


> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/haydn-edmundson-sexual-assault-1.6276726


----------



## kev994

KevinB said:


> Well to your point, there are a troubling number of GOFO's in this mess it is hard to keep straight.


Especially when we get 2 guys in a row who held the same job title and got charged with roughly the same thing. And I think there’s even more than one of those.


----------



## OldSolduer

trigger324 said:


> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/haydn-edmundson-sexual-assault-1.6276726



Let’s not hang him just yet. Presumption of innocence is a principle of our Justice system.


----------



## Good2Golf

OldSolduer said:


> Let’s not hang him just yet. Presumption of innocence is a principle of our Justice system.



I think trigger324 just posted the CBC article link without any call to lynch the Vice Admiral…


----------



## OldSolduer

Good2Golf said:


> I think trigger324 just posted the CBC article link without any call to lynch the Vice Admiral…


Wow that’s unusual


----------



## dimsum

OldSolduer said:


> Wow that’s unusual


Based on other social media, I can understand the "they're guilty" Immediate Action though.


----------



## OldSolduer

dimsum said:


> Based on other social media, I can understand the "they're guilty" Immediate Action though.


In my experience people gleefully love to see the powerful and the wealthy fall, but forget that there is due process for all, not just us peasants.


----------



## Navy_Pete

dapaterson said:


> Aggressive use of exemptions under the Access To Information Act and Privacy Act.
> 
> Although I commend DND for actually getting the package out in something resembling their statutory obligatory timeframe to do so.  That's a rare event.


Not sure what everyone else's experience is, but I've been on the receiving end of a few ATIs and they've all gotten to me at the point where it's already at/past the reply date. Sometimes it's because it takes a while to figure out who to route it to, which is fair I think, but other times it should be obvious (especially when the organization is named specifically in the request), but still takes 30+ days to get to the people with the info.

Pretty skeptical of the ATI office though; they have released multiple files with things marked up for redaction that never get done, or blatantly secret documents (like the CAF emergency response plan a few years ago).

Overall it's a pretty frustrating process when you get nailed at the last minute (especially with a fishing expedition ATI that goes back to longer than we are required to keep records for) and have to drop everything to comb through a pile of stuff because 98% of the timeline was eaten up by the routing, and generally you don't get BGH support to push back against an unreasonable turnaround time.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

kev994 said:


> Especially when we get 2 guys in a row who held the same job title and got charged with roughly the same thing. And I think there’s even more than one of those.



My buddies and I were talking about this and one of them remarked:

"Statistically it's so unlikely that we managed to fill so many of our senior leadership with sexual deviants, yet here we are"


----------



## MilEME09

Humphrey Bogart said:


> My buddies and I were talking about this and one of them remarked:
> 
> "Statistically it's so unlikely that we managed to fill so many of our senior leadership with sexual deviants, yet here we are"


I don't know,  if rumors are to be believed, half of RCEME Corp are swingers.....whether you believe those rumors is a different matter.


----------



## QV

Humphrey Bogart said:


> My buddies and I were talking about this and one of them remarked:
> 
> "Statistically it's so unlikely that we managed to fill so many of our senior leadership with sexual deviants, yet here we are"


It is highly unlikely. But we’re at a point in time where even an unsubstantiated allegation will ruin someone.


----------



## daftandbarmy

QV said:


> It is highly unlikely. But we’re at a point in time where even an unsubstantiated allegation will ruin someone.



Like this guy, who was unjustly dealt with IMHO:




			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mason-stalker-gets-promoted-1.4580880


----------



## OldSolduer

OldSolduer said:


> In my experience people gleefully love to see the powerful and the wealthy fall, but forget that there is due process for all, not just us peasants.


Don't like what I have to say? Tough effing luck. Grow up FFS. You know who I'm talking to.

Those who whine and complain about the lower ranks not receiving due process but are ok with railroading senior people are hypocrites. 

Have a great day.


----------



## Halifax Tar

OldSolduer said:


> Don't like what I have to say? Tough effing luck. Grow up FFS. You know who I'm talking to.
> 
> Those who whine and complain about the lower ranks not receiving due process but are ok with railroading senior people are hypocrites.
> 
> Have a great day.



Did you just scold yourself ?


----------



## Remius

Halifax Tar said:


> Did you just scold yourself ?


i was wondering the same thing lol


----------



## brihard

No, trigger got triggered and slammed a troll emoji on OS’s post. OS wasn’t incorrect though.


----------



## Remius

I just realized that was a troll emoji…


----------



## trigger324

brihard said:


> No, trigger got triggered and slammed a troll emoji on OS’s post. OS wasn’t incorrect though.


No, this old soldier has been trolling me for close to a year now. For whatever reason he/she appears to not be able to stop even though he/she owned up to it a while back but still went back to his /her ways. I posted a link to an article yesterday that belonged in this thread. Read back and see what happened next.


----------



## OldSolduer

trigger324 said:


> No, this old soldier has been trolling me for close to a year now. For whatever reason he/she appears to not be able to stop even though he/she owned up to it a while back but still went back to his /her ways. I posted a link to an article yesterday that belonged in this thread. Read back and see what happened next.


I made a joke and you didn't like it. AND I'm not wrong. Grow the F9ck up.


----------



## KevinB

trigger324 said:


> No, this old soldier has been trolling me for close to a year now. For whatever reason he/she appears to not be able to stop even though he/she owned up to it a while back but still went back to his /her ways. I posted a link to an article yesterday that belonged in this thread. Read back and see what happened next.



   Trigger to OS's point you have seemed to be rather gleeful when some senior personnel do get accused.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Had to add something just in case someone feels left out.


----------



## brihard

trigger324 said:


> No, this old soldier has been trolling me for close to a year now. For whatever reason he/she appears to not be able to stop even though he/she owned up to it a while back but still went back to his /her ways. I posted a link to an article yesterday that belonged in this thread. Read back and see what happened next.


You’ve been foaming at the mouth through this whole thing any time anyone senior comes even close to being raked over the coals, and you’ve shown no particular inclination to care much about due process. He was on point, even if you don’t like it. OS is all for accountability, but also proper process and fairness. You’ll be fine.


----------



## trigger324

brihard said:


> You’ve been foaming at the mouth through this whole thing any time anyone senior comes even close to being raked over the coals, and you’ve shown no particular inclination to care much about due process. He was on point, even if you don’t like it. OS is all for accountability, but also proper process and fairness. You’ll be fine.


No, I’m afraid not. At no time have I ever implied I am not for due process. And if this thread had included any links to junior pers’ comparable transgressions, I’d be equally critical, and definitely _upon conviction_


----------



## ModlrMike

Go read the tally of upcoming Court Martials. Junior folks figure heavily there.


----------



## trigger324

ModlrMike said:


> Go read the tally of upcoming Court Martials. Junior folks figure heavily there.


I read them regularly. They just rarely if ever make it to this forum. I’d be equally critical if they did.


----------



## kev994

Navy_Pete said:


> Not sure what everyone else's experience is, but I've been on the receiving end of a few ATIs and they've all gotten to me at the point where it's already at/past the reply date. Sometimes it's because it takes a while to figure out who to route it to, which is fair I think, but other times it should be obvious (especially when the organization is named specifically in the request), but still takes 30+ days to get to the people with the info.
> 
> Pretty skeptical of the ATI office though; they have released multiple files with things marked up for redaction that never get done, or blatantly secret documents (like the CAF emergency response plan a few years ago).
> 
> Overall it's a pretty frustrating process when you get nailed at the last minute (especially with a fishing expedition ATI that goes back to longer than we are required to keep records for) and have to drop everything to comb through a pile of stuff because 98% of the timeline was eaten up by the routing, and generally you don't get BGH support to push back against an unreasonable turnaround time.


That’s pretty much my experience.

Edit: I mean the timeline bit, I haven’t been doing them long enough to see redaction errors.


----------



## QV

daftandbarmy said:


> Like this guy, who was unjustly dealt with IMHO:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mason-stalker-gets-promoted-1.4580880


Those damn MPs… but wait… when the crown says “there was no reasonable likelihood of securing a conviction“ does that mean he didn’t do it?


----------



## daftandbarmy

QV said:


> Those damn MPs… but wait… when the crown says “there was no reasonable likelihood of securing a conviction“ does that mean he didn’t do it?


----------



## Haggis

QV said:


> Those damn MPs… but wait… when the crown says “there was no reasonable likelihood of securing a conviction“ does that mean he didn’t do it?


It means that the evidence is insufficient, weak or inadmissible, or that the witnesses are not credible and proof beyond a reasonable doubt (the criminal standard) would not be possible.


----------



## trigger324

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-armed-forces-sexual-assault-survivors-cases-closed-during-crisis-1.6274844


----------



## QV

Haggis said:


> It means that the evidence is insufficient, weak or inadmissible, or that the witnesses are not credible and proof beyond a reasonable doubt (the criminal standard) would not be possible.


So, say a victim changes their story or refuses to testify for some reason?


----------



## dimsum

trigger324 said:


> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-armed-forces-sexual-assault-survivors-cases-closed-during-crisis-1.6274844


I'm sure others can comment more here, but when I read it on the CAF subreddit, the takeaway was that the civilian system does it as well.  So, it's not something unique to the CAF.  Then, if cases are going to be shifted to the civilian system, then the same result will happen.

Here is the link to the Reddit thread, for those who want to read it.


----------



## kev994

I don’t get the point of the article. When the only evidence is the testimony of the victim I don’t see how anyone can be convicted; reasonable doubt and such, the rule of law comes to mind. Innocent until proven guilty.


----------



## Haggis

QV said:


> So, say a victim changes their story or refuses to testify for some reason?


Those are a couple of reasons why a victim (or witness) wouldn't be credible.  It could also be that the complainant was found to be generally "loose with the truth" in other circumstances or had a history of making frivolous or vexatious allegations.

Documentary evidence could be questioned for authenticity and origins.  I once toured my agency's fraudulent documents lab and it was a shocking eye opener.

Video evidence (e.g. surveillance or security cameras) are often of too low quality to positively identify persons or vehicles or have erroneous or missing date/time stamps.  Same lab - different department.


----------



## ballz

kev994 said:


> I don’t get the point of the article. *When the only evidence is the testimony of the victim I don’t see how anyone can be convicted*; reasonable doubt and such, the rule of law comes to mind. Innocent until proven guilty.



There's really no such thing as that. Even in a one-witness (the alleged victim) scenario, there is always other evidence that can be verified. Whatever the victim alleges will then be fact-checked left right and centre to ensure everything they say is verified by the other known things / things that can be run down to verify their truthfulness.

But if everybody checks everything and everything the victim says is true and verified, and they are cross-examined and are 100% rock solid credible under examination, and and and and... then yes, it's possible to get to "beyond a reasonable doubt." Ultimately that's for the jurors to decide whether the person is 100% rock-solid credible and their version of the events can be fully relied upon.

Which is why it's hard to get a conviction in a "he said/she said" sexual assault case. If there's a smidgeon of anything that doesn't line up, the defence will run it down and try to convince the jury they can't rely on the victim's version of the story, or at least enough to insert a "reasonable doubt."


----------



## trigger324

ballz said:


> Which is why it's hard to get a conviction in a "he said/she said" sexual assault case. If there's a smidgeon of anything that doesn't line up, the defence will run it down and try to convince the jury they can't rely on the victim's version of the story, or at least enough to insert a "reasonable doubt."


Sad, isn’t it?

Some would call that “due process”, similar to what Adm McDonald thought, I’d dare say. In that particular case, Lt(N) MacDonald appears to be more correct in what she said in the aftermath. I sailed with her years ago. Wasn’t all that fond of her at the time, but I believe her today.


----------



## Furniture

trigger324 said:


> Sad, isn’t it?
> 
> Some would call that “due process”, similar to what Adm McDonald thought, I’d dare say. In that particular case, Lt(N) MacDonald appears to be more correct in what she said in the aftermath. I sailed with her years ago. Wasn’t all that fond of her at the time, but I believe her today.


Yes, it's sad the accused gets to defend themselves... 

Perhaps we should just skip the whole "trial" process, and go straight to sentencing.


----------



## ballz

trigger324 said:


> Sad, isn’t it?



No. I would not advocate for a lower standard of proof than "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" to convict someone for a criminal offence.



trigger324 said:


> Some would call that “due process”, similar to what Adm McDonald thought, I’d dare say. In that particular case, Lt(N) MacDonald appears to be more correct in what she said in the aftermath. I sailed with her years ago. Wasn’t all that fond of her at the time, but I believe her today.



Given that I have almost zero knowledge of what evidence there is or isn't in that case, I can't make any conclusions in that case, one way or another.

His public comments after-the-fact, however, I can conclude that he was an idiot.


----------



## trigger324

Furniture said:


> Yes, it's sad the accused gets to defend themselves...
> 
> Perhaps we should just skip the whole "trial" process, and go straight to sentencing.


I didn’t say that


----------



## trigger324

Furniture said:


> Yes, it's sad the accused gets to defend themselves...
> 
> Perhaps we should just skip the whole "trial" process, and go straight to sentencing.


You missed my point. It’s sad that a victim just can’t be believed and an alleged perpetrator can walk on a technicality more often than not


----------



## SeaKingTacco

trigger324 said:


> You missed my point. It’s sad that a victim just can’t be believed and an alleged perpetrator can walk on a technicality more often than not


But that is not “due process”.


----------



## trigger324

SeaKingTacco said:


> But that is not “due process”.



Definitely not, for a victim


----------



## SeaKingTacco

trigger324 said:


> Definitely not, for a victim


No- due process is for everyone.

Just because somebody might be a victim of crime today, does not mean tomorrow that they cannot be an accused and afforded not only the presumption of innocence, but also the right to a vigorous defence. 

Our entire system of justice for the past 400 years has been built on this premise.


----------



## trigger324

SeaKingTacco said:


> No- due process is for everyone.
> 
> Just because somebody might be a victim of crime today, does not mean tomorrow that they cannot be an accused and afforded not only the presumption of innocence, but also the right to a vigorous defence.
> 
> Our entire system of justice for the past 400 years has been built on this premise.


Seen, and in that 400 years many a guilty man has walked free, I’m sure you will agree.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

trigger324 said:


> Seen, and in that 400 years many a guilty man has walked free, I’m sure you will agree.


And women, too.

By the way, that is feature, not a bug.


----------



## trigger324

SeaKingTacco said:


> And women, too.


For sure!


----------



## trigger324

SeaKingTacco said:


> By the way, that is feature, not a bug.


Not necessarily a good thing


----------



## SeaKingTacco

trigger324 said:


> Not necessarily a good thing


What is the alternative?

arbitrary detention?

star chamber “trials” where the accused gets no defence?

is that you want- a society where anyone can make an accusation and that equals a conviction?


----------



## ballz

trigger324 said:


> You missed my point. It’s sad that a victim just can’t be believed and an alleged perpetrator can *walk on a technicality* more often than not



I would hardly call a witness's testimony (from the victim or not) being considered not credible by 12 jurors to be a "technicality."



trigger324 said:


> Definitely not, for a victim



"Justice" does not in any way imply you're going to get the result you hope for. That would be the antithesis of justice.


----------



## trigger324

SeaKingTacco said:


> is that you want- a society where anyone can make an accusation and that equals a conviction?


Of course not. But I think you’d want to believe a victim of a sexual assault and not describe their own experience as a flimsy argument to free a guilty man just because maybe an i wasn’t dotted or a t wasn’t crossed.

Take for example that cabbie in Halifax a couple years back. He got off on a technicality in his first trial. Thankfully that went to a second. Everyone knew he was guilty even after that first discharge.


----------



## OldSolduer

trigger324 said:


> Seen, and in that 400 years many a guilty man has walked free, I’m sure you will agree.


Yes and many innocent people have been wrongly incarcerated due to an abuse of process. What’s your solution? That we should abandon this system?

It’s not perfect but it’s better than Trial by Ordeal or an Inquisition.


----------



## trigger324

OldSolduer said:


> Yes and many innocent people have been wrongly incarcerated due to an abuse of process. What’s your solution? That we should abandon this system?
> 
> It’s not perfect but it’s better than Trial by Ordeal or an Inquisition.


#ibelieveher


----------



## Furniture

trigger324 said:


> #ibelieveher


That's not a process, and how would you feel if you were falsely accused?

Would you #believeher when she says you're a predator with only her word?


----------



## trigger324

Furniture said:


> That's not a process, and how would you feel if you were falsely accused?
> 
> Would you #believeher when she says you're a predator with only her word?


Or, 

Your wife/mother/sister/daughter is raped. Maybe by a predator. You know those women in your life and know they wouldn’t lie, but it just couldn’t be proven. Would you #believeher?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

trigger324 said:


> #ibelieveher


Believing somebody (and being empathetic) is not the same thing as being able to prove something in a court of law.


----------



## Furniture

trigger324 said:


> Or,
> 
> Your wife/mother/sister/daughter is raped. Maybe by a predator. You know those women in your life and know they wouldn’t lie, but it just couldn’t be proven. Would you #believeher?


I'd believe her, and I'd be angry about the trial outcome, but at the same time I wouldn't want to tear down a fundamental foundation of western society. 

It might be emotionally satisfying to see a "bad" person go down, but what happens when you're the accused? 

This is a list of people in America falsely found guilty under the current system, under a "prove your innocence" system how many more would we add to the list? 

List of wrongful convictions in the United States - Wikipedia


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Furniture said:


> I'd believe her, and I'd be angry about the trial outcome, but at the same time I wouldn't want to tear down a fundamental foundation of western society.
> 
> It might be emotionally satisfying to see a "bad" person go down, but what happens when you're the accused?
> 
> This is a list of people in America falsely found guilty under the current system, under a "prove your innocence" system how many more would we add to the list?
> 
> List of wrongful convictions in the United States - Wikipedia


Lets not forget the Canadian List.

David Millgaard tops it, but there are hundreds of others…


----------



## OldSolduer

trigger324 said:


> #ibelieveher


You simply cannot just believe someone, it must be proven in a court of law. Before a judge alone or a judge with a jury. 

Your simple hashtag solution is crass and and shows a lack of critical thought.


----------



## trigger324

Furniture said:


> I'd believe her, and I'd be angry about the trial outcome, but at the same time I wouldn't want to tear down a fundamental foundation of western society.
> 
> It might be emotionally satisfying to see a "bad" person go down, but what happens when you're the accused?
> 
> This is a list of people in America falsely found guilty under the current system, under a "prove your innocence" system how many more would we add to the list?
> 
> List of wrongful convictions in the United States - Wikipedia


I’m pretty sure we’re on the same page here, we just haven’t come to a consensus with our wording.

I guess for me, where there’s smoke, there’s fire within the news headlines and especially regarding this thread. Myself, I will continue to give the many complainants the benefit of the doubt, and at the same time believing them, have faith that the due process THAT ALL OF US WANT is carried out in their favour.


----------



## Furniture

trigger324 said:


> I’m pretty sure we’re on the same page here, we just haven’t come to a consensus with our wording.
> 
> I guess for me, where there’s smoke, there’s fire within the news headlines and especially regarding this thread. Myself, I will continue to give the many complainants the benefit of the doubt, and at the same time believing them, have faith that the due process THAT ALL OF US WANT is carried out in their favour.


Personally, I tend to believe the accuser, as you said, where there is smoke there is fire. 

I also personally understand the system can't work that way, and as someone who was "smoke" under a toxic boss, I have lived the military consequences of it. I'm glad the consequences were just military, and not criminal... As a Pte/Cpl it was easy to recover from a toxic boss. 

We have a very low rate of false accusations because both accused, and accuser know they will have their day in court. If we weaken the protection for the accused, we open the door for false accusation. 

I want the CAF to be better, I just worry that even the appearance of a "witch hunt" will make things worse. Think back to the times when people joked that harassment training was to teach people what they could get away with...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

trigger324 said:


> You missed my point. It’s sad that a victim just can’t be believed and an alleged perpetrator can walk on a technicality more often than not



I agree with you, now that scientists have proven that people do not lie or fabricate stories…



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/jussie-smollett-verdict-1.6280247?fbclid=IwAR1TtF0fBUZWo1uZ98wTt9RYZcQiybW0XXAuepXVKl5Amwtgd61sCOONvfk
		


😬


----------



## Eye In The Sky

.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Furniture said:


> Think back to the times when people joked that harassment training was to teach people what they could get away with...


No need to think back, present day "leaders" proudly view the harassment advisor course in this way.


----------



## KevinB

trigger324 said:


> Or,
> 
> Your wife/mother/sister/daughter is raped. Maybe by a predator. You know those women in your life and know they wouldn’t lie, but it just couldn’t be proven. Would you #believeher?


I'd use my chipper/shreddeer - but that is just me.

However, sometimes where there is smoke, there isn't fire - but a smoke grenade.
   A few years ago a good friend of mine was accused of sexually assaulting his ex, he was charged and eventually the crown dropped the charges.
 Because they got both of their text histories - and her story fell apart.   He got racked through the coals at work during the process and his security clearance was suspended -- now despite him being cleared - the crown declined to press charges against her for criminal mischief, perjury or anything else.


----------



## Haggis

KevinB said:


> I'd use my chipper/shreddeer - but that is just me.
> 
> However, sometimes where there is smoke, there isn't fire - but a smoke grenade.
> A few years ago a good friend of mine was accused of sexually assaulting his ex, he was charged and eventually the crown dropped the charges.
> Because they got both of their text histories - and her story fell apart.   He got racked through the coals at work during the process and his security clearance was suspended -- now despite him being cleared - the crown declined to press charges against her for criminal mischief, perjury or anything else.


I have posted this story before as a recent example of how the CAF got it very wrong and still hasn't made amends.

Very often, the accuser walks away unscathed.  Also, the press is slow to print corrections/retractions to stories that are no longer in the news cycle despite their ongoing damages to reputations.


----------



## dimsum

trigger324 said:


> Myself, I will continue to give the many complainants the benefit of the doubt, and at the same time believing them, have faith that the due process THAT ALL OF US WANT is carried out in their favour.


You can believe a party, while still making sure that things are as they seem.

As an old supervisor told me:  "Trust, but verify".


----------



## KevinB

trigger324 said:


> I’m pretty sure we’re on the same page here, we just haven’t come to a consensus with our wording.
> 
> I guess for me, where there’s smoke, there’s fire within the news headlines and especially regarding this thread. Myself, I will continue to give the many complainants the benefit of the doubt, and at the same time believing them, have faith that the due process THAT ALL OF US WANT is carried out in their favour.





dimsum said:


> You can believe a party, while still making sure that things are as they seem.
> 
> As an old supervisor told me:  "Trust, but verify".


Agreed.

 One of the big issues in some of the recent claims is the time that has taken for the accusers to come forward.  Now I in no way mean for that to be taken as a negative to them, for years the culture was not very helpful towards those who had been sexually assaulted.
 But longer time frames between incident and reporting means that it is tougher on the investigators.
1) DNA or other physical evidence will be long gone.
2) Witnesses may not have clear recollection 
3) It becomes more of a He said, She said, and those aren't ideal for anyone.


----------



## trigger324

KevinB said:


> Agreed.
> 
> One of the big issues in some of the recent claims is the time that has taken for the accusers to come forward.  Now I in no way mean for that to be taken as a negative to them, for years the culture was not very helpful towards those who had been sexually assaulted.
> But longer time frames between incident and reporting means that it is tougher on the investigators.
> 1) DNA or other physical evidence will be long gone.
> 2) Witnesses may not have clear recollection
> 3) It becomes more of a He said, She said, and those aren't ideal for anyone.


Those points may be exactly what the many alleged offenders are hoping for, and their lawyers and other representatives  are basing cases on.


----------



## YZT580

KevinB said:


> Agreed.
> 
> One of the big issues in some of the recent claims is the time that has taken for the accusers to come forward.  Now I in no way mean for that to be taken as a negative to them, for years the culture was not very helpful towards those who had been sexually assaulted.
> But longer time frames between incident and reporting means that it is tougher on the investigators.
> 1) DNA or other physical evidence will be long gone.
> 2) Witnesses may not have clear recollection
> 3) It becomes more of a He said, She said, and those aren't ideal for anyone.


one reason why some crimes have a statute of limitations.  There are a number of names registered with the sexual assault pages that are there as a direct result of a marriage breakdown and subsequent attempt at revenge.  It is extremely difficult to have your name totally expunged from that list and that list includes people who never went to trial because of a lack of evidence or proof that the other party was lying.  We did away with capital punishment partially because of the risk that an innocent person could be executed.  Going with automatic guilt because she said it happened is far more likely to incarcerate innocent people and whether they are dead or not, it totally destroys their life.  Just consider the number of senior officers who have been terminated as a result of 30 year old stories that may or may not be true and that in many cases simply reflect what in many cases was a 'norm' back then (good that it isn't now but you can't judge yesterday by today's standards)  Heck, stealing a loaf of bread is one reason that people were sent to Australia.


----------



## Booter

The courts don’t have control over reality, they have control over criminal guilt. And criminal guilt has a whole bunch of systems in it to ensure that innocent people don’t go to jail- the basis being that protecting a persons agency, freedom, bodily integrity and autonomy from false imprisonment is the most important thing, 

That the state has to exercise caution when removing things from people they can never be given back. It recognizes that human are faulty and so the system can’t just rely on good faith from people who accuse. 

That said- courts also don’t have jurisdiction over the truth. If the best a person has is “they didn’t convict me” it doesn’t change the fact that lots of them did it. It is a byproduct of a safeguard in a free society. 

A person can have done a thing, been found “not guilty” and still be a morally reprehensible being with no integrity. 

The law and what is “right” have little to do with each other. Politicians acting immorally like to hide behind it was “legal”.

So it’s entirely possible to think the system doesn’t work for victims, and also appreciate that the state doesn’t treat peoples finite lifespan with callousness.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> It’s sad that a victim just can’t be believed



That problem continues as long as people like Jussie S exist and news media rush to promulgate their stories.  Also as long as people in bitter divorces or with morning-after regrets make up things.


----------



## suffolkowner

YZT580 said:


> one reason why some crimes have a statute of limitations.


do  we have a statute of limitations in Canada?

If a women says a man stole her purse how does it differ from sexual assault? Same process? Same results? Same he said/she said?


----------



## Haggis

suffolkowner said:


> do  we have a statute of limitations in Canada?
> 
> If a women says a man stole her purse how does it differ from sexual assault? Same process? Same results? Same he said/she said?


Was the man found in possession of the purse?  Were the victim's credit cards used following the alleged theft?  Was the victim injured during the alleged theft?  Evidence can back up (or refute) any cases of "she said/he said".


----------



## ballz

trigger324 said:


> Take for example that cabbie in Halifax a couple years back. He got off on a technicality in his first trial. Thankfully that went to a second. Everyone knew he was guilty even after that first discharge.



Well then he obviously didn't get off. I don't know specifically what you're talking about but obviously there was mistrial without prejudice or the court or appeals ordered a new trial or something of that nature, all related to how the first trial went. That's why there's multiple layers of appeal to ensure there is a fair trial - for both the defence and the prosecution - because judges are humans and can make errors as well.

If he was acquitted by a jury and no appeals were made, then there would be no second trial as that would be double-jeopardy. 

So your "thankfully" belongs to be directed towards the very system you're advocating is letting people off too easily.


----------



## lenaitch

YZT580 said:


> one reason why some crimes have a statute of limitations.  There are a number of names registered with the sexual assault pages that are there as a direct result of a marriage breakdown and subsequent attempt at revenge.  It is extremely difficult to have your name totally expunged from that list and that list includes people who never went to trial because of a lack of evidence or proof that the other party was lying.  We did away with capital punishment partially because of the risk that an innocent person could be executed.  Going with automatic guilt because she said it happened is far more likely to incarcerate innocent people and whether they are dead or not, it totally destroys their life.  Just consider the number of senior officers who have been terminated as a result of 30 year old stories that may or may not be true and that in many cases simply reflect what in many cases was a 'norm' back then (good that it isn't now but you can't judge yesterday by today's standards)  Heck, stealing a loaf of bread is one reason that people were sent to Australia.


The only way to be placed on the Sex Offender Registry is via conviction.


suffolkowner said:


> do  we have a *statute* of limitations in Canada?
> 
> If a women says a man stole her purse how does it differ from sexual assault? Same process? Same results? Same he said/she said?


Technically, no.  Criminal offences are divided into Indictable, Summary Conviction or 'hybrid' (it can be both - up to the Crown to decide how to proceed).  Which 'column' an offence falls under is embedded in the section.  Proceedings must be commenced WRT a Summary Conviction Criminal Offence within six month of the event (unless the defence agrees - like that would ever happen).  Whether an offence is Indictable or Summary governs things like procedure and sentencing.

Without looking, I don't believe any of the offences discussed in this thread are Summary.

In Ontario, the general time limit for provincial offences is also six months, but there are a smattering of offences, both federal and provincial, that have their own unique time limit.


----------



## dapaterson

lenaitch said:


> Proceedings must be commenced WRT a Summary Conviction Criminal Offence within six month of the event (unless the defence agrees - like that would ever happen).


To the contrary - accepting a delay in exchange for proceeding via summary instead of indictment may well be in the defence's best interests; you avoid greater penalty, and can claim (maybe even with a straight face) that granting that waiver is indicative of some degree of remorse and therefore should be considered in sentencing.


----------



## KevinB

lenaitch said:


> The only way to be placed on the Sex Offender Registry is via conviction.
> 
> Technically, no.  Criminal offences are divided into Indictable, Summary Conviction or 'hybrid' (it can be both - up to the Crown to decide how to proceed).  Which 'column' an offence falls under is embedded in the section.  Proceedings must be commenced WRT a Summary Conviction Criminal Offence within six month of the event (unless the defence agrees - like that would ever happen).  Whether an offence is Indictable or Summary governs things like procedure and sentencing.
> 
> Without looking, I don't believe any of the offences discussed in this thread are Summary.
> 
> In Ontario, the general time limit for provincial offences is also six months, but there are a smattering of offences, both federal and provincial, that have their own unique time limit.


Event being charges laid - not the alleged offense.


----------



## YZT580

lenaitch said:


> The only way to be placed on the Sex Offender Registry is via conviction.
> 
> Technically, no.  Criminal offences are divided into Indictable, Summary Conviction or 'hybrid' (it can be both - up to the Crown to decide how to proceed).  Which 'column' an offence falls under is embedded in the section.  Proceedings must be commenced WRT a Summary Conviction Criminal Offence within six month of the event (unless the defence agrees - like that would ever happen).  Whether an offence is Indictable or Summary governs things like procedure and sentencing.
> 
> Without looking, I don't believe any of the offences discussed in this thread are Summary.
> 
> In Ontario, the general time limit for provincial offences is also six months, but there are a smattering of offences, both federal and provincial, that have their own unique time limit.


if one is accused of assault and a stay-away order is issued then your name goes down on a list.  That list may not be the official registry but it sure as hell is used whenever a similar crime  is being investigated


----------



## brihard

YZT580 said:


> if one is accused of assault and a stay-away order is issued then your name goes down on a list.  That list may not be the official registry but it sure as hell is used whenever a similar crime  is being investigated


So, what you’re awkwardly alluding to is CPIC- the Canadian Police Information Centre.

The way it actually works is certain data is capture on it. If you’re formally charged, you go on CPIC as charged. Other things that will go on there can include no contact orders as part of release conditions, a sentence, a peace bond, or provincially legislated protection orders. All of those require a certain amount of process to have taken place, and all have mechanisms to allow for removal of the data needs to be removed for legal reasons.

A police officer running your name - which, if police take your name and DOB, or your drivers license, is almost a given - will be made aware of these entries if they’re urgently in effect, so that we can determine if it’s relevant to the situation at hand. For example, if I make a traffic stop, run the driver, he comes back with a charge of assault and a no contact order with his wife, and there’s a woman in the car, I’ll ask her her name to determine if there’s a breach (real example that we’ve practically all dealt with). What it is _not _is you were accused of assault one day, and no charges were laid or no contact order put in place.


----------



## Haggis

KevinB said:


> Event being charges laid - not the alleged offense.


It's the reverse, actually.   For summary offences, a charge must be laid within six months of the date of the alleged offence.  How long it takes that charge to work it's way through the courts is subject to other time restrictions, such as the Jordan Ruling.


----------



## Booter

Haggis said:


> It's the reverse, actually.   For summary offences, a charge must be laid within six months of the date of the alleged offence.  How long it takes that charge to work it's way through the courts is subject to other time restrictions, such as the Jordan Ruling.


It’s 12 months now for summary- from time of event. Most provincial offences have 6 months written into their respective acts still though.


----------



## lenaitch

dapaterson said:


> To the contrary - accepting a delay in exchange for proceeding via summary instead of indictment may well be in the defence's best interests; you avoid greater penalty, and can claim (maybe even with a straight face) that granting that waiver is indicative of some degree of remorse and therefore should be considered in sentencing.


Perhaps.   In BC and, I think, Quebec, the Crown sees the proposed charges a lot earlier in the process.  In Ontario at least, the police 'commence the proceedings' by swearing an Information, and by the time a Crown sees it the time limit is usually long past.  If I was defence counsel and the time limit was exceeded, I'd argue for dismissal.


Booter said:


> It’s 12 months now for summary- from time of event. Most provincial offences have 6 months written into their respective acts still though.


Thanks.  The Internet is a funny place.  I thought it had changed (retired so no need to remain current) and found a gc.ca Criminal Code page that still showed 6 months, but this morning found the 12-month reference.  It changed in 2019.

Edit:  I tried to change my original post to read 'dual procedure' - the more common term - instead of "hybrid", but it seems the site's edit clock ran out.


----------



## QV

The system is designed with this in mind: it’s better that 10 guilty people go free than one innocent person convicted. And we’re all better off for it.


----------



## Booter

lenaitch said:


> Thanks.  The Internet is a funny place.  I thought it had changed (retired so no need to remain current) and found a gc.ca Criminal Code page that still showed 6 months, but this morning found the 12-month reference.  It changed in 2019.



Depending on where you are the 2019 changes aren’t really implemented. There was lots of good intentions about what the changes would mean and then it was back to business as usual with some changes to sections. So it’s better to be retired and not bother


----------



## suffolkowner

I don't understand what's being discussed her. Are we saying that charges have to be laid within 12 months of the crime having been committed? Or charges laid within 12 months of being made aware of the crime?


----------



## Haggis

Booter said:


> It’s 12 months now for summary- from time of event. Most provincial offences have 6 months written into their respective acts still though.


Yup, I remembered the limit had changed a couple of years ago but the time for editing had passed. I work in the training system and hadn't done officer powers refresher training since 2018.


----------



## Booter

I only recall because I was in a bunch of meetings about all the big changes that amounted to goose egg in reality 🤷‍♀️


----------



## YZT580

brihard said:


> So, what you’re awkwardly alluding to is CPIC- the Canadian Police Information Centre.
> 
> The way it actually works is certain data is capture on it. If you’re formally charged, you go on CPIC as charged. Other things that will go on there can include no contact orders as part of release conditions, a sentence, a peace bond, or provincially legislated protection orders. All of those require a certain amount of process to have taken place, and all have mechanisms to allow for removal of the data needs to be removed for legal reasons.
> 
> A police officer running your name - which, if police take your name and DOB, or your drivers license, is almost a given - will be made aware of these entries if they’re urgently in effect, so that we can determine if it’s relevant to the situation at hand. For example, if I make a traffic stop, run the driver, he comes back with a charge of assault and a no contact order with his wife, and there’s a woman in the car, I’ll ask her her name to determine if there’s a breach (real example that we’ve practically all dealt with). What it is _not _is you were accused of assault one day, and no charges were laid or no contact order put in place.


thank you for the clarification, it helps when one knows the terminology.  The case in point though was a husband whose wife accused him of child molestation as part of her filing.  Subsequently proven false by his own kids no less but it still left him without a job as the job he had involved associating with children.  He applied for and received notification that the accusation had been expunged from his record but it was replaced with a note that stated that information had been removed.  Thus he still has his name on record


----------



## OldSolduer

QV said:


> The system is designed with this in mind: it’s better that 10 guilty people go free than one innocent person convicted. And we’re all better off for it.


Not according to some….


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

YZT580 said:


> thank you for the clarification, it helps when one knows the terminology.  The case in point though was a husband whose wife accused him of child molestation as part of her filing.  Subsequently proven false by his own kids no less but it still left him without a job as the job he had involved associating with children.  He applied for and received notification that the accusation had been expunged from his record but it was replaced with a note that stated that information had been removed.  Thus he still has his name on record


Yep, this can screw up your life big time.  The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has written extensively on this and has lobbied for reform:



			Canadian Civil Liberties Association


----------



## lenaitch

Booter said:


> Depending on where you are the 2019 changes aren’t really implemented. There was lots of good intentions about what the changes would mean and then it was back to business as usual with some changes to sections. So it’s better to be retired and not bother


For sure - retirement is the best job I've ever had, but I do make attempts to stay halfways current.


suffolkowner said:


> I don't understand what's being discussed her. Are we saying that charges have to be laid within 12 months of the crime having been committed? Or charges laid within 12 months of being made aware of the crime?


IF there is a time limit (i.e. Summary offences) it is from the date of the event.  The vast majority of serious offences are Indictable (or Dual Procedure, which can be proceeded via Indictment) and have no time limit.


YZT580 said:


> thank you for the clarification, it helps when one knows the terminology.  The case in point though was a husband whose wife accused him of child molestation as part of her filing.  Subsequently proven false by his own kids no less but it still left him without a job as the job he had involved associating with children.  He applied for and received notification that the accusation had been expunged from his record but it was replaced with a note that stated that information had been removed.  Thus he still has his name on record


If there was police involvement, the name would exist on the police report, most of which now are digitized and readily available to all police members.  Use of police report data for non-law enforcement purposes, such as employment, is controversial, but the problem most often lies with the receiver being risk-averse and not understanding the context.  Those that advocate for all non-charge personal data to be expunged from all records would be the first to howl when similar or historic crimes go undetected.  It's a double-edged sword.


----------



## Jarnhamar

How will civilian police investigating sexual misconduct in the military work in terms of sentencing?

Will civilian police investigate, lay charges, try someone in civilian court and have the civilian court merit out sentencing? Would the court leave it to the military for sentencing?  If civpol are investigating misconduct that covers a wide variety of issues, like telling a sexual joke. Having sat through some civilian courts I was shocked at child abusers (non-sexual) getting off lightly, I can't see civilian courts taking sexual jokes very seriously.

And we know the military has in the past had a habit of dropping sexual assault charges down to whatever and it only gets brought back to assault when there is enough attention on the case. Or goes to civilian court. Do we trust the military won't get their DEUs in a bunch if civilian courts fine someone guilty then hand it over to us for sentencing and give the perpetrator a super light sentence as a fuck you to the civilian court? I mean it's not like we let people guilty of misconduct quickly retire (then rehire them) right?



According to our rules right now a commissioned officer in the CAF can decide to handle an allegation of sexual misconduct at the lowest level.



> *5.4* Officers who can deal adequately with a sexual misconduct incident are not required to report.


and


> *5.6* The determination of whether an officer can deal adequately with a matter involves an exercise of discretion. It requires that an officer act in good faith and not abuse their powers or exercise them dishonestly or arbitrarily, or to achieve an improper purpose. An officer must consider only relevant information and not discriminate on any inappropriate basis. An officer can seek advice from their unit legal advisor as to whether or not they can deal adequately with the matter.



Do these items need to be amended or are we trusting young LTs and captains to decide what and what isn't sexual misconduct when our top generals can't seem to?


----------



## KevinB

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Yep, this can screw up your life big time.  The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has written extensively on this and has lobbied for reform:
> 
> 
> 
> Canadian Civil Liberties Association


For a while CPIC and NICS down here would flag any firearm related issues.
   I know a few Canadian LEO's who popped with a V (and more) when they had been involved in use of force issues.

NICS down here still flags some LE related work incidents - you can be cleared after an OIS and still have the system flag you.
  Inspiring system that you can have a badge and gun - and a State CCW - and then have NICS refuse to let you buy a gun at a store.
*Usually it pops as delayed as they dig into it, and you get a green light in a few days to pick it up -- but I did have a full denial once, and that caused some confusion at the gun store, as I had used my LE ID as one of the ID's with my CCW to fill out the 4473 to buy it.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

KevinB said:


> For a while CPIC and NICS down here would flag any firearm related issues.
> I know a few Canadian LEO's who popped with a V (and more) when they had been involved in use of force issues.
> 
> NICS down here still flags some LE related work incidents - you can be cleared after an OIS and still have the system flag you.
> Inspiring system that you can have a badge and gun - and a State CCW - and then have NICS refuse to let you buy a gun at a store.
> *Usually it pops as delayed as they dig into it, and you get a green light in a few days to pick it up -- but I did have a full denial once, and that caused some confusion at the gun store, as I had used my LE ID as one of the ID's with my CCW to fill out the 4473 to buy it.


The crazy thing is Discharges and Record Suspensions (aka pardons) are treated more favourably than non-convictions.  CPIC will automatically delete an absolute discharge after 1 year and a conditional discharge after 3 years, even though you were guilty of a crime.

Non-convictions in the forms of Withdrawals, Stays of Proceedings, Peace Bonds, etc are never deleted unless you make a formal request in writing to the Police Department.  Even then, they reserve the right to refuse.  

It takes around 20 months for them to remove the record if they do decide to agree as well. How is that for due process?

The Government also gives access to the US Customs which can create problems when you try and cross the border.  

All it takes is someone to make a complaint against you and you may find yourself in their system and even if it's baseless, you're still there. It's a bullshit system but then again, so is most of the criminal justice system.  

My buddy is a criminal lawyer and he will tell you that the Justice System is just like every other profession/industry, you've got good people and bad people working there, only difference is the bad people can actually screw over your life.


----------



## Haggis

lenaitch said:


> Use of police report data for non-law enforcement purposes, such as employment, is controversial, but the problem most often lies with the receiver being risk-averse and not understanding the context.  Those that advocate for all non-charge personal data to be expunged from all records would be the first to howl when similar or historic crimes go undetected.  It's a double-edged sword.


I've gone through several Vulnerable Sector Screenings for volunteer activities. In all cases the end user wanted to ensure I had no criminal *convictions* which would disqualify me from working with youth or vulnerable adults.  The attestion letter provided to the requestor simply stated "there are no records associated with the name and date of birth you have inquired about".


----------



## daftandbarmy

Haggis said:


> I've gone through several Vulnerable Sector Screenings for volunteer activities. In all cases the end user wanted to ensure I had no criminal *convictions* which would disqualify me from working with youth or vulnerable adults.  The attestion letter provided to the requestor simply stated "there are no records associated with the name and date of birth you have inquired about".



And, as I recall, by law they can't ask you to share any of the results from such records screening but merely attest to the fact that you had the screening done. 

Am I wrong?


----------



## QV

Jarnhamar said:


> How will civilian police investigating sexual misconduct in the military work in terms of sentencing?


I doubt any civil agency will have anything to do with the military’s broad definition of sexual misconduct. Only the crimes.


----------



## McG

Jarnhamar said:


> Will civilian police investigate, lay charges, try someone in civilian court and have the civilian court merit out sentencing?


Yes. Civilian police will investigate for criminal offences and, if there is deemed sufficient evidence, they will charge under criminal code and the charge will be heard in civilian courts with the same powers of punishment that those courts normally have.


Jarnhamar said:


> Would the court leave it to the military for sentencing?


No.


----------



## Remius

QV said:


> I doubt any civil agency will have anything to do with the military’s broad definition of sexual misconduct. Only the crimes.


And I doubt that anyone will be satisfied with how civilian agencies will handle it.  But at least the CAF can just say “Hey, talk to them, we don’t handle that anymore…”


----------



## QV

Remius said:


> And I doubt that anyone will be satisfied with how civilian agencies will handle it.  But at least the CAF can just say “Hey, talk to them, we don’t handle that anymore…”


To be honest, it’s better this way for everyone. There was enough chain of command interference or influence to taint the whole shit show anyway.


----------



## Haggis

daftandbarmy said:


> And, as I recall, by law they can't ask you to share any of the results from such records screening but merely attest to the fact that you had the screening done.
> 
> Am I wrong?


Depends on the province/territory. In Ontario, the process is governed by the Police Record Checks Reform Act.


----------



## YZT580

lenaitch said:


> For sure - retirement is the best job I've ever had, but I do make attempts to stay halfways current.
> 
> IF there is a time limit (i.e. Summary offences) it is from the date of the event.  The vast majority of serious offences are Indictable (or Dual Procedure, which can be proceeded via Indictment) and have no time limit.
> 
> If there was police involvement, the name would exist on the police report, most of which now are digitized and readily available to all police members.  Use of police report data for non-law enforcement purposes, such as employment, is controversial, but the problem most often lies with the receiver being risk-averse and not understanding the context.  Those that advocate for all non-charge personal data to be expunged from all records would be the first to howl when similar or historic crimes go undetected.  It's a double-edged sword.


Which boils down to "once accused, always guilty".


----------



## Jarnhamar

McG said:


> Yes. Civilian police will investigate for criminal offences and, if there is deemed sufficient evidence, they will charge under criminal code and the charge will be heard in civilian courts with the same powers of punishment that those courts normally have.


Thanks McG.



> The Canadian military* will turn over investigations and prosecutions of sexual misconduct cases *to the civilian police and courts, the country’s new defense minister announced Thursday.





> Bresolin said military police are now reviewing each investigation to see which cases should be handed over. The cases that will be transferred involve sexual assault allegations or other criminal offences of a sexual nature, the office said.



It seems like will turn over changed to pick and choose pretty quick. 

Lots of trust to place in our military police to handle this correctly and with transparency. 

Speaking of trust, I wonder what happened to the military police OC  who was RTU'd home from Kuwait March 2021 under a veil of secrecy?


----------



## Haggis

Jarnhamar said:


> Speaking of trust, I wonder what happened to the military police OC  who was RTU'd home from Kuwait March 2021 under a veil of secrecy?


If this happened under a "veil of secrecy" how do you know of it?
#securityfail?


----------



## FSTO

Haggis said:


> If this happened under a "veil of secrecy" how do you know of it?
> #securityfail?


It was common knowledge that the MP was sent home (I was in Bahrain at the time) and that it wasn't for compassionate reasons. But details were never released to folks at my level.


----------



## brihard

Haggis said:


> If this happened under a "veil of secrecy" how do you know of it?
> #securityfail?


It was in the Ottawa Citizen, though “cloak of secrecy” was used instead of “veil”. Allegedly it was the result of a disciplinary investigation, but not sexual misconduct.


----------



## Haggis

brihard said:


> It was in the Ottawa Citizen, though “cloak of secrecy” was used instead of “veil”. Allegedly it was the result of a disciplinary investigation, but not sexual misconduct.


Okay....I remember seeing that one, though the context of it being mentioned in this thread inferred sexual misconduct.


----------



## KevinB

Haggis said:


> Okay....I remember seeing that one, though the context of it being mentioned in this thread inferred sexual misconduct.


He was probably shredding Sexual Assault claims


----------



## lenaitch

Haggis said:


> I've gone through several Vulnerable Sector Screenings for volunteer activities. In all cases the end user wanted to ensure I had no criminal *convictions* which would disqualify me from working with youth or vulnerable adults.  The attestion letter provided to the requestor simply stated "there are no records associated with the name and date of birth you have inquired about".


As have I when I was on the Board/volunteer with a charity.


Haggis said:


> Depends on the province/territory. In Ontario, the process is governed by the Police Record Checks Reform Act.


Thanks for the link.  I didn't realize the process had its own Act - I just assumed it was Regs under the Police Services Act or similar.  My post-retirement gig as a civilian investigator for a regulated industry was exempt from that Act.


YZT580 said:


> Which boils down to "once accused, always guilty".


I don't mean to scare you but if you've ever called in about a noisy party or been involved in a motor vehicle collision, you're in the database (and so was the other party, even though no charges were laid). 

 Police have been writing down what they do and who they contact since police and pencils were invented.  If a copper encounters a bunch of youths hanging around the back of a strip mall at 0300, I think it is reasonable that the community expect that s/he speak to them and jot down their particulars, even though no crime is apparent.  That used to happen with much regularity, but because of abuses by some and the bureaucratic response, both the proactive contact and record-keeping is now much diminished in many jurisdictions.


----------



## mariomike

lenaitch said:


> Police have been writing down what they do and who they contact since police and pencils were invented.  If a copper encounters a bunch of youths hanging around the back of a strip mall at 0300, I think it is reasonable that the community expect that s/he speak to them and jot down their particulars, even though no crime is apparent.  That used to happen with much regularity, but because of abuses by some and the bureaucratic response, both the proactive contact and record-keeping is now much diminished in many jurisdictions.





> L.A. Times of 13 March 1996, pp. B-1 & 3): A “distressed Mayor Richard Riordan...said it was vexing to learn that LAPD is now making 100,000 fewer arrests, issuing over 200,000 fewer citations, and conducting over 20,000 fewer field interviews per year.”



That was Los Angeles in 1996 - post Rodney King. 

Not sure how that would compare to Canada as we approach 2022.


----------



## OldSolduer

The apology is on CBC right now. MND is first up. CDS is on now


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I watched from home;  the comments on the live stream seemed to suggest the words of the DM were the ones that seemed as genuine and meaningful.

The CDS translator didn't seem to be "top of his class" and I wonder if the translation was complete and accurate.


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:


> The CDS translator didn't seem to be "top of his class" and I wonder if the translation was complete and accurate.


I was wondering whether they woke the guy up 20 seconds prior to translatin' time.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

dimsum said:


> I was wondering whether they woke the guy up 20 seconds prior to translatin' time.



I was wondering if he was trying to sound 'sincere'...


----------



## daftandbarmy

It's interesting to see that this old maxim continues as a tradition with those in power down through the ages.  


"Never make a defense or an apology until you are accused."

King Charles I


----------



## lenaitch

mariomike said:


> That was Los Angeles in 1996 - post Rodney King.
> 
> Not sure how that would compare to Canada as we approach 2022.


Street checks/field interview/carding, etc.  I didn't bother to run down the before/after data - it's out there because the Ontario government mandated data collection because, you know, that's the most important aspect - but anecdotally, the bottom fell out of contacts when the rules were changed in 2016.


----------



## OceanBonfire

A 5-year timeline to achieve concrete results:









						It will take years to change military culture, head of reform says
					

The military leader heading up culture reform in the Canadian Armed Forces amid ongoing sexual misconduct investigations says her team is working on a five-year timeline to achieve concrete results.




					www.ctvnews.ca


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

OceanBonfire said:


> A 5-year timeline to achieve concrete results:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will take years to change military culture, head of reform says
> 
> 
> The military leader heading up culture reform in the Canadian Armed Forces amid ongoing sexual misconduct investigations says her team is working on a five-year timeline to achieve concrete results.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ctvnews.ca


So expect change in a decade at the earliest 😁


----------



## Jarnhamar

> focusing on “restorative engagements” which will guide culture change strategies.



Gobbledygook.


----------



## dapaterson

Part of the class action settlement for Heyder Beattie.

The Final Settlement Agreement (FSA) for the case gives context and some info on restorative engagement.


----------



## OldSolduer

Humphrey Bogart said:


> So expect change in a decade at the earliest 😁


I would expect results in five but overall change in 10


----------



## stoker dave

It has been 40 years since the first lady cadets were admitted to RMC. 
It has been 30 years since ships started going to sea with 'mixed gender' crews.  
I think a 5 year time horizon is very, very optimistic.


----------



## OldSolduer

OldSolduer said:


> I would expect results in five but overall change in 10


Having said this there will still be misogynistic people in the CAF


----------



## Eye In The Sky

OldSolduer said:


> Having said this there will still be misogynistic people in the CAF Canadian society, where the CAF recruits from.


----------



## Furniture

I think it was a wise move to point out that culture change takes time, and by giving a reasonable timeline they are setting themselves up for success.


----------



## Brad Sallows

With sufficiently draconian and invasive policies, DND can fix itself.  But the proper fix starts at the source: Canada, and the politicians that govern it.


----------



## ModlrMike

We can tell people what is acceptable. We can tell them how to act and how to behave. We can't make them conform. No amount of training will prevent true deviants from behaving badly. We can only deal with the situation afterwards, unfortunately. The best we can hope for is a reduction in the number of incidents. This is the reality we have to accept. Sadly, someone will wind up getting hurt, despite our best efforts.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Eye In The Sky said:


>


Very true. Difference between us and Canadian society in general is we can fine employees for not polishing boots, having messy hair, or telling our boss to piss off. Maybe even incarcerate them. 

We _should_ be in a better position to deal with misogynistic language and behavior than the public, no?




dapaterson said:


> Part of the class action settlement for Heyder Beattie.
> 
> The Final Settlement Agreement (FSA) for the case gives context and some info on restorative engagement.



I'll have to take a look at that FSA. When restorative engagement came up about GenDawe I read up on it. To me it looks like people talking about their feelings and what happened to them. It could very well be a measure of healing for victims but it also seems like a big exercise in "we hear you, we're listening".

 I may be missing something big but I don't see restorative engagement changing a single thing culture wise. Maybe I'll have a different opinion after I research more though.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Jarnhamar said:


> Very true. Difference between us and Canadian society in general is we can fine employees for not polishing boots, having messy hair, or telling our boss to piss off. Maybe even incarcerate them.
> 
> We _should_ be in a better position to deal with misogynistic language and behavior than the public, no?



We should be able to, for sure.  I just wish the general public and CAF, as well, would remember the CAF didn’t create them from scratch.  We get them when they are well on their way to being some form of adult…


----------



## daftandbarmy

ModlrMike said:


> We can tell people what is acceptable. We can tell them how to act and how to behave. We can't make them conform. *No amount of training will prevent true deviants from behaving badly. *We can only deal with the situation afterwards, unfortunately. The best we can hope for is a reduction in the number of incidents. This is the reality we have to accept. Sadly, someone will wind up getting hurt, despite our best efforts.



Dude, I'm in the room


----------



## OldSolduer

daftandbarmy said:


> Dude, I'm in the room


Then there’s two of us 👍🏻


----------



## daftandbarmy

OldSolduer said:


> Then there’s two of us 👍🏻



Fire Team Deviant, left flanking!


----------



## medicineman

daftandbarmy said:


> Fire Team Deviant, left flanking!


Guess that's better than rear flanking...


----------



## daftandbarmy

For 'heart of the problem' read 'white males, I'm guessing:

Canadian Forces targeting ‘heart of the problem’ behind sexual misconduct: culture chief​
One of the most senior women in the Canadian military says she believes the current push to address the crisis of sexual misconduct is unique from past efforts, which she says only targeted “symptoms.”





In an interview with _The West Block_‘s Mercedes Stephenson, Lt.-Gen. Jennie Carignan said despite previous initiatives by the Canadian Forces, the root issue of culture was never fully addressed.

“This time we are going at the heart of the issue,” she said.

“We have been looking at symptoms historically. But what we have learned in the past six years is that we had not gotten to the heart of the problem … what is the environment that allows all range of misconduct to take place?”

“This is where we are going to be intervening.”

Carignan was named in April to the newly created post of chief of professional conduct and culture amid a national reckoning over allegations of high-level sexual misconduct.

In the months since Global News brought the first of multiple exclusive reports to light, the military has been embroiled in what leaders have acknowledged represents an existential “crisis” for the Canadian Armed Forces.


Lt.-Gen. Carignan ‘touched’ by Canada’s apology for military sexual misconduct

Monday, Gen. Wayne Eyre, chief of the defence staff, delivered a historic apology to survivors and victims of military sexual misconduct, alongside Defence Minister Anita Anand.

“You were let down. You were hurt. And when you tried to get help, we did not react,” said Eyre.

“I am sorry. We sincerely apologize for the trauma that you have experienced. To those who suffered in silence, we are sorry. To those who shouted until you could shout no more at great personal risk only to have no one listen to you, we are sorry.”

Anand described the problem as a “scourge” within the Canadian military — one that successive governments have repeatedly failed to adequately confront.

“Countless lives have been harmed because of inaction and systemic failure. This is a failure that our Canadian Armed Forces, our department, and the Government of Canada will always carry with us,” she said.

“These institutions failed you, and for that we are sorry. I am sorry.”


‘This time, we will not fail’: Ottawa apologizes to military sexual misconduct victims

Carignan last week said she has heard firsthand from large numbers of members who are “hungry for change” and when asked what was different from previous efforts, she pointed to leadership.

“At the very senior leadership, the chief of defence is very much engaged, the deputy minister is very much engaged,” said Carignan last week.

“What was not obvious to us collectively around the table is now being discussed and seen, which is a great difference. Five years ago, if I were to ask around the table, ‘What are we doing about culture?’ I would get silence,” she added.
“That’s not the case now.”

Former Supreme Court of Canada justice Louise Arbour is currently leading a review into how best to set up an independent reporting system for military sexual misconduct.

Her final report is due this spring.









						Canadian Forces targeting ‘heart of the problem’ behind sexual misconduct: culture chief - National | Globalnews.ca
					

The Canadian military has vowed to fight sexual misconduct within its ranks before. Lt.-Gen. Jennie Carignan says the approach now is different.




					globalnews.ca


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Heart of the problem;  I assumed she meant RMC.


----------



## KevinB

Eye In The Sky said:


> Heart of the problem;  I assumed she meant RMC.


She should have spelled it by the letters...


----------



## Jarnhamar

> “This time we are going at the heart of the issue,” she said.



Sounds kinda familiar.



> The initial focus of Operation HONOUR was on:
> 
> improving support for CAF members affected by sexual misconduct
> rapidly modifying harmful behaviours, and
> increasing understanding and vigilance at all levels of leadership







> The strategy has four strategic lines of effort:
> 
> Awareness and understanding
> Support for persons affected by sexual misconduct
> Improve leadership response to incidents of sexual misconduct
> Institutional leadership







> Operation HONOUR recognizes that:
> 
> People are at the centre of everything we do. The way we support and treat them is directly related to our operational effectiveness.
> Any attitudes or behaviours which undermine the camaraderie, cohesion and confidence of serving members threatens the CAF’s long-term success.
> Operation HONOUR vision: A Canadian Armed Forces free of sexual misconduct where all are treated with dignity and respect.
> 
> Operation HONOUR mission: To ensure sexual misconduct is never minimized, ignored or excused so that the CAF cultivates the inclusive and respectful work environment that embodies the ethical principles and core values of the profession of arms.



Why didn't any of this address the heart of the issue? Guess we need to re-imagine our approach.



> when asked what was different from previous efforts, she pointed to leadership.
> 
> “At the very senior leadership, the chief of defence is very much engaged, the deputy minister is very much engaged,” said Carignan last week



Oh.


----------



## Good2Golf

> “At the very senior leadership, the chief of defence is very much engaged, the deputy minister is very much engaged,” said Carignan last week



Did LGen Carignan mean that the DM is more engaged _now_, than she was for 2/3 of OP HONOUR’s conduct?  It stuck me odd that during the Departmental apology, after the MND’s and CDS’ apologies, the DM started as an apology, then appeared to pivot to her personal concerns from her RCN past and skated past any direct involvement in helping to resolve the situation…an odd avoidance of personal (vice positional apologetic comments) culpability from the most powerful civil servant in the Defence portfolio…


----------



## Jarnhamar

CAF: If members of the CAF have an issue they can just use the grievance system!

Also the CAF: Military member waits almost a decade for defence department to process grievance 
​


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Having been an end user of the grievance system, it is another dull knife in the CAFs tool drawer.   I’ve said, start issuing RMs to decision makers who f$$ked up.   COs, Commander
Of Commands, whatever.  Another needed piece of the “culture change” being yammered  about - holding all CAF members including Snr and General/Flag Officers accountable when they fuck over their subordinates and are negligent in their duties.  Not just when it makes national news.


----------



## OldSolduer

medicineman said:


> Guess that's better than rear flanking...


Depends on whose rear you're talking about....oh damn I said it out loud.

FILTER!!!!!  

My apologies - It's my inappropriate self busting to get out...


----------



## Halifax Tar

Eye In The Sky said:


> Having been an end user of the grievance system, it is another dull knife in the CAFs tool drawer.   I’ve said, start issuing RMs to decision makers who f$$ked up.   COs, Commander
> Of Commands, whatever.  Another needed piece of the “culture change” being yammered  about - holding all CAF members including Snr and General/Flag Officers accountable when they fuck over their subordinates and are negligent in their duties.  Not just when it makes national news.



I am with you.  But I would go further, if a leader fucks over a subordinate they needs to have a complete review of their competency and a probable release from the CAF.  Officer or NCM.


----------



## OldSolduer

Halifax Tar said:


> I am with you.  But I would go further, if a leader fucks over a subordinate that needs to have a complete review of the competency and a probable release from the CAF.  Officer or NCM.


I reckon it depends on what you call "fucking over". Deliberately withholding entitlements? Can you expand on this?


----------



## Halifax Tar

OldSolduer said:


> I reckon it depends on what you call "fucking over". Deliberately withholding entitlements? Can you expand on this?



I went with "fucking over a subordinate" to have a purposly negative connotation.  So that would mean an intentional or competence  related leadership failure.


----------



## OldSolduer

Halifax Tar said:


> I went with "fucking over a subordinate" to have a purposly negative connotation.  So that would mean an intentional or competence  related leadership failure.


OK I understand that. Could you give me an example?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Not actioning/processing administrative functions in prescribed timelines.  

Not providing a member(s) with their entitlements. 

Failing to investigate a scenario.


----------



## trigger324

Jarnhamar said:


> CAF: If members of the CAF have an issue they can just use the grievance system!
> 
> Also the CAF: Military member waits almost a decade for defence department to process grievance
> ​


The process of the grievance system is severely flawed IMO. It appears in a vast majority of cases that I’ve become aware of just a stall tactic to cause the aggrieved member to just lose interest.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Halifax Tar said:


> Not actioning/processing administrative functions in prescribed timelines.
> 
> Not providing a member(s) with their entitlements.
> 
> Failing to investigate a scenario.



Bullying, of various natures, was one issue I complained about to the next higher authority once.

Although they acknowledged my complaint, which was more of a collection of observations about how awful this particular senior leader was when dealing with people and that no one - anywhere - should be allowed to get away with the sh*t he was dealing out, nothing was done.


----------



## Jarnhamar

OldSolduer said:


> OK I understand that. Could you give me an example?


Someone submitting a grievance then deal with it being unresolved 3,285+ days.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

trigger324 said:


> The process of the grievance system is severely flawed IMO. It appears in a vast majority of cases that I’ve become aware of just a stall tactic to cause the aggrieved member to just lose interest.


There's no time limits??   Only speaking for the Ontario Govt system, since that's what I know, there are time limits to each stage/step.  Failure to meet these time constraints usually ends up costing management $$$$ or, if the fault of the griever, having it go no further.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> There's no time limits??


I believe it's 120 days for the initial authority (CO) to make a decision but if the grevior isn't happy and wants it to go to the final authority (CDS) there's no time limit.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Jarnhamar said:


> I believe it's 120 days for the initial authority (CO) to make a decision but if the grevior isn't happy and wants it to go to the final authority (CDS) there's no time limit.


So the head of the organization that the griever is grieving gets to be the last word*, and has no time limit??    In the words of the Church Lady "how convenient".

* I'm absolutely flabbergasted at that part.   I can't even conceive it still being that way , we are in the 21st century, aren't we?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> So the head of the organization that the griever is grieving gets to be the last word*, and has no time limit??    In the words of the Church Lady "how convenient".
> 
> * I'm absolutely flabbergasted at that part.   I can't even conceive it still being that way , we are in the 21st century, aren't we?



Yes, of course we are


----------



## Jarnhamar

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> So the head of the organization that the griever is grieving gets to be the last word*, and has no time limit??    In the words of the Church Lady "how convenient".
> 
> * I'm absolutely flabbergasted at that part.   I can't even conceive it still being that way , we are in the 21st century, aren't we?


Makes ya wonder how many grievances involving sexual misconduct our longest running CDS had come across his desk eh?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> So the head of the organization that the griever is grieving gets to be the last word*, and has no time limit??    In the words of the Church Lady "how convenient".
> 
> * I'm absolutely flabbergasted at that part.   I can't even conceive it still being that way , we are in the 21st century, aren't we?



And people on here wonder why the JRs have lost faith in our leadership.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Jarnhamar said:


> I believe it's 120 days for the initial authority (CO) to make a decision but if the grevior isn't happy and wants it to go to the final authority (CDS) there's no time limit.



The IA isn’t always the CO; often the decision grieved is a CO/Cmdt level one.  

Worse, though, is the IA can openly ignore the timelines, ask for extensions, or just simply do nothing and there is no recourse for the grievor, except to direct the IA to forward to the FA (CDS or authorized delegate, DGCFGA, for determination.  The FA has no timeline to determine what so ever.  

This also denies the grievor the initial level of review.   That is a separate issue.

Guess what happens when the IA completely fails to do their duty?

If you guessed SWEET FUCK ALL, you’re on the money!


----------



## Remius

Halifax Tar said:


> And people on here wonder why the JRs have lost faith in our leadership.


There’s no wondering.  It’s pretty obvious…


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> So the head of the organization that the griever is grieving gets to be the last word*, and has no time limit??    In the words of the Church Lady "how convenient".
> 
> * I'm absolutely flabbergasted at that part.   I can't even conceive it still being that way , we are in the 21st century, aren't we?



It gets better!

If a CAF member is unhappy with the actions of the IA, let's say, or doesn't even want to employ the grievance system period. and does something like go to the Ombudsman...they can find themselves at the receiving end of admin/disciplinary actions. 

DAOD 5047-1, Office of the Ombudsman

Failure to Comply​*4.3* Evidence or a complaint that this DAOD, including Annex A, may have been breached shall be reported to the applicable commanding officer or manager who will assess the requirement for further investigation, including a police investigation.

*4.4* Failure by a CAF member or DND employee to comply with this DAOD, including Annex A, may result in administrative and disciplinary action.


Annex A

Existing Mechanisms​13. (1) Except in compelling circumstances, the Ombudsman shall not deal with a complaint if the complainant has not, within the applicable time limit, first availed himself or herself of one or more of the following existing mechanisms available to the complainant

(_a_) the CF redress of grievance process;


Timelines:


the grievor has 3 months to submit their grievance "after the day on which the grievor knew or ought reasonably to have known of the decision, act or omission in respect of which the grievance is submitted".
the Initial Authority has 4 months after the day the grievanc is received to consider/determine the grievance (this is a SHALL in the QR & O....reality is...the IAs can ignore this at will and with no consequences)
the FA, either the CDS or DGCFGA, has no timeline to adhere to.  Not that they REALLY matter in any case...

In my 3-year long grievance...it was about 2 years for the IA decision.   The IA analyst was seriously hoping I would just say "forward to the FA"...which I refused.  During this time, my wife contacted and was in communications with the MND, then Mr MacKay.  He directed an internal investigation, which trickled it's way down and was eventually responded to by the same POS Staff Officers at the Air Staff who were the problem, who assured that "all was well and IAW with policy".  Of course, it was not.

It is a utterly broken system.  I have no problem educating anyone who stands up for it.


----------



## Takeniteasy

I remember when I tried to hold the CoC to account regarding timelines for the IAs response and kept the email that was sent by the CEFCOM Capt who was tasked with the file. I submitted the grievance in March 2012 and believe the IAs responsibility at that time was a 60 day response. After 4 months of no response I pushed back and the email I received from CEFCOM in late July 2012 stated:

 "I understand your frustration with the system, let me try to explain. The position of grievance officer here at CEFCOM has been empty  since July 2011. I was asked to  to fill the position part time in April 2012 until a new incumbent was named or posted in, which was expected in July 2012. I have been doing my full time job, Honours and Awards, as well as managing the grievances...Unfortunately there will again be a delay until approximately October 2012 due to the transformation of CANOSCOM... All to say I was directed to request an extension until 1 December 2012 "...

With that I requested it to go to final authority knowing the outcome already. I received the decision in Feb 2014  2 years after submission.

One of the outcomes I requested was for more education and awareness around sexual misconduct issues and barriers faced those who have to use administrative measures when addressing the conduct. Unfortunately the grievance was denied but Lawson did state that I displayed courage in addressing the matter. Yes "courage" needed in addressing misconduct from those I worked with! 

Now the CAF is under a third review of its administrative and leadership competencies and I have always known that there are and were many in the ranks who were trying to address these concerns in real time and at many levels. The paternalistic and ego centric attitudinal barriers are plenty in rank based environments and I have nothing but empathy for those in the junior ranks who try to come forward knowing the challenges I faced as a WO and one who did a lot for the CAF and its members.

Nothing like being told you need to know your place! The CAF lost a pretty good 40 year old WO in 2012 and I lost a career I rather enjoyed and exceled at.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

While there might be many who don't believe your post at face value, I do.  I am very sorry your career was effectively ended by a tone-deaf Snr Leadership.


----------



## Navy_Pete

While grievances are important, I would probably very seriously consider quitting if I got that kind of job as a posting, as it would be simply soul destroying (and mine is pretty battered at this point some days). Having to work on grievances with no actual authority to fix anything would turn me into a raging alcoholic.

There never seems to be a shortage of policy wonks thought coming up with 'streamlined business processes' though (that turn a 4 step process into 6), so sounds like they would be well employed here. It would kick through the backlog, and then prevent them from further bog down exisiting jobs by 'improving' them.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Navy_Pete said:


> While grievances are important, I would probably very seriously consider quitting if I got that kind of job as a posting, as it would be simply soul destroying (and mine is pretty battered at this point some days). Having to work on grievances with no actual authority to fix anything would turn me into a raging alcoholic.



The ability to positively influence decision-makers in an unbiased, ethical manner would be a pretty powerful position at this point for any teething Jnr SO at this point in our org's history...IMO.  

Those folks, if they exist, will be the Snr, General and Flag officers we need to stay the course a decade plus down the road.


----------



## dapaterson

The posting cycle is part of the problem; with the wave of a career manager's hand, someone is posted into a position to be the CAF expert on (fill in the blank).  That constant churn destroys institutional knowledge, and delays responses to grievances.  Grievances are frequently edge cases, that require expertise in a number of intersecting areas to adequately interpret and address.  Lacking the knowledge base, you get delays.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Eye In The Sky said:


> The ability to positively influence decision-makers in an unbiased, ethical manner would be a pretty powerful position at this point for any teething Jnr SO at this point in our org's history...IMO.
> 
> Those folks, if they exist, will be the Snr, General and Flag officers we need to stay the course a decade plus down the road.


This is the same CDS that just kicked the Jr. SOs in the teeth to pull up their socks by their bootstraps for a leadership failing for not fixing the various crises so not confident there would be any influencing of decision makers.. A few of them are complete lunactics that just want a briefing note that aligns with their per-conceived decision, so it's really luck of the draw sometimes in who is in the chain of command..

Would being able to actually sort out peoples grievances be awesome? Absolutely! Do I have any confidence that you could? Nope. Especially not when a lot of times it's TBS or other policy that is imposed on DND that is totally outside our authority (the obvious ones with the housing prices come to mind).

If I'm going to have to do meaningless paperwork I'd like there to be something done in the end, other than having a file marked closed. At least with the ludicrous hoops on equipment support eventually something gets bought, manuals get updated etc. I don't have the emotional dettachment not to take a grievance type job home with me so wouldn't be able to deal with watching people get screwed continually and not do anything about it, other than write a detailed, unbiased analysis that gets disregarded.


----------



## The Bread Guy

More on "who's handling what?" from The Canadian Press ...


> While military police are working to transfer sexual misconduct investigations to civilian authorities, the Canadian Armed Forces’ top prosecutor says he expects nearly 30 cases in which charges have already been laid will proceed to court martial.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Retired Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour called in October for the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service to transfer criminal investigations involving allegations of sexual misconduct to civilian authorities unless they were close to completion.
> 
> (...)
> 
> In an exclusive interview with The Canadian Press, Col. Dylan Kerr, the director of military prosecutions, said military police are now in discussions with civilian counterparts about handing over investigations.
> 
> 
> As a result, he said: “We are not anticipating any new charges of sexual assault of Criminal Code offences of a sexual nature that fall into (Arbour’s) recommendation to be laid in the military justice system. So there’s kind of a stop valve there.”
> 
> Yet Arbour’s recommendation did not mention cases where charges have already been laid, and Kerr said there are 29 such files that he expects will continue to be handled by the military justice system ...


----------



## OldSolduer

I'll say this again in this forum: I spent a good number of years in the CAF and from the earliest point we were taught to be ethical, fair, provide good leadership and just be all round decent people. It seems this standard has gone by the way side.


----------



## Good2Golf

OldSolduer said:


> I'll say this again in this forum: I spent a good number of years in the CAF and from the earliest point we were taught to be ethical, fair, provide good leadership and just be all round decent people. It seems this standard has gone by the way side.


When the performance evaluation, summary discipline and grievance systems can be personally manipulated by superiors with little control to stop it, you have an issue…sadly. The “Initial Authority says no and the CDS can sit on it forever” aspect of the grievance system is perhaps the worst.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Navy_Pete said:


> While grievances are important, I would probably very seriously consider quitting if I got that kind of job as a posting, as it would be simply soul destroying (and mine is pretty battered at this point some days). Having to work on grievances with no actual authority to fix anything would turn me into a raging alcoholic.
> 
> There never seems to be a shortage of policy wonks thought coming up with 'streamlined business processes' though (that turn a 4 step process into 6), so sounds like they would be well employed here. It would kick through the backlog, and then prevent them from further bog down exisiting jobs by 'improving' them.



I've worked with other government departments that are responsible for managing various types of appeals, audits and ombudsperson type responsibilities.

I'm frequently told it's one of the most fulfilling careers a public servant can have. Righting various wrongs is a privilege, even if your 'success rate' isn't always 100%.

As a consultant who specializes in process improvement, these are also usually quite successful projects because the people really know their stuff, are passionate and committed, and never usually require some kind of expensive IT fix to see dramatic improvements. Which is one reason why we probably need to see some of our best people posted to these positions.


----------



## OldSolduer

Jarnhamar said:


> Someone submitting a grievance then deal with it being unresolved 3,285+ days.


That is pure fuckery right there.


----------



## ModlrMike

It's even worse when the member is a sh!tpump and the issue drags on for years across successive COs. There are hard timelines for COs, there need to be hard timelines above COs as well.


----------



## daftandbarmy

I hadn't heard about this. Curiouser and curioser....

Military faces fresh calls for end of 'duty to report' for sexual misconduct​
OTTAWA — The Canadian Armed Forces is facing fresh calls to create an “explicit exception” for victims of sexual misconduct and their confidantes from having to report incidents to their commanders.

The request is one of dozens of recommendations contained in a new report released Tuesday following nearly two years of consultations involving survivors and military officials.

The government agreed to the consultations as part of its $600-million settlement deal with Armed Forces members and defence officials who experienced inappropriate sexual behaviour in the workplace.

The “duty to report” regulation compels service members to report any type of inappropriate or criminal behaviour — whether sexual or not — to higher authorities, which begins a formal complaint process.

Yet the Survivor Support Consultation Group’s report says the so-called duty to report was a “recurring topic of concern” during its work, echoing past criticisms about forcing victims and their confidantes to report incidents when they are not ready or don’t want to.

“Currently, all CAF members are bound by a regulatory duty to report all misconduct, including sexual misconduct,” reads the report by the group, which included three class-action lawsuit members and three military members.

“Of particular concern is how the duty to report sexual misconduct impacts a survivor’s autonomy over whether, when, and how to report their experiences, and whether and how to seek support following an incident.”

The reference to seeking support addresses what the report describes as long-standing ambiguity around whether the duty to report also applies to Armed Forces medical personnel and clergy.

“Taken together, the ambiguity and inconsistencies in health care and chaplaincy add to the vulnerability of survivors at a critical time,” it says.
The consultation group’s report says it is not the first to raise concerns about the requirement, noting it has also been criticized by survivors’ groups such as It’s Not Just 700 as well as the federal auditor general in 2018.

“Survivors need to be able to choose if, when and where they feel safe to report,” it reads. “In the CAF context in which investigations are not conducted by independent authorities, the ability of victims to choose and to receive support without reporting is essential.”

While the report calls for an exemption “from prosecution for failing to report sexual misconduct,” it allows that such an exemption should not apply to cases in which there is an imminent risk of harm, or where children or national security are involved.

Military commanders have previously resisted removing the duty to report, with military police saying it has helped increase the number of reported cases of sexual misconduct brought to their attention, particularly from bystanders or other third parties.

Yet others have said it discourages reporting and Lt.-Gen. Jennie Carignan, the senior officer responsible for leading culture change in the Armed Forces, indicated last week that an exemption is being considered.

“We are working on the policy coverage for this thing,” Carignan said during an update on her work as the Armed Forces’ first chief of professional conduct and culture.

The stated purpose of the consultation group’s work was to let those affected by military sexual misconduct have a direct influence on the Armed Forces’ policies, programs and services when it comes to responding to such incidents and supporting survivors.

The 45 recommendations include measures to better include survivors in the ongoing development of responses to sexual misconduct, better support different groups such as Indigenous military members, and increase training and accountability in the institution.

In a written response to the report, chief of the defence staff Gen. Wayne Eyre and Defence Department deputy minister Jody Thomas say several of the recommendations are already being acted upon, while the rest will be considered in due time.

Eyre and Thomas do not explicitly mention the duty to report in their response.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Dec. 21, 2021.









						Military faces fresh calls for end of 'duty to report' for sexual misconduct
					

OTTAWA — The Canadian Armed Forces is facing fresh calls to create an “explicit exception” for victims of sexual misconduct and their confidantes from having to report incidents to their commanders.




					www.timescolonist.com


----------



## CBH99

Takeniteasy said:


> I remember when I tried to hold the CoC to account regarding timelines for the IAs response and kept the email that was sent by the CEFCOM Capt who was tasked with the file. I submitted the grievance in March 2012 and believe the IAs responsibility at that time was a 60 day response. After 4 months of no response I pushed back and the email I received from CEFCOM in late July 2012 stated:
> 
> "I understand your frustration with the system, let me try to explain. The position of grievance officer here at CEFCOM has been empty  since July 2011. I was asked to  to fill the position part time in April 2012 until a new incumbent was named or posted in, which was expected in July 2012. I have been doing my full time job, Honours and Awards, as well as managing the grievances...Unfortunately there will again be a delay until approximately October 2012 due to the transformation of CANOSCOM... All to say I was directed to request an extension until 1 December 2012 "...
> 
> With that I requested it to go to final authority knowing the outcome already. I received the decision in Feb 2014  2 years after submission.
> 
> One of the outcomes I requested was for more education and awareness around sexual misconduct issues and barriers faced those who have to use administrative measures when addressing the conduct. Unfortunately the grievance was denied but Lawson did state that I displayed courage in addressing the matter. Yes "courage" needed in addressing misconduct from those I worked with!
> 
> Now the CAF is under a third review of its administrative and leadership competencies and I have always known that there are and were many in the ranks who were trying to address these concerns in real time and at many levels. The paternalistic and ego centric attitudinal barriers are plenty in rank based environments and I have nothing but empathy for those in the junior ranks who try to come forward knowing the challenges I faced as a WO and one who did a lot for the CAF and its members.
> 
> Nothing like being told you need to know your place! The CAF lost a pretty good 40 year old WO in 2012 and I lost a career I rather enjoyed and exceled at.


I do believe your post at face value as well. 

As I’ve really come to realize and appreciate over the last year or two, I was extremely fortunate that I did not witness nor experience any sort of sexual misconduct while I was a CAF member.  


I have seen this very same ‘broken system’ here in the civi-world.  

While the administrative process may be different, I’ve witnessed first hand something very similar to what you’ve described.

_In our case, the organization that *should_ have independently investigated someone deferred the decision to investigate to the same person who was the subject of the complaint*…

The reason the member went to the organization to file the complaint?  Because totally apathetic senior leadership ignored her entirely, and the responses she would sporadically receive were patronizing & void of action.  


Management and leadership are not the same thing - too many people around the top don’t seem to realize that though.


----------



## CBH99

Navy_Pete said:


> While grievances are important, I would probably very seriously consider quitting if I got that kind of job as a posting, as it would be simply soul destroying (and mine is pretty battered at this point some days). Having to work on grievances with no actual authority to fix anything would turn me into a raging alcoholic.


Agreed, very much so.  

What is the point of having someone work on a grievance, if they don’t have the authority to fix it, or recommend a fix that gets acted upon?  

Soul destroying indeed.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

daftandbarmy said:


> Military faces fresh calls for end of 'duty to report' for sexual misconduct



Won't this ultimately mean a change to QR & O Vol 1 / NDA?


----------



## Jarnhamar

Eye In The Sky said:


> Won't this ultimately mean a change to QR & O Vol 1 / NDA?


Best we can do is waiting 5 years then putting together a panel who spends a year or two putting together a review.


----------



## FJAG

Eye In The Sky said:


> Won't this ultimately mean a change to QR & O Vol 1 / NDA?


Possibly although one could issue a policy instruction which would state that "In the case of sexual misconduct the 'duty to report' shall be met by taking the steps set out in this policy: ..." and then working out the details for various scenarios in the policy itself one of which could very well be giving a victim alternate agencies to report to or even not reporting at all.

My guess is that whatever needs to be done will take some serious revision of existing procedures which will require something more detailed then would ordinarily go into a QR&O and a deemed compliance with the "duty to report" could easily be made part of that. Effectively that could be be drawn to the attention of individuals by adding a "Note" to the QR&O making a reference to the policy.

That's but one way of doing it.

🍻


----------



## dapaterson

QR&O 4.02 (1) e already states that an officer only must push up things that the officer cannot adequately address.  If a subordinate does not wish to have something reported (which could be construed to be a 4.02 (1)c issue) then I'd argue that extant regulations are sufficient.


----------



## FJAG

dapaterson said:


> QR&O 4.02 (1) e already states that an officer only must push up things that the officer cannot adequately address.  If a subordinate does not wish to have something reported (which could be construed to be a 4.02 (1)c issue) then I'd argue that extant regulations are sufficient.


I think the provision at issue is the one in QR&O 5.01(e) which relates to NCMs and states:



> A non-commissioned member shall:
> ...e.  report to the proper authority any infringement of the pertinent statutes, regulations, rules, orders and instructions governing the conduct of any person subject to the Code of Service Discipline.



Effectively that orders that an NCM victim of sexual misconduct must report the offence to the CoC or military police. Similarly an officer victim could be in the same circumstances under 4.02(1)(c) in many circumstances.

Personally I know of no situation where any victim or confidant has ever been disciplined for such a failure to report although there seem to be anecdotal reports that the issue of having to report is of concern to some.

🍻


----------



## ModlrMike

While the duty to report is a valuable tool in some cases, I don't think it should be used as a club where sexual misconduct is the issue. It would be interesting to see how many people have been held to account for not reporting... I'm guessing few to none. Notwithstanding, removing the legal requirement to report from victims and their confidants is a good outcome.


----------



## CBH99

FJAG said:


> I think the provision at issue is the one in QR&O 5.01(e) which relates to NCMs and states:
> 
> 
> 
> Effectively that orders that an NCM victim of sexual misconduct must report the offence to the CoC or military police. Similarly an officer victim could be in the same circumstances under 4.02(1)(c) in many circumstances.
> 
> Personally I know of no situation where any victim or confidant has ever been disciplined for such a failure to report although there seem to be anecdotal reports that the issue of having to report is of concern to some.
> 
> 🍻


I can’t imagine a _victim _of sexual misconduct being disciplined for failing to report the matter.  (But then again, the fact that this situation even exists at all just goes to show what a happy little bubble I was living in.)

I would imagine the issue some people 
have is in the wording, ie they *must *report. What if it was meant as a verbal joke?  What if it was mutually sarcastic?  Are they friends?  

The wording of *must *is intended to be positive.  I think the intent was sincere and good.  The wording of such things are better left to the lawyers and lawyer types, not crayon eaters like me.

______


Would a simpler solution not be to have a concrete and enforceable time limit for an IA to screen the grievance, work with the member to collect required/available evidence, and forward to FA.  

If the time limit is exceeded, the grievance is automatically forwarded and the IA is to be disciplined.  (Not an expert on the NDA)


----------



## Booter

I’ve read a few of these replies- I’m not super familiar with that system. How does this help?

Sexual offences (not misconduct) are always better served being dealt with as close to the incident as possible- this seems to me, because I don’t understand, like it’s setting up more decade old allegations? 

Is it a thing where people won’t be scared to have the initial conversation because it won’t automatically activate a process?


----------



## FJAG

CBH99 said:


> I can’t imagine a _victim _of sexual misconduct being disciplined for failing to report the matter.  (But then again, the fact that this situation even exists at all just goes to show what a happy little bubble I was living in.)
> 
> I would imagine the issue some people
> have is in the wording, ie they *must *report. What if it was meant as a verbal joke?  What if it was mutually sarcastic?  Are they friends?
> 
> The wording of *must *is intended to be positive.  I think the intent was sincere and good.  The wording of such things are better left to the lawyers and lawyer types, not crayon eaters like me.
> 
> ______
> 
> 
> Would a simpler solution not be to have a concrete and enforceable time limit for an IA to screen the grievance, work with the member to collect required/available evidence, and forward to FA.
> 
> If the time limit is exceeded, the grievance is automatically forwarded and the IA is to be disciplined.  (Not an expert on the NDA)


I don't want to go too far down the rabbit hole of this issue as I never thought that the "duty to report" was a problem either but yet this report from the Survivor Support Consultation Group seems to indicate that it is an issue for them and as such I expect it will be addressed by the powers that be in due course.

🍻


----------



## Jarnhamar

ModlrMike said:


> While the duty to report is a valuable tool in some cases, I don't think it should be used as a club where sexual misconduct is the issue. It would be interesting to see how many people have been held to account for not reporting... I'm guessing few to none. Notwithstanding, removing the legal requirement to report from victims and their confidants is a good outcome.


In my limited first and third hand experience there seems to be a number of cases where someone reports sexual misconduct (including assault) and it doesn't go far. I suspect a lot of it has to do with the NCO mafia and/or officers not willing to kick that nest/deal with it.

A culture of denial and/or sabotage seems to have taken root. 

I don't see many options. 

1. Remove the CoC from the reporting process completely (can't see outside organizations really taking sexualized comments very seriously); or
2. Expect our current CoC and culture to miraculously shift because a of a new new new mission statement. 

Given the behavior displayed by our troops (as seen on the courts martial page) and new RMC officers (making sexual comments towards children) it's not just a dinosaur problem.

Even when the CoC isn't "bad" I'm guessing a number of them are just too busy to really care.



Shifting collective RSM interests from dress regs to culture change could be a start.


----------



## OldSolduer

Jarnhamar said:


> Shifting collective RSM interests from dress regs to culture change could be a start.


Give this soldier an A for perceptiveness. 

The RSM is a very important position in any unit as I am sure you will all agree. The RSM sets the tone for the dress and deportment of his/her unit and in many cases soldiers junior - particularly the NCOs - to him/her will emulate the RSM. I know Roy Bruce had an effect on my career as well as Alex Wilson, and to an extent Jerry Frank. Many other WOs who went on to be RSMs (Ron Cooke) also had an effect on how I presented myself to the soldiers. The best RSM I never had - Bud Gilfoy as an MWO - had a positive effect on the soldiers. 
The RSM should be doing this already - changing the culture - and he/she has to have a real sense of right and wrong.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

dapaterson said:


> QR&O 4.02 (1) e already states that an officer only must push up things that the officer cannot adequately address.  If a subordinate does not wish to have something reported (which could be construed to be a 4.02 (1)c issue) then I'd argue that extant regulations are sufficient.



In the context of this thread, can all Officers decide what to report, or even adequately address?  OCdts/NCdts and RMC come immediately to mind…


----------



## daftandbarmy

Jarnhamar said:


> *Shifting collective RSM interests from dress regs to culture change could be a start.*



I can see the morale patch for this one now


----------



## Kat Stevens

OldSolduer said:


> Give this soldier an A for perceptiveness.
> 
> The RSM is a very important position in any unit as I am sure you will all agree. The RSM sets the tone for the dress and deportment of his/her unit and in many cases soldiers junior - particularly the NCOs - to him/her will emulate the RSM. I know Roy Bruce had an effect on my career as well as Alex Wilson, and to an extent Jerry Frank. Many other WOs who went on to be RSMs (Ron Cooke) also had an effect on how I presented myself to the soldiers. The best RSM I never had - Bud Gilfoy as an MWO - had a positive effect on the soldiers.
> The RSM should be doing this already - changing the culture - and he/she has to have a real sense of right and wrong.


One of your old 2VP alum had an effect on my young sapper brain when i was on my driver track course in Winnipeg Nov '82. Max The Axe was everything i swore I'd never be if I ever got to be a grownup. Good thing that never got put to the test.


----------



## OldSolduer

Kat Stevens said:


> One of your old 2VP alum had an effect on my young sapper brain when i was on my driver track course in Winnipeg Nov '82. Max The Axe was everything i swore I'd never be if I ever got to be a grownup. Good thing that never got put to the test.


I failed to mention there are a bunch of people that are bad examples and I swore I’d never emulate them. He’s one.


----------



## Eaglelord17

I would say the Duty to Report is a huge issue for victims. It can make the victims feel even guiltier for what happened to them, even though they did nothing wrong.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Nice to see inappropriate comments taken more seriously. 

* Canadian air force commander relieved of duties in Kuwait after claims of inappropriate comments* 


			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/forces-philip-marcus-sexual-misconduct-claims-1.6294183


----------



## Halifax Tar

Jarnhamar said:


> Nice to see inappropriate comments taken more seriously.
> 
> * Canadian air force commander relieved of duties in Kuwait after claims of inappropriate comments*
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/forces-philip-marcus-sexual-misconduct-claims-1.6294183



Interesting read.


----------



## Good2Golf

Eaglelord17 said:


> I would say the Duty to Report is a huge issue for victims. It can make the victims feel even guiltier for what happened to them, even though they did nothing wrong.


Especially with a very high probability that the chain of command might not have taken the incident seriously.  The article previously mentioned is a perfect example of why victims would have reason not to trust the chain of command.


----------



## Zoomie

Jarnhamar said:


> Nice to see inappropriate comments taken more seriously.
> 
> * Canadian air force commander relieved of duties in Kuwait after claims of inappropriate comments*
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/forces-philip-marcus-sexual-misconduct-claims-1.6294183


So will that be investigated by the civilian courts?


----------



## QV

The CAF has created problems for itself by creating a too broad definition of sexual misconduct that includes everything from inappropriate jokes and ranging to sex assault.


----------



## daftandbarmy

QV said:


> The CAF has created problems for itself by creating a too broad definition of sexual misconduct that includes everything from inappropriate jokes and ranging to sex assault.



Too bad 'sexual assault' is defined by the victim.

It would be so much easier on the CAF if they would just follow policy.


----------



## FJAG

QV said:


> The CAF has created problems for itself by creating a too broad definition of sexual misconduct that includes everything from inappropriate jokes and ranging to sex assault.


Or maybe the problem is that there are still too many people who haven't figured out that "inappropriate jokes" are misconduct of a sexual nature and should be kept out of the workspace.

🍻


----------



## OldSolduer

FJAG said:


> Or maybe the problem is that there are still too many people who haven't figured out that "inappropriate jokes" are misconduct of a sexual nature and should be kept out of the workspace.
> 
> 🍻


Anything can be construed as inappropriate these days. 

Know your audience.


----------



## QV

daftandbarmy said:


> Too bad 'sexual assault' is defined by the victim.
> 
> It would be so much easier on the CAF if they would just follow policy.


Where I was going with that is reporting.  

"The CAF has investigated 30 incidents of sexual misconduct in the last 30 days" this sounds pretty bad indeed.  

But if the context was clarified; "The CAF has investigated 2 sex assaults and 28 incidents of jokes in bad taste in the last 30 days"... 

Again, a self own by the department.


----------



## QV

FJAG said:


> Or maybe the problem is that there are still too many people who haven't figured out that "inappropriate jokes" are misconduct of a sexual nature and should be kept out of the workspace.
> 
> 🍻


Sure FJAG. And the CAF continue to self immolate on this, or get with the program.


----------



## FJAG

QV said:


> Sure FJAG. And the CAF continue to self immolate on this, or get with the program.


It isn't self immolation by the CAF as a corporate entity anymore. It's individuals who still don't get the message and other individuals who tolerate bad behaviour. Most of the senior cases are historical ones. There's nothing anyone can do about that - they'll come out over time and be categorized under the standards of today. That's just the way it is in our judgmental society.

There is nothing wrong with the current definition of sexual misconduct. It was supposed to cover many behaviours which exist on a continuum but have a related common theme. Within the policy are graduated responses appropriate to the level of misconduct.

The problem facing the CAF is that there are still folks who still don't understand, or who do not want to accept, that their behaviour or that of others in their presence is misconduct within the society that we've become. You can argue until you're blue in the face as to whether society's standards are right or wrong but the fact of the matter is that things are the way they are and they are not about to change backwards. If anything, things will progress.

The reason the CAF is where it is today is because far too many people didn't get with the program when the program first came out. At the time the system assumed people would follow orders and cooperate. Many did. Too many didn't. So now there will be a new program to get with. Don't be surprised if this becomes the "puppies getting their noses rubbed in it" phase of behaviour modification. Those who issue your paychecks have taken notice and the CAF is the crisis du jour. They can't do anything about sexual misconduct in high schools or universities but they sure as hell can do, and want to be seen as doing, something about it in their own bailiwick.

🍻


----------



## KevinB

An inappropriate joke isn't generally viewed as harassment, a series of inappropriate jokes can be.

From a personal observation, some people seem to enjoy making others uncomfortable by that pattern of activity, or use it for control or intimidation.

 The whole know your audience is part of it - but also being a decent human being is another.
   A lot of soldiers use dark humor to cope with certain occurrences - so what may get said in an OP goes over totally different there than on a bus, plane or train with mixed company.


----------



## MilEME09

KevinB said:


> An inappropriate joke isn't generally viewed as harassment, a series of inappropriate jokes can be.


Depends on the content of the joke, frankly even if it is a joke, save it for when your at the mess at a table with your close friends(even then I'd say dont) Keep that stuff out of the work place where anyone can hear.


----------



## Zoomie

In all seriousness - if inappropriate jokes/comments are being investigated by a civilian police agency - will there even be a charge laid?   Is it against the CCC?


----------



## kev994

I don’t think they’d handing over jokes, just sexual assaults. From the first article I found “The cases that will be transferred involve sexual assault allegations or other criminal offences of a sexual nature, the office said.” Here


----------



## brihard

Zoomie said:


> In all seriousness - if inappropriate jokes/comments are being investigated by a civilian police agency - will there even be a charge laid?   Is it against the CCC?


God no. Not at all. I don’t believe CAF is trying to hand off ‘administrative’ HISB such as inappropriate comments or jokes, though. I’ve always understood this to be that they will hand off to civilian police any allegations of a _criminal_ nature- sexual assault, sexual interference, voyeurism, distributing intimate images without consent, child porn, etc.


----------



## lenaitch

I see "misconduct" popping up in media items.  I don't know if it is somebody deliberately using an imprecise word or has just grabbed onto the term being used to generally describe the issue occurring in workplaces, universities, etc.  I would assume that the files would be knowledgeably vetting,  Whether those determined to be lacking by the civilian police or the Crown will be sent back probably depends on the terms of the agreement(s).


----------



## OldSolduer

KevinB said:


> A lot of soldiers use dark humor to cope with certain occurrences - so what may get said in an OP goes over totally different there than on a bus, plane or train with mixed company.


 A bit off topic. One of our staff discovered a suicide in progress. Hanging was the chosen method.  She did her duty and called the code and the guy lived.

A supervisor said to her later  Are you Just hanging around  or words to that effect. I saw her once after that and never again. He was never held accountable and yes the same shit happens here with sexual issues.


----------



## Booter

lenaitch said:


> I see "misconduct" popping up in media items.  I don't know if it is somebody deliberately using an imprecise word or has just grabbed onto the term being used to generally describe the issue occurring in workplaces, universities, etc.  I would assume that the files would be knowledgeably vetting,  Whether those determined to be lacking by the civilian police or the Crown will be sent back probably depends on the terms of the agreement(s).


I think it’s the general inaccurate way of the media. Early on they conflated misconduct and criminality (my suspicion being that they were afraid to make a heirachy of victims- which is unpopular) 

There is no mechanism for police to investigate misconduct for the CAF and there also isn’t a capacity,


----------



## grayzone

Weinie said:


> Both. He recognizes that human beings make mistakes.


Human beings make mistakes. Leaders own theirs and take action to correct them. 
That's where Dawe failed.


----------



## grayzone

KevinB said:


> Seriously?
> Look I know all the parties to that incident - and my COA would have been to toss Hamilton out of a Helo 'accidentally'.  But no one usually agrees with my recommended COA's.
> BUT MG Dawe wrote a letter - was it poorly thought out - yeah absolutely - did he realize that after the fact - absolutely.   He made a mistake that was it...


admitting to a mistake alone is not good enough for CAF leadership.
admitting to the mistake and owning the responsibility to change is leadership.


----------



## KevinB

grayzone said:


> admitting to a mistake alone is not good enough for CAF leadership.
> admitting to the mistake and owning the responsibility to change is leadership.


No disagreement from me, I think he did in that instance though.


----------



## captloadie

Just reading some of the comments above goes to show that individuals still don't get the fact that there needs to be a culture change. Phrases like save the jokes for the mess, know your audience, or be aware of mixed company. That no longer cuts it. Keep those jokes and comments out of the work place entirely.
I learned my lesson at a very early point in my career. I was walking with a group of guys from the shacks to the mess during softball regionals, I was still an Ocdt. I started telling a racist joke I thought was funny, and didn't notice that several of the guys started to peel off from the group. But the MS I was walking with hung right in there listening and never said a word. Later that evening, on of the Capt's took me aside and asked if I knew the MS and his family well. I didn't and said so. He then let me know that he was married to one of the minorities in my crass joke. I felt horrible and apologized to the individual. And that was the last time I told that type of joke in any company. But I still recount the lesson I learned when I come across it.


----------



## KevinB

captloadie said:


> Just reading some of the comments above goes to show that individuals still don't get the fact that there needs to be a culture change. Phrases like save the jokes for the mess, know your audience, or be aware of mixed company. That no longer cuts it. Keep those jokes and comments out of the work place entirely.


Jokes can also help people cope when dealing with horrific incidents.   
   Your workplace may not have a lot of blood and bone fragment on someone's uniform - but when it does, sometimes really awful jokes can be an effective way of dealing with it at that time.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Sigh... telling a racist joke to a group of white faces would still be an ignorant thing to do if the MS wasn't married to one of the minorities in said joke.

Conversely someone making a similar joke about their own background is a totally different context and doesn't have the same intent. And like KevinB said a lot of people use humour as a way to cope with terrible things, or relieve stress after surviving dangerous situations.  

Sure, impact of a joke definitely matters, but so does context and intention. If your only take away there was the MS was offended because of their spouse, and that's why it was wrong, you missed the point. Some things you save for the mess because that's the audience that will understand what you are talking about, not because its some kind of free fire zone with no rules where you can say racist, misoginistic or generally awful shit with no consequences.

Culture is always changing so adaptation is a constant thing, not a 5 phase operation in SMESC format with a defined beginning/end. People are coming into the CAF with all kinds of inherent biases, points of views etc, and can shift and change as they meet new people, get exposed to new things etc, while others come in as assholes and stay that way.  Zero tolerance sounds good but doesn't leave any room for genuine misunderstandings and all sorts of other typical social interactions where there was no intent to offend.


----------



## dapaterson

Former Canadian navy officer sentenced after pleading guilty to 9 sexual offences
					

A former lieutenant-commander in the Canadian navy was sentenced to two years less a day in prison Wednesday after pleading guilty to nine sexual offences dating back to the early 2000s.




					vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca


----------



## daftandbarmy

dapaterson said:


> Former Canadian navy officer sentenced after pleading guilty to 9 sexual offences
> 
> 
> A former lieutenant-commander in the Canadian navy was sentenced to two years less a day in prison Wednesday after pleading guilty to nine sexual offences dating back to the early 2000s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca



Needless to say, this is all over the local news here with lingering shots of CFB Esquimalt...


----------



## Halifax Tar

daftandbarmy said:


> Needless to say, this is all over the local news here with lingering shots of CFB Esquimalt...



I'm sure it has more to do with disdain for the RCN than in support of the victims


----------



## captloadie

Navy_Pete said:


> Sigh... telling a racist joke to a group of white faces would still be an ignorant thing to do if the MS wasn't married to one of the minorities in said joke.
> 
> Conversely someone making a similar joke about their own background is a totally different context and doesn't have the same intent. And like KevinB said a lot of people use humour as a way to cope with terrible things, or relieve stress after surviving dangerous situations.
> 
> Sure, impact of a joke definitely matters, but so does context and intention. If your only take away there was the MS was offended because of their spouse, and that's why it was wrong, you missed the point. Some things you save for the mess because that's the audience that will understand what you are talking about, not because its some kind of free fire zone with no rules where you can say racist, misoginistic or generally awful shit with no consequences.
> 
> Culture is always changing so adaptation is a constant thing, not a 5 phase operation in SMESC format with a defined beginning/end. People are coming into the CAF with all kinds of inherent biases, points of views etc, and can shift and change as they meet new people, get exposed to new things etc, while others come in as assholes and stay that way.  Zero tolerance sounds good but doesn't leave any room for genuine misunderstandings and all sorts of other typical social interactions where there was no intent to offend.


So, I think you are missing my point. When this happened 25 odd years ago, the culture was different and the joke I told would have been accepted and laughed at under different circumstances. What I learned from the incident at the time was jokes and comments can cause unintentional harm. I also learned you need to own up to your mistakes and make yourself a better person from those mistakes. 

And perhaps I misspoke, but I see a very big difference between dark humor and  sexually inappropriate/racist/hurtful humor. I guess I should have been more specific in what I meant by inappropriate.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Halifax Tar said:


> I'm sure it has more to do with disdain for the RCN than in support of the victims



If so, they really hate those MCDVs 'cause they were clearly taking their shots from the CANEX entrance


----------



## dimsum

Police challenge Ottawa’s plan to offload military sexual assault cases
					

Some police forces are saying they simply cannot absorb these new cases without additional resources, because their staff and budgets are already too stretched




					www.theglobeandmail.com


----------



## Jarnhamar

dimsum said:


> Police challenge Ottawa’s plan to offload military sexual assault cases
> 
> 
> Some police forces are saying they simply cannot absorb these new cases without additional resources, because their staff and budgets are already too stretched
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theglobeandmail.com


I was wondering when the police were going to publicly say no thanks.

 Did the MND and Ottawa think they could just dump this on to civilian police's plates?



> Police chiefs and provincial officials are challenging Defence Minister Anita Anand’s plans to have civilian law enforcement take over military sexual assault investigations, in some cases raising questions about who will fund the work.





> While the military and its police force are funded with federal dollars, civilian police forces are usually paid for by municipal or provincial governments. Politicians at all levels of government are not allowed to direct police operations. Police chiefs control what assignments their officers undertake.


----------



## dangerboy

Jarnhamar said:


> I was wondering when the police were going to publicly say no thanks.
> 
> Did the MND and Ottawa think they could just dump this on to civilian police's plates?


In my opinion, they made this statement without doing the groundwork to have it in place.


----------



## KevinB

dangerboy said:


> In my opinion, they made this statement without doing the groundwork to have it in place.


Admittedly it’s kind of their job, seeing as how the members pay taxes and all of that…

Maybe the cities and provinces should stop whining about no more free lunch.


----------



## daftandbarmy

dangerboy said:


> In my opinion, they made this statement without doing the groundwork staff work to have it in place.



FTFY because the CAF has nowhere near enough HQ staff to do the (fairly simple) staff check required., right?


----------



## Booter

Again- when the government talks they keep using sexual misconduct and sexual assault interchangeably. I would be telling them to frig off too until I knew exactly what thing they were asking.


----------



## KevinB

Booter said:


> Again- when the government talks they keep using sexual misconduct and sexual assault interchangeably. I would be telling them to frig off too until I knew exactly what thing they were asking.


When the gov says misconduct, it usually means assault but doesn’t want it took look as bad.


----------



## Halifax Tar

The answer is is more MPOs


----------



## PuckChaser

Jarnhamar said:


> Did the MND and Ottawa think they could just dump this on to civilian police's plates?


Interesting that they went with the money route. Every CAF member pays provincial taxes and any CAF homeowner pays municipal taxes. CAF facilities pay GILT (Grant In Lieu of Taxes, or whatever it's called now) to local governments. They've been getting a free ride from having the MPs cover all on-base/CAF member investigations for decades.


----------



## QV

Jarnhamar said:


> I was wondering when the police were going to publicly say no thanks.
> 
> Did the MND and Ottawa think they could just dump this on to civilian police's plates?





Booter said:


> Again- when the government talks they keep using sexual misconduct and sexual assault interchangeably. I would be telling them to frig off too until I knew exactly what thing they were asking.


_Yawn_… only just about everyone at the coalface saw this coming.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

It's not just about the money...- jurisdiction is mentioned.  Cases from years/decades ago...

If the police forces are understaffed/overworked now...how does dumping more files/cases on them help solve the problem the CAF is supposed to be trying to solve?

It can't be the CAF is just looking for a way to say "there...not our issue anymore"....right?


----------



## brihard

Has anyone seen data on how many MP criminal investigations there are for sexual offences in a given year? Set aside all the files that aren’t investigated criminally, because that’s purely internal- just how many cases are civilian police being asked to eat a year? Just the fact that police are saying “it would strain our resources” is concerning strictly from a standpoint of how many such offences are reported within CAF…


----------



## Furniture

Halifax Tar said:


> The answer is is more MPOs


I think we need to create a new two star position to investigate possible fixes.


----------



## KevinB

Eye In The Sky said:


> It's not just about the money...- jurisdiction is mentioned.  Cases from years/decades ago...
> 
> If the police forces are understaffed/overworked now...how does dumping more files/cases on them help solve the problem the CAF is supposed to be trying to solve?
> 
> It can't be the CAF is just looking for a way to say "there...not our issue anymore"....right?


It is also removing any issue about Command Interference by placing it in the hands of CivPol.
   A lot of issues dealing with Senior to General and Flag Officers have been and have appeared to been tampered with.
Sending it to Civilian Police removes the ability of General Bloggings to have any real or envisioned power to correct that.
   Imagine General Bloggins trying to phone Detective Alvin Awww at CPS trying to influence something -- all he/she/they are getting from that phone call is a criminal case on them.



brihard said:


> Has anyone seen data on how many MP criminal investigations there are for sexual offences in a given year? Set aside all the files that aren’t investigated criminally, because that’s purely internal- just how many cases are civilian police being asked to eat a year? Just the fact that police are saying “it would strain our resources” is concerning strictly from a standpoint of how many such offences are reported within CAF…


It is an average of 174 per year reported for the last 22 years according to Wikipedia 

As well according to CBC 571 reported over the past 5 years 
Military recorded more than 500 sexual assault reports during ...https://www.cbc.ca › news › politics › canadian-forces-s...


Coast to Coast in 5 years an average of 114.2 reported Sexual Assaults
  Civilian Police are really reaching if they think that is a strain.
*Now admittedly some less populated areas with a significantly high population of CAF members might skew that in some areas, but considering the amount of sexual assaults reported in Canada -- the CAF inclusion is a drop in a 55 gallon oil drum.





						Police-reported sexual assaults in Canada before and after #MeToo, 2016 and 2017
					

This Juristat article analyses changes in the volume and characteristics of sexual assaults reported to and substantiated by police before and after the #MeToo movement went viral on social media. Using 2016 and 2017 crime records provided by police, analysis by month of reporting to police is...




					www150.statcan.gc.ca
				




If my Police Chief or Sheriff was to complain about a sub 1% increase in case load for a population they are already resourced from, I'd shake my head....


----------



## lenaitch

PuckChaser said:


> Interesting that they went with the money route. Every CAF member pays provincial taxes and any CAF homeowner pays municipal taxes. CAF facilities pay GILT (Grant In Lieu of Taxes, or whatever it's called now) to local governments. They've been getting a free ride from having the MPs cover all on-base/CAF member investigations for decades.


Yes and no.  Speaking only from an Ontario OPP perspective (I don't know the details how the RCMP do costings or how municipal service structure their funding requests to council).

First, if you can find a municipal council that feels their GILT payments are adequate or even close to what a comparable commercial tax rate would provide, you win the prize.  The OPP municipal cost recovery model applies to municipalities under contract (the other non-contract method is basically a fee-for-service with no agreement on number of members, hours of patrol, etc.).  It is rather complex and I don't fully understand it,  but it involves a base 'provincial' component plus a 'calls for service' component and is divided by what is called 'property counts'; obviously primarily households and commercial properties appearing on the municipal rolls; i.e. its taxpayers.  Using you example for, say Borden, if the CAF homeowner lives in nearby Barrie or any other surrounding municipality, their municipal tax dollars don't support the municipality that Borden is within.  Neither does it account for a 'property count' that has several thousand people within it.  Neither is it set up for providing only one type of service (in this case, criminal sexual assault investigations).

Most municipal police services have the advantage of a singular tax base and singular investigative service.  Deployed services, on the other hand, are like recreating multiple police services at the actual service delivery end - only highly specialized services are centrally or regionally maintained.  Without knowing actual numbers, it is impossible to predict the actual potential impact but, regardless of the numbers, the investigative impact will be felt locally, and municipalities may well be reluctant to subsidize it or have the service to their citizens degraded because of it.


----------



## KevinB

lenaitch said:


> Using you example for, say Borden, if the CAF homeowner lives in nearby Barrie or any other surrounding municipality, their municipal tax dollars don't support the municipality that Borden is within.  Neither does it account for a 'property count' that has several thousand people within it.  Neither is it set up for providing only one type of service (in this case, criminal sexual assault investigations).


They are still supporting a tax base somewhere.
    If the CAF members didn't have to pay provincial and federal taxes - then one could make that argument.

Now folks living in Government Owned housing (PMQ's, ESQ's, SQ's) they generally are not paying municipal housing taxes, so that is something, while folks living off base are.   Maybe there needs to be some sort of transfer payment from DND to municipalities based on the # of Government Housing positions, but again, the #'s are lower than the Canadian general population, so it shouldn't be a significant burden, and the only draw would be for Sexual Assault Investigations, not all services in the area.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

KevinB said:


> It is also removing any issue about Command Interference by placing it in the hands of CivPol.
> A lot of issues dealing with Senior to General and Flag Officers have been and have appeared to been tampered with.
> Sending it to Civilian Police removes the ability of General Bloggings to have any real or envisioned power to correct that.
> Imagine General Bloggins trying to phone Detective Alvin Awww at CPS trying to influence something -- all he/she/they are getting from that phone call is a criminal case on them.



100% valid.  I don't disagree that these investigations need to be 101% removed from the CofC...

I thought CFNIS was supposed to be just that.  Should we be looking at the purpose and future of that org?


----------



## KevinB

Eye In The Sky said:


> 100% valid.  I don't disagree that these investigations need to be 101% removed from the CofC...
> 
> I thought CFNIS was supposed to be just that.  Should we be looking at the purpose and future of that org?


NIS still has a roll for Drugs, and other Significant Incidents.
  A lot of the Command Influence exerted by some former GOFO was on NIS, they shouldn't be part of the Sexual Assault Investigation chain IMHO.


----------



## dapaterson

All gov't owned infra is subject to PILT, including PMQs.


----------



## Booter

KevinB said:


> It is also removing any issue about Command Interference by placing it in the hands of CivPol.
> A lot of issues dealing with Senior to General and Flag Officers have been and have appeared to been tampered with.
> Sending it to Civilian Police removes the ability of General Bloggings to have any real or envisioned power to correct that.
> Imagine General Bloggins trying to phone Detective Alvin Awww at CPS trying to influence something -- all he/she/they are getting from that phone call is a criminal case on them.
> 
> 
> It is an average of 174 per year reported for the last 22 years according to Wikipedia
> 
> As well according to CBC 571 reported over the past 5 years
> Military recorded more than 500 sexual assault reports during ...https://www.cbc.ca › news › politics › canadian-forces-s...
> 
> 
> Coast to Coast in 5 years an average of 114.2 reported Sexual Assaults
> Civilian Police are really reaching if they think that is a strain.
> *Now admittedly some less populated areas with a significantly high population of CAF members might skew that in some areas, but considering the amount of sexual assaults reported in Canada -- the CAF inclusion is a drop in a 55 gallon oil drum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Police-reported sexual assaults in Canada before and after #MeToo, 2016 and 2017
> 
> 
> This Juristat article analyses changes in the volume and characteristics of sexual assaults reported to and substantiated by police before and after the #MeToo movement went viral on social media. Using 2016 and 2017 crime records provided by police, analysis by month of reporting to police is...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www150.statcan.gc.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If my Police Chief or Sheriff was to complain about a sub 1% increase in case load for a population they are already resourced from, I'd shake my head....


The main concern I would have, would be- the military is at this weird place where they are scanning all their sexual misconduct against being sexual assault. 

So while across the country they have 174 sexual assault investigation- the atmosphere towards all sexual misconduct may be making a situation where all misconduct is filtered against sexual assault. The amount of misconduct would be much higher and so if the chain wants to divert all potential criminality that’s a problem. I have seen similar before- and if I’ve seen it so have these other municipalities.

And jurisdiction: if the car and its officers are paid by the tax payers over yonder- why would they accept that car to be heading to the base for the day:

A few years ago, and this isn’t the case anymore so i don’t mind saying it, there was a block of time where in Regina there were two police officers on for the whole city. THE WHOLE CITY!

Say hypothetically, there was a military base there and a sexual assault…who would the Regina folks accept that they lose all their cops for that period?

It may seem like fly shit from
Pepper but some forces are razor thin and that increase does change their books 🤷‍♀️


----------



## KevinB

dapaterson said:


> All gov't owned infra is subject to PILT, including PMQs.


So that removes any issues anyway at this point -- other than the loss of a free lunch.


----------



## Haggis

Booter said:


> Again- when the government talks they keep using sexual misconduct and sexual assault interchangeably. I would be telling them to frig off too until I knew exactly what thing they were asking.


The DAOD 9005-1 definition of sexual misconduct includes offences under CCC 162 (voyeurism), 162.1 (publication of an intimate image without consent) and 271 (sexual assault).


----------



## Booter

Haggis said:


> The DAOD 9005-1 definition of sexual misconduct includes offences under CCC 162 (voyeurism), 162.1 (publication of an intimate image without consent) and 271 (sexual assault).


That’s part of the issue- how do they determine which to send downtown and which stay up town? And if it’s MPs making that call…because they can identify the difference (and I’m pretty sure they can)…what is the real issue? Is it CoC interference? Is that like a real thing- to the extent where it needs these types of changes? And if so are we pursuing the right change?

They are unsuccessful prosecuting them. I’d actually like to see the stats of civi convictions vs MPs. I don’t find historically that it’s a very successful charge in general.

And no- not because I’m the investigator lol


----------



## Booter

lenaitch said:


> Yes and no.  Speaking only from an Ontario OPP perspective (I don't know the details how the RCMP do costings or how municipal service structure their funding requests to council).
> 
> First, if you can find a municipal council that feels their GILT payments are adequate or even close to what a comparable commercial tax rate would provide, you win the prize.  The OPP municipal cost recovery model applies to municipalities under contract (the other non-contract method is basically a fee-for-service with no agreement on number of members, hours of patrol, etc.).  It is rather complex and I don't fully understand it,  but it involves a base 'provincial' component plus a 'calls for service' component and is divided by what is called 'property counts'; obviously primarily households and commercial properties appearing on the municipal rolls; i.e. its taxpayers.  Using you example for, say Borden, if the CAF homeowner lives in nearby Barrie or any other surrounding municipality, their municipal tax dollars don't support the municipality that Borden is within.  Neither does it account for a 'property count' that has several thousand people within it.  Neither is it set up for providing only one type of service (in this case, criminal sexual assault investigations).
> 
> Most municipal police services have the advantage of a singular tax base and singular investigative service.  Deployed services, on the other hand, are like recreating multiple police services at the actual service delivery end - only highly specialized services are centrally or regionally maintained.  Without knowing actual numbers, it is impossible to predict the actual potential impact but, regardless of the numbers, the investigative impact will be felt locally, and municipalities may well be reluctant to subsidize it or have the service to their citizens degraded because of it.


Very similar.


----------



## lenaitch

KevinB said:


> They are still supporting a tax base somewhere.
> If the CAF members didn't have to pay provincial and federal taxes - then one could make that argument.
> 
> Now folks living in Government Owned housing (PMQ's, ESQ's, SQ's) they generally are not paying municipal housing taxes, so that is something, while folks living off base are.   Maybe there needs to be some sort of transfer payment from DND to municipalities based on the # of Government Housing positions, but again, the #'s are lower than the Canadian general population, so it shouldn't be a significant burden, and the only draw would be for Sexual Assault Investigations, not all services in the area.


"Somewhere" isn't really helpful when frontline costs are borne by the local municipality.  I have no clue how in-lieu payments are calculated or what they are intended to cover.

If the number's aren't significant - at the local service delivery level - the cost and redirection of resources might go un-noticed.  Otherwise, a deployed provincially-funded service, like they do for bikers and other pan-municipal issues, might be needed.  The numbers being quoted only get divided by a limited number of locations.


----------



## Booter

dapaterson said:


> All gov't owned infra is subject to PILT, including PMQs.


I’m not familiar at first glance with that acronym? Would you be so kind


----------



## dapaterson

Payment In Lieu of Taxes.


----------



## Booter

You guys would better understand that- but I can say when managing multiple policing agreements, rural/municipal/ neighbouring municipality- it always made operational sense to integrate, but for community governments it’s easy to have your data separate- to the minute and unit,

How long how many cars in what area, the community governments have, in my experience been more concerned with how often the car they pay for is in the area that pays it- than my explanation how pooled resourcing leads to operational flexibility,

“Yeah but we pay for x cars”


----------



## Booter

dapaterson said:


> Payment In Lieu of Taxes.


This is fascinating and I’ve never seen it before.






						Understanding payments in lieu of taxes – Payments in lieu of taxes for federal properties – Federal properties and buildings – About government – Canada.ca
					

Learn about the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program and find the answers to frequently asked questions about payments in lieu of taxes (PILT) for federal properties




					www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca
				




It would appear on the surface to change lots of the dynamic, it would be that communities aren’t used to providing the service but are required to- at first blush anyways. Specifically the section that speaks to access to services, I’d have to see how that is defined, 

I wonder if that’s is spelled out in each municipalities agreement,


----------



## Booter

KevinB said:


> NIS still has a roll for Drugs, and other Significant Incidents.
> A lot of the Command Influence exerted by some former GOFO was on NIS, they shouldn't be part of the Sexual Assault Investigation chain IMHO.


The few sexual assaults on military bases, with all military parties, I had- all involved CFNIS. What that means as a standard practice I have no idea. Just an anecdote. Which is apparently all I have on offer


----------



## lenaitch

Booter said:


> This is fascinating and I’ve never seen it before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Understanding payments in lieu of taxes – Payments in lieu of taxes for federal properties – Federal properties and buildings – About government – Canada.ca
> 
> 
> Learn about the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program and find the answers to frequently asked questions about payments in lieu of taxes (PILT) for federal properties
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would appear on the surface to change lots of the dynamic, it would be that communities aren’t used to providing the service but are required to- at first blush anyways. Specifically the section that speaks to access to services, I’d have to see how that is defined,
> 
> I wonder if that’s is spelled out in each municipalities agreement,


Interesting doc - thanks.  I see Essa Township gets $4.3Mn and assume the vast majority of that is for Base Borden.  I would seem, on the basis of the statements in the webpage, that the Township should be plowing all the internal roads (and parking lots?  It's all one 'tenant'), fixing streetlights, provide fire service, police service, and on and on.  I doubt that is happening but, as you say, there may be individual terms.

Municipalities might argue the 'equitable' part.  A local municipality has a provincial correctional facility and the government previously funded a dedicated crime unit for the local detachment - until they unilaterally decided not to, saying the provincial in-lieu payments covered it.  Now it looks like any calls to the jail will be queued in with all other town calls and be responded to by patrol staff.


----------



## KevinB

Booter said:


> The few sexual assaults on military bases, with all military parties, I had- all involved CFNIS. What that means as a standard practice I have no idea. Just an anecdote. Which is apparently all I have on offer


I was more meaning when the the sexual crime aspect is removed from the MILPOL side.
   I don't think anyone after what occurred in the last few years will accept a non CIVPOL investigatory replacement to the NIS for sex related crimes/complaints.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Currently under the existing system a lawyer will be provided by JAG; I'm assuming that you are on your own in a CIVPOL charge for any legal fees, transportation back to the original jurisdiction etc? Similarly, for any victims that made a complaint, they are similarly on their own (outside of whatever support they get from normal civilian bits).

With the number of people on TD, short term postings etc that will be a lot of additional admin that doesn't seem to be considered. Bit stupid when a lot of this could have been fixed in the mil justice system yeas ago when any number of previous judicial reviews pointed out these problems.


----------



## brihard

So, in the civilian system jurisdiction is contingent on where an offense happens. A sexual assault on a mess in Ottawa would land on Ottawa Police. If if happens at a member’s residence in Carleton Place, or Gatineau, then it would be OPP or Gatineau police respectively. Similar dynamics for other bases depending where they are.


----------



## dapaterson

Charges under the CSD will continue to have counsel provided by JAG.

CC charges, on the other hand, if not laid under 130 of the NDA (which makes them CSD) will mean the charged member will be on the hook for their own lawyer.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Furniture said:


> I think we need to create a new two star position to investigate possible fixes.


Only after a three year Royal Commission, of course. There's a process, you know.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

lenaitch said:


> Interesting doc - thanks.  I see Essa Township gets $4.3Mn and assume the vast majority of that is for Base Borden.  I would seem, on the basis of the statements in the webpage, that the Township should be plowing all the internal roads (and parking lots?  It's all one 'tenant'), fixing streetlights, provide fire service, police service, and on and on.  I doubt that is happening but, as you say, there may be individual terms.
> 
> Municipalities might argue the 'equitable' part.  A local municipality has a provincial correctional facility and the government previously funded a dedicated crime unit for the local detachment - until they unilaterally decided not to, saying the provincial in-lieu payments covered it.  Now it looks like any calls to the jail will be queued in with all other town calls and be responded to by patrol staff.


Trust me (having dealt directly with PILT in the past), municipalities love when the PILT cheque rolls in every year. They hate it when you ask to have a road plowed or paved, once in a while…


----------



## dapaterson

And more from the Senior Service.



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/claims-rear-admiral-santarpia-failed-to-hold-subordinates-accountable-sexual-misconduct-1.6392291?__vfz=medium%3Dsharebar


----------



## Halifax Tar

dapaterson said:


> And more from the Senior Service.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/claims-rear-admiral-santarpia-failed-to-hold-subordinates-accountable-sexual-misconduct-1.6392291?__vfz=medium%3Dsharebar



So sad.


----------



## Jarnhamar

dapaterson said:


> And more from the Senior Service.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/claims-rear-admiral-santarpia-failed-to-hold-subordinates-accountable-sexual-misconduct-1.6392291?__vfz=medium%3Dsharebar



While I absolutely applaud and support these two officers, the CAF is going to launch an investigation for them speaking to the media as well as possibly violating 19.14 and 19.36, right?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

While I understand some people see the best option for them personally is to part with the CAF, I wonder if these And similar Officers are exactly the ones we need to stay and empower…


----------



## OldSolduer

Jarnhamar said:


> While I absolutely applaud and support these two officers, the CAF is going to launch an investigation for them speaking to the media as well as possibly violating 19.14 and 19.36, right?


I would not be surprised at all.


----------



## Halifax Tar

NVM 

RTFQ  

Desolee.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Halifax Tar said:


> Can you clarify and/or expand on your point ?



CPCC is charged with paving the way forward for CF Culture.  Similar to the Transition Group, if there were regional CPCC Offices, these Officers are the type that would likely be desired by the CPCC HHQ types.  

To me, that would empower them to be part of the change they see as needed.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Eye In The Sky said:


> CPCC is charged with paving the way forward for CF Culture.  Similar to the Transition Group, if there were regional CPCC Offices, these Officers are the type that would likely be desired by the CPCC HHQ types.
> 
> To me, that would empower them to be part of the change they see as needed.



Yup I sucked back and reloaded.


----------



## daftandbarmy

dapaterson said:


> And more from the Senior Service.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/claims-rear-admiral-santarpia-failed-to-hold-subordinates-accountable-sexual-misconduct-1.6392291?__vfz=medium%3Dsharebar



Sigh...


----------



## Brad Sallows

"Gah!" indeed.  Whatever "culture change" is, it has to be consistent with elevating people who are capable of being effective warfighters.  But the base stupidity of some people ensures the likelihood of overreaction in wrong directions.


----------



## Weinie

Jarnhamar said:


> While I absolutely applaud and support these two officers, the CAF is going to launch an investigation for them speaking to the media as well as possibly violating 19.14 and 19.36, right?


Not a chance in hell.


----------



## Kilted

Jarnhamar said:


> While I absolutely applaud and support these two officers, the CAF is going to launch an investigation for them speaking to the media as well as possibly violating 19.14 and 19.36, right?


Well, considering how often this seems to happen, they are going to eventually have to start charging people.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Jarnhamar said:


> While I absolutely applaud and support these two officers, the CAF is going to launch an investigation for them speaking to the media as well as possibly violating 19.14 and 19.36, right?



Is the juice worth the squeeze ?


----------



## trigger324

dapaterson said:


> And more from the Senior Service.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/claims-rear-admiral-santarpia-failed-to-hold-subordinates-accountable-sexual-misconduct-1.6392291?__vfz=medium%3Dsharebar


🤦‍♂️


----------



## Jarnhamar

Weinie said:


> Not a chance in hell.


I don't think so either.



Halifax Tar said:


> Is the juice worth the squeeze ?



Here's my thoughts (bit of a rabbit hole) 

Like Weinie said no it's not going to happen. Optics wise it's terrible and the jag probably wouldn't support. 

But if _I_ goto the media tomorrow and say I'm quitting because my boss is a liar and I don't trust the system and I've seen too much bullshit etc.. I have a strong suspicion I'd face administrative or disciplinary action. That's based off a presumption that my lower rank will see me get different treatment (gender and the current climate may play into that too). 
 I'm certainly not going to be offered a quick release before any hammer drops and offered a civilian job. 

The double standard when it comes to "rank having privileges" is, in my opinion, contributing to members releasing. In this case it's easy to support these officers but at a core level I think (or suspect) it will highlight how not all CAF members are treated equal. Not a slight against them one bit-I think the more this happens the more pressure will be on the CAF since members being assaulted isn't enough pressure. 

That rabbit hole aside their story is of course another example of our continued lack of accountability and faux culture change. Which also leads to good people releasing.


----------



## KevinB

dapaterson said:


> And more from the Senior Service.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/claims-rear-admiral-santarpia-failed-to-hold-subordinates-accountable-sexual-misconduct-1.6392291?__vfz=medium%3Dsharebar


Well I guess now we know rape is the Naval Standard for unacceptable.

  I wonder what who’s cutting the release paperwork on Admiral S tomorrow…


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Eye In The Sky said:


> While I understand some people see the best option for them personally is to part with the CAF, I wonder if these And similar Officers are exactly the ones we need to stay and empower…


Nah, better to just shut your mouth and go find something else to do 😉


KevinB said:


> Well I guess now we know rape is the Naval Standard for unacceptable.
> 
> I wonder what who’s cutting the release paperwork on Admiral S tomorrow…


Seablindness, it's a thing 🤣


----------



## OldSolduer

The CAF has too many “careerists” and too few warfighters.


----------



## FJAG

Brad Sallows said:


> ... elevating people who are capable of being effective warfighters.


You would think that being an effective warfighter is consistent with having common sense and good judgment.

🍻


Jarnhamar said:


> But if _I_ goto the media tomorrow and say I'm quitting because my boss is a liar and I don't trust the system and I've seen too much bullshit etc.. I have a strong suspicion I'd face administrative or disciplinary action.


That's why traditionally you pass on your thoughts at your release interview for the record and then go to the press the day after doffing your uniform.

🍻


----------



## Brad Sallows

> You would think that being an effective warfighter is consistent with having common sense and good judgment.



Yes, but I suspect some of the traits needed to win and minimize casualties in war are not wholly congruent with peacetime management.


----------



## ballz

Jarnhamar said:


> While I absolutely applaud and support these two officers, the CAF is going to launch an investigation for them speaking to the media as well as possibly violating 19.14 and 19.36, right?



I think given the all the CAF's failings it would be smarter to actually accept it's fault and take it's lashings....



Eye In The Sky said:


> While I understand some people see the best option for them personally is to part with the CAF, I wonder if these And similar Officers are exactly the ones we need to stay and empower…



No matter what you do to "empower" them, until they're a 3-star they'll always be interfered with.

Does anybody really think a Brigade Commander who wanted to put a Commanding Officer on remedial measures wouldn't be interfered with and eventually told he can't? When "x" regiment finds out it's shining star who they ordained to be their next king since they were a Lt is finally going to be held accountable, that the senior serving members of that regiment wouldn't be making calls to the Div Comd or Army Comd about said Bde Comd? They all  came up in an environment where remedial measures were never used and now have it engrained in their minds that an initial counselling is a knife in the nuts that are only used if someone's committed a service offence.

They did it to the RMC Commandant over something as vanilla as holding shithead Officer-Cadets accountable for cat-calling underage cadets, what do you think they'd do if it was one of their own regimental "can-do-no-wrong" children?



> "I'm saying I'm willing to go and f—ing verbally beat him up about it to get him back in f—ing line so he understand the severity and how serious this is..." says Doyle on the recording.



Ahhh yes, how many times were remedial measures not issued because someone's going to get a "talking to" instead. Nothing says "this is a serious matter, you've crossed a line" like a closed door conversation. And these same people will complain they don't have the tools available to deal with it, but they've never even tried to use them so how would they ever know.......


The CAF's leadership has been making this soup sandwich for a long time, now they get to choke it down.


----------



## MJP

Brad Sallows said:


> Yes, but I suspect some of the traits needed to win and minimize casualties in war are not wholly congruent with peacetime management.


Not sure if I buy that.  Always hated the excuse "...but they are a great field soldier or warfighter" to excuse some crappy behaviour. Bad conduct is bad conduct, the fact it is tolerated instead of culled is the problem

Some of the smartest/best warfighters I know get by just fine without saying dodgy shit or touching their people.  They also tend to treat their people decently and are able to push them without going overboard either.


----------



## KevinB

MJP said:


> Not sure if I buy that.  Always hated the excuse "...but they are a great field soldier or warfighter" to excuse some crappy behaviour. Bad conduct is bad conduct, the fact it is tolerated instead of culled is the problem


Arguably years ago it was viewed as a positive.  The peacetime bravado of  getting drunk and tearing up a bar wasn’t viewed as dimly as it is today.  



MJP said:


> Some of the smartest/best warfighters I know get by just fine without saying dodgy shit or touching their people.  They also tend to treat their people decently and are able to push them without going overboard either.


Most everyone grew up when peacetime bravado wasn’t needed anymore.


----------



## McG

Being a predator or maintaining a secret “sex room” on base are not the traits you need to fight a war. They are the traits that help you do war crimes. We don’t need that.


----------



## Haggis

KevinB said:


> I wonder what who’s cutting the release paperwork on Admiral S tomorrow…


You spelled "posting message" wrong.


----------



## The Bread Guy

This just in ...








						Gen. Jonathan Vance pleads guilty to obstruction of justice, gets conditional discharge - National | Globalnews.ca
					

Appearing virtually before an Ottawa courtroom, Vance entered the unprecedented plea following a year that saw the Canadian Forces embroiled in what experts have called a crisis.




					globalnews.ca


----------



## Brad Sallows

> Always hated the excuse "...but they are a great field soldier or warfighter" to excuse some crappy behaviour.



There's "bad conduct", and then there's the wishy-washy trendy bullsh!t like "toxic masculinity" or "whiteness" which attempt to erode conventionally useful attributes.


----------



## dimsum

Brad Sallows said:


> "whiteness" which attempt to erode conventionally useful attributes.


Please elaborate.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Look up "smithsonian whiteness pamphlet".  Still not sure myself it wasn't a prank, but apparently it wasn't.

It's worth being aware of what is being pushed, in order to recognize it when it inappropriately surfaces and then to push back.


----------



## brihard

The Bread Guy said:


> This just in ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gen. Jonathan Vance pleads guilty to obstruction of justice, gets conditional discharge - National | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> Appearing virtually before an Ottawa courtroom, Vance entered the unprecedented plea following a year that saw the Canadian Forces embroiled in what experts have called a crisis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> globalnews.ca


Holy crap.

I guess that puts to bed the questions some had as to whether meddling in a CSD investigation could constitute a criminal offense. Vance has now pled guilty to and been convicted of obstruction.

Had he just kept his mouth shut and not interfered they probably couldn’t have touched him anyway.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

McG said:


> Being a predator or maintaining a secret “sex room” on base are not the traits you need to fight a war. They are the traits that help you do war crimes. We don’t need that.


I don't understand how these people think that's the way to ever talk to a woman, much less a work colleague.



brihard said:


> Holy crap.
> 
> I guess that puts to bed the questions some had as to whether meddling in a CSD investigation could constitute a criminal offense. Vance has now pled guilty to and been convicted of obstruction.
> 
> Had he just kept his mouth shut and not interfered they probably couldn’t have touched him anyway.


Stop giving them the secret sauce @brihard , we need the idiots to keep outing themselves 🤣

You'd think with the Army of lawyers the CDS has advising them, they couldn't have spent 5 minutes asking one of them a "hypothetical scenario" question?

"Hey JAG, got a question about this thing, just so we are clear this isn't about me in any way, I'm simply 'asking for a friend' " 😆


----------



## Haggis

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I don't understand how these people think that's the way to ever talk to a woman, much less a work colleague.
> 
> 
> Stop giving them the secret sauce @brihard , we need the idiots to keep outing themselves 🤣
> 
> You'd think with the Army of lawyers the CDS has advising them, they couldn't have spent 5 minutes asking one of them a "hypothetical scenario" question?
> 
> "Hey JAG, got a question about this thing, just so we are clear this isn't about me in any way, I'm simply 'asking for a friend' " 😆


----------



## Blackadder1916

brihard said:


> Holy crap.
> 
> I guess that puts to bed the questions some had as to whether meddling in a CSD investigation could constitute a criminal offense. Vance has now pled guilty to and been convicted of obstruction.
> 
> Had he just kept his mouth shut and not interfered they probably couldn’t have touched him anyway.



But, what difference did it make?  Everybody agrees to an outcome that really doesn't interfere with Vance's future but saves the Crown the cost of a trial or the bad press if he got away with it.



> Rodney Sellar, legal counsel for Vance, told the court his client is *seeking a discharge*.
> 
> The Crown prosecutor, Mark Holmes, said he *agreed with the request for a conditional discharge lasting 12 months*.
> 
> Under the terms of the discharge, *which the judge granted*, Vance must complete 80 hours of community service and cannot communicate with . . .


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Blackadder1916 said:


> But, what difference did it make?  Everybody agrees to an outcome that really doesn't interfere with Vance's future but saves the Crown the cost of a trial or the bad press if he got away with it.


I always thought a conditional discharge was 3 years and an absolute discharge was 12 months or is that for record keeping purposes?


----------



## OldSolduer

Brad Sallows said:


> Yes, but I suspect some of the traits needed to win and minimize casualties in war are not wholly congruent with peacetime management.


Partially correct. Politicians don't like being told they're F&cking stupid.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I always thought a conditional discharge was 3 years and an absolute discharge was 12 months or is that for record keeping purposes?











						Absolute and Conditional Discharges in Canada - LawNow Magazine
					

Reading Time: 3 minutes Absolute and conditional discharges are types of sentences in Canada’s criminal justice system. Want to learn more? What is a discharge? A discharge is a legal sentence in Canada set out in section 730(1) of Canada’s Criminal Code. Both absolute and conditional discharges...




					www.lawnow.org
				





> What are the differences between an absolute and conditional discharge?​Because there is a finding of guilt but no conviction, an absolute discharge is the lowest sentence an individual can receive in our criminal justice system. There are no court orders that follow or conditions that an individual need to comply with. (The exception being any ancillary orders like a weapons prohibition or a DNA order that a judge may impose under the _Criminal Code_.)
> 
> A conditional discharge is like an absolute discharge except that the individual must abide by a probation period. This makes a conditional discharge more onerous than an absolute discharge. The maximum term of probation is 3 years. Often though the probation term imposed for a conditional discharge is between 12 and 24 months for a first-time offender.
> 
> A conditional discharge is exactly how it sounds: a discharge of a finding of guilt that is _conditional _on the individual successfully completing a probation period. Successfully completing a probation period means the individual abides by all terms on the probation order, pays all fines and surcharges, and does not accrue further findings of guilt. If an individual is not successful on probation, the court can substitute the discharge for a conviction, thereby resulting in a criminal record.


----------



## Haggis

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I always thought a conditional discharge was 3 years and an absolute discharge was 12 months or is that for record keeping purposes?


For periods of probation, yes.  As long as the guilty party abides by any conditions imposed then no conviction will be registered.  Breach any condition (e.g. he contacts his ex-mistress) and the discharge is replaced with a conviction and a criminal record results.


----------



## Navy_Pete

What a greasy bastard.

I wonder if they'll pull back his OMM and other appointments, or is that not possible?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

ballz said:


> I think given the all the CAF's failings it would be smarter to actually accept it's fault and take it's lashings....
> 
> 
> 
> No matter what you do to "empower" them, until they're a 3-star they'll always be interfered with.
> 
> Does anybody really think a Brigade Commander who wanted to put a Commanding Officer on remedial measures wouldn't be interfered with and eventually told he can't? When "x" regiment finds out it's shining star who they ordained to be their next king since they were a Lt is finally going to be held accountable, that the senior serving members of that regiment wouldn't be making calls to the Div Comd or Army Comd about said Bde Comd? They all  came up in an environment where remedial measures were never used and now have it engrained in their minds that an initial counselling is a knife in the nuts that are only used if someone's committed a service offence.
> 
> They did it to the RMC Commandant over something as vanilla as holding shithead Officer-Cadets accountable for cat-calling underage cadets, what do you think they'd do if it was one of their own regimental "can-do-no-wrong" children?
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh yes, how many times were remedial measures not issued because someone's going to get a "talking to" instead. Nothing says "this is a serious matter, you've crossed a line" like a closed door conversation. And these same people will complain they don't have the tools available to deal with it, but they've never even tried to use them so how would they ever know.......
> 
> 
> The CAF's leadership has been making this soup sandwich for a long time, now they get to choke it down.



I understand and agree with the stays quo and detailed above.  

I’m just not ready to write off the CPCC folks/intentions as “failed” this early on.

I guess, maybe foolishly, I have hold some hope that the things you talked about can and will change.  There just need to be “will and authority” at the right levels;  Snr, GOFO, Snr Appointment CWO/CPO1 that don’t comply should be relieved, ARd and releases of warranted.  If the AR isn’t successful, find suitable employment for those folks.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

The Bread Guy said:


> This just in ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gen. Jonathan Vance pleads guilty to obstruction of justice, gets conditional discharge - National | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> Appearing virtually before an Ottawa courtroom, Vance entered the unprecedented plea following a year that saw the Canadian Forces embroiled in what experts have called a crisis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> globalnews.ca



Has he been released yet?  Small potatoes, but I really wish he was referred to as retired or just Vance, the former CDS.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Gen. Jonathan Vance pleads guilty to obstruction of justice, gets conditional discharge​


> The presiding judge said that all evidence presented indicated that Vance was a “man of good character.”




Ah yes. The old _"he's a good guy"_


----------



## KevinB

Navy_Pete said:


> What a greasy bastard.
> 
> I wonder if they'll pull back his OMM and other appointments, or is that not possible?


It’s possible - and should be done to prove the CAF means things on Ethics. 

But…


----------



## kev994

Jarnhamar said:


> Gen. Jonathan Vance pleads guilty to obstruction of justice, gets conditional discharge​
> 
> 
> Ah yes. The old _"he's a good guy"_


I caught that too. Great character, except, you know, that pesky “obstruction of justice” bit.


----------



## Jarnhamar

kev994 said:


> I caught that too. Great character, except, you know, that pesky “obstruction of justice” bit.


Yup. 80 hours of community service. Privates get hit harder for being late.

The only thing left to wrap up this piece of justice served is to make Vance do his community service at a woman's shelter.


----------



## KevinB

Jarnhamar said:


> Yup. 80 hours of community service. Privates get hit harder for being late.
> 
> The only thing left to wrap up this piece of justice served is to make Vance do his community service at a woman's shelter.


Appalling and offensive. 
   But this was the Civilian Court - so one can at least take solace in the fact the CAF didn’t bugger this.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Jarnhamar said:


> Gen. Jonathan Vance pleads guilty to obstruction of justice, gets conditional discharge​
> 
> 
> Ah yes. The old _"he's a good guy"_



Pleading guilty to criminal activity does = top notch character.


----------



## Haggis

KevinB said:


> Appalling and offensive.
> But this was the Civilian Court - so one can at least take solace in the fact the CAF didn’t bugger this.


Judges are bound by sentencing guidelines and precedents in case law when handing down punishments. Both the Crown and defence agreed as well. His plea saved the cost of a trial (and, as pointed out above, the potential fallout of a not guilty verdict) and spared Maj. Brennan from testifying.


----------



## KevinB

Haggis said:


> Judges are bound by sentencing guidelines and precedents in case law when handing down punishments.


I can find a bunch of folks who went to jail for that. 


Haggis said:


> Both the Crown and defence agreed as well.


The Judge is not bound to that.  



Haggis said:


> His plea saved the cost of a trial (and, as pointed out above, the potential fallout of a not guilty verdict) and spared Maj. Brennan from testifying.


His plea swept it under the rug, so he didn’t burn others down.


----------



## Haggis

KevinB said:


> I can find a bunch of folks who went to jail for that.


And a bunch that didn't.


KevinB said:


> The Judge is not bound to that.


True.  It's likely that a pre-trial conference resulted in an agreed sentence in exchange for a guilty plea.  It's also likely that his former status coloured the discussions.


KevinB said:


> His plea swept it under the rug, so he didn’t burn others down.


This I agree with totally.  The optics are bad (per your first comment) particularly given his arrogant stance during this whole proceeding and his role as the architect (see what I did there?) of Operation HONOUR.

That being said, we're gonna need a bigger rug.


----------



## Booter

but we were assured lawyers and the Justice system don’t have political considerations by others in the threads.

(And police boards and police chiefs…)


----------



## brihard

KevinB said:


> The Judge is not bound to that.



Unless the proposed sentence is clearly unfit (and that’s a high threshold to meet), the judge basically is bound by that, otherwise it would be grounds for a probably succesful appeal.


----------



## KevinB

brihard said:


> Unless the proposed sentence is clearly unfit (and that’s a high threshold to meet), the judge basically is bound by that, otherwise it would be grounds for a probably succesful appeal.


I'd argue looking at similar cases - the sentence is unfit.
   But that is equating the CDS position to be similar to that of a Chief of Police etc.
If you equate the CDS to being a clerk at a 711 - then yeah the sentences match...


----------



## Navy_Pete

Does that factor into sentencing on the civilian side?

In the military side, probably a number of different charges that could be stacked on top of this, and his position would definitely be an aggravating factor. They really need to close that loophole, and after knowing about it for 7 or 8 years now really no excuse. Was Vance's order to the JAG judges even ever rescinded?

That kind of power imbalance is crazy even if they are both consenting, and he got off way too light here for clearly going into coercive control territory. Even out of uniform, no signs that the old boys network isn't still alive and well, and I'm sure he could reach back and mess with someone's career now.


----------



## dapaterson

The judge can only sentence based on the charges and evidence before them.  In this case, sentencing has to be aligned with a single charge and the small pieces of evidence before him.  Any other conduct can't be considered by the judge unless it is properly before the court.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

The Bread Guy said:


> This just in ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gen. Jonathan Vance pleads guilty to obstruction of justice, gets conditional discharge - National | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> Appearing virtually before an Ottawa courtroom, Vance entered the unprecedented plea following a year that saw the Canadian Forces embroiled in what experts have called a crisis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> globalnews.ca


I do enjoy how corruption in procurement has become so entrenched that John Vance can literally use it in his Defence on why he shouldn't receive a criminal record LOL

Me paraphrasing and not a direct quote:

'You're honour a finding of guilt for this crime would leave me unable to leverage my considerable connections and status to receive monetary compensation for my services'

🤣🤣🤣🤣


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Trudeau not commenting on whether Vance should keep Order of Military Merit after guilty plea
		


Given the complete circumstances around "the case", and his position(s) held during events that took place;  there's no question for me - I do not believe Vance has a place in the Order anymore.

To offer a comparison and precedence that doesn't involve _a former Wing commander_ I won't name;  Rick Fancy was stripped of his MMM for wearing Jump Wings and 2 medals he hasn't earned (Somalia and GCS-SWA).  He was a Reg Frce WO who CTd and was then a Res MWO when he did his stupidity.  He was demoted, fined $300 and relieved of his MMM.


----------



## brihard

There have been a couple MWOs stripped of their Order of Militart Merit for getting caught wearing gongs they weren’t entitled to- even just a Jube in one case. I’d say the present case certainly calls for it.


----------



## Haggis

brihard said:


> There have been a couple MWOs stripped of their Order of Militart Merit for getting caught wearing gongs they weren’t entitled to- even just a Jube in one case. I’d say the present case certainly calls for it.


One MWO was terminated and one resigned.  One LCol resigned and another RCAF LCol was terminated following her second conviction for a total of six service offences.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Eye In The Sky said:


> Trudeau not commenting on whether Vance should keep Order of Military Merit after guilty plea
> 
> 
> 
> Given the complete circumstances around "the case", and his position(s) held during events that took place;  there's no question for me - I do not believe Vance has a place in the Order anymore.
> 
> To offer a comparison and precedence that doesn't involve _a former Wing commander_ I won't name;  Rick Fancy was stripped of his MMM for wearing Jump Wings and 2 medals he hasn't earned (Somalia and GCS-SWA).  He was a Reg Frce WO who CTd and was then a Res MWO when he did his stupidity.  He was demoted, fined $300 and relieved of his MMM.



Someone has already started a petition calling for Vance's removal from the order.









						Sign the Petition
					

Remove Gen (Ret) Jonathan Vance from the Order of Military Merit




					www.change.org


----------



## dapaterson

If you are court martialed for drunken sexual misconduct, obviously you should be promoted, then named to a senior CWO position, especially if you're a MP, right?



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/top-military-police-job-court-martial-1.6405879


----------



## Halifax Tar

dapaterson said:


> If you are court martialed for drunken sexual misconduct, obviously you should be promoted, then named to a senior CWO position, especially if you're a MP, right?
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/top-military-police-job-court-martial-1.6405879



At least we corrected our mistake this time ?  

The RCN likes to leave these folks in place


----------



## Haggis

dapaterson said:


> If you are court martialed for drunken sexual misconduct, obviously you should be promoted, then named to a senior CWO position, especially if you're a MP, right?
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/top-military-police-job-court-martial-1.6405879


A "recently established internal military police process"? What's wrong?  DSA didn't pick the guy you wanted so you became your own DSA-lite?  Nice.


----------



## Takeniteasy

dapaterson said:


> If you are court martialed for drunken sexual misconduct, obviously you should be promoted, then named to a senior CWO position, especially if you're a MP, right?
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/top-military-police-job-court-martial-1.6405879


Another one who should be removed from the ORMM


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

dapaterson said:


> If you are court martialed for drunken sexual misconduct, obviously you should be promoted, then named to a senior CWO position, especially if you're a MP, right?
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/top-military-police-job-court-martial-1.6405879


I mean maybe he is still the best person for the job?  Wonder what the other candidates looked like 😁



Halifax Tar said:


> At least we corrected our mistake this time ?
> 
> The RCN likes to leave these folks in place



We just make them the Navy Commander 🤣 and apparently hanging out with your former boss when he is under investigation for obstruction, which he has since plead guilty for, isn't a big deal though 🤔


----------



## FSTO

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I mean maybe he is still the best person for the job?  Wonder what the other candidates looked like 😁
> 
> 
> 
> We just make them the Navy Commander 🤣 and apparently hanging out with your former boss when he is under investigation for obstruction, which he has since plead guilty for, isn't a big deal though 🤔


I'm thinking the current CRCN is retiring this year. I fear that a potential replacement is interesting........


----------



## Halifax Tar

FSTO said:


> I'm thinking the current CRCN is retiring this year. I fear that a potential replacement is interesting........



How much more interesting can they be ?


----------



## Kat Stevens

Halifax Tar said:


> How much more interesting can they be ?


Top three candidates based on previous service records.


----------



## dimsum

Kat Stevens said:


> Top three candidates based on previous service records.


Taika disapproves.


----------



## Haggis

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I mean maybe he is still the best person for the job?  Wonder what the other candidates looked like


The MP Gp CWO need not be an MP.  That precedent was set many years ago when a former Infmn was appointed to the position.


----------



## dapaterson

Takeniteasy said:


> Another one who should be removed from the ORMM


He was appointed to the order Dec 2019, after his court martial.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Haggis said:


> The MP Gp CWO need not be an MP.  That precedent was set many years ago when a former Infmn was appointed to the position.



The way our CWO position are administered now one need not have any experience in the meat and potatoes of an organization to be its CWO.   

Personally I want to be the first CPO1 RSM of 2 RCR.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Halifax Tar said:


> The way our CWO position are administered now one need not have any experience in the meat and potatoes of an organization to be its CWO.
> 
> Personally I want to be the first CPO1 RSM of 2 RCR.


We make a lot of sense 🤣


----------



## btrudy

Halifax Tar said:


> At least we corrected our mistake this time ?
> 
> The RCN likes to leave these folks in place


I wouldn't say the mistake was actually corrected. The fellow is still a CWO after all. He just doesn't happen to be a CWO filling a specific billet.

Fire him, and demote whoever made the decision to put him in that job despite his rather obvious baggage. BGen Trudeau according to the article I guess?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Humphrey Bogart said:


> We make a lot of sense 🤣



Once you realize we aren't actually meant to be a fighting force anymore and instead just an extension of the PS of Canada you see the Benny Hill logic really cement.


----------



## Halifax Tar

btrudy said:


> I wouldn't say the mistake was actually corrected. The fellow is still a CWO after all. He just doesn't happen to be a CWO filling a specific billet.
> 
> Fire him, and demote whoever made the decision to put him in that job despite his rather obvious baggage. BGen Trudeau according to the article I guess?



Fair points mon ami.


----------



## Haggis

Halifax Tar said:


> The way our CWO position are administered now one need not have any experience in the meat and potatoes of an organization to be its CWO.
> 
> Personally I want to be the first CPO1 RSM of 2 RCR.


At the operational level, a unit CWO still has to be "in trade" as the CWO provides trade and employment related advice to the unit CO.  Above that, at the strategic and institutional level, intimate knowledge of the trade is less critical than being able to influence the institution.


----------



## Haggis

btrudy said:


> I wouldn't say the mistake was actually corrected. The fellow is still a CWO after all. He just doesn't happen to be a CWO filling a specific billet.


He's not the first or only CWO to be convicted of a service offence.


btrudy said:


> Fire him,


For what?  He was tried, found guilty and punished.  You want to punish him again?


btrudy said:


> and demote whoever made the decision to put him in that job despite his rather obvious baggage. BGen Trudeau according to the article I guess?


That I can support.  This was a bad call, akin to a letter written by another GO.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Haggis said:


> At the operational level, a unit CWO still has to be "in trade" as the CWO provides trade and employment related advice to the unit CO.  Above that, at the strategic and institutional level, intimate knowledge of the trade is less critical than being able to influence the institution.



I call BS.  That's just a statement meant to protect Regimental CWO positions.  The Navy and RCAF have no issue with putting anyone in the right uniform into their operational unit level CPO1 and CWO billets.

Its well established that a CWO is just an administrator now, upper management if you will.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

btrudy said:


> I wouldn't say the mistake was actually corrected. The fellow is still a CWO after all. He just doesn't happen to be a CWO filling a specific billet.
> 
> Fire him, and demote whoever made the decision to put him in that job despite his rather obvious baggage. BGen Trudeau according to the article I guess?


You can't though because he was already punished for what he did.  The opportunity to "fire him" was then.

One could also argue that he was punished already for this by the Court Martial and that his behaviour was deemed to have been corrected.

The entire purpose of Military Discipline is to correct behaviour to allow Members to continue to carry on serving.

It's not the members fault the CoC appointed him to that position which was totally within their control and not his. 

It also must be said that legally speaking, the Chief is a lower rank (literally) than even the most Junior Officer so are we going to hold the member to a higher standard than a Junior Officer?

It's only once you start thinking about these things that you begin to realize just how much society has diverged from the Military Justice System.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Humphrey Bogart said:


> It also must be said that legally speaking, the Chief is a lower rank (literally) than even the most Junior Officer so are we going to hold the member to a higher standard than a Junior Officer?



I love that point.


----------



## btrudy

Haggis said:


> He's not the first or only CWO to be convicted of a service offence.
> 
> For what?  He was tried, found guilty and punished.  You want to punish him again?


Look... I know that you've got enough time in that you should know that administrative measures and disciplinary measures are two different things, and the fact that action was taken in one does not in any way shape or form preclude action from being taken in the other. 

I fully expect that any member who engages in sexual misconduct to also be released. Full stop. Release on the basis of an administrative review is a parallel process to any disciplinary action. He was tried, found guilty, and received a sentence at his criminal trial; he should also be fired. The sentence at the criminal trial is not a replacement for administrative action.


----------



## Haggis

Humphrey Bogart said:


> It also must be said that legally speaking, the Chief is a lower rank (literally) than even the most Junior Officer so are we going to hold the member to a higher standard than a Junior Officer?


There is that, but also the experience factor which I believe places the CPO1/CWO in a higher position of trust and responsibility than the Junior Officer.


----------



## ModlrMike

He failed as a senior police officer, and he failed as a SNCO. It's time for him to salvage whatever shred of honour remains, and fall on his sword. Prior punishment notwithstanding.


----------



## Haggis

btrudy said:


> Look... I know that you've got enough time in that you should know that administrative measures and disciplinary measures are two different things, and the fact that action was taken in one does not in any way shape or form preclude action from being taken in the other.


Ask any member who has ever received an IC, RW, RoS or been placed on C&P if they didn't feel "punished".  You're either in shit... or you're not.


btrudy said:


> I fully expect that any member who engages in sexual misconduct to also be released. Full stop. Release on the basis of an administrative review is a parallel process to any disciplinary action. He was tried, found guilty, and received a sentence at his criminal trial; he should also be fired. The sentence at the criminal trial is not a replacement for administrative action.


Except that the time to fire him has passed.  How far back do we go to retroactivity "administratively" release transgressors?  Should we also change Gen Vance's release item as he's now been found guilty of an Operation HONOUR related offence?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Humphrey Bogart said:


> It also must be said that legally speaking, the Chief is a lower rank (literally) than even the most Junior Officer so are we going to hold the member to a higher standard than a Junior Officer?
> 
> It's only once you start thinking about these things that you begin to realize just how much society has diverged from the Military Justice System.


I know its off topic but it's kind of my hobby horse, you also realize how much society has diverged from the military rank structure when you think of it like that........4 years of smoking dope and bad-mouthing your country puts you in a higher rank then someone who's been busting their hump for 20 years.     It's still the last bastion of complete unbridled stupidity from our Mother Countries....


----------



## btrudy

Haggis said:


> Except that the time to fire him has passed. How far back do we go to retroactivity "administratively" release transgressors?


I am not aware of any statute of limitations on the initiation of administrative measures. Feel free to point me in the right direction if such a policy exists, but I'm pretty damned sure there's literally nothing stopping him from being fired. 



Haggis said:


> Should we also change Gen Vance's release item as he's now been found guilty of an Operation HONOUR related offence?


No, because I'm concerned with fixing actual problems in the CAF, not virtue signalling. Booting people out the door who no longer deserve to wear the uniform fixes a problem. Changing someone's release item after the fact does nothing.


----------



## Haggis

ModlrMike said:


> He failed as a senior police officer, and he failed as a SNCO. It's time for him to salvage whatever shred of honour remains, and fall on his sword. Prior punishment notwithstanding.


That's different than retroactively punting him. Career moving - career stops. As a CWO you sort of serve at the CDS's pleasure and you can be "let go" if not advantageously employable through the SAP, SRCP of CFR process.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Haggis said:


> There is that, but also the experience factor which I believe places the CPO1/CWO in a higher position of trust and responsibility than the Junior Officer.



Wrong.  You have no higher level of trust or responsibility over a Jr Officer as a CWO/CPO1.  That commissioning scroll trumps everything. 

A CPO1, or CPO2 in my case, exists to look after those Jr to me and advise those Snr to me.  My level of responsibility and trust is trumped by the A/Slt or the 2Lt.  What I do provide is level of professional expectation to those Snr and Jr to me.

With respect, this blurring of the line WRT roles and responsibility between the Non commissioned and the commissioned needs to be reestablished.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> I know its off topic but it's kind of my hobby horse, you also realize how much society has diverged from the military rank structure when you think of it like that........4 years of smoking dope and bad-mouthing your country puts you in a higher rank then someone who's been busting their hump for 20 years.     It's still the last bastion of complete unbridled stupidity from our Mother Countries....



I completely agree with this statement.


----------



## Takeniteasy

dapaterson said:


> He was appointed to the order Dec 2019, after his court martial.


That is saying something about the awarding of the Order then. Should be taken away period.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Haggis said:


> Except that the time to fire him has passed.  How far back do we go to retroactivity "administratively" release transgressors?  Should we also change Gen Vance's release item as he's now been found guilty of an Operation HONOUR related offence?



If we can we absolutely should.


----------



## Haggis

btrudy said:


> I am not aware of any statute of limitations on the initiation of administrative measures. Feel free to point me in the right direction if such a policy exists, but I'm pretty damned sure there's literally nothing stopping him from being fired.


There is none. But there is procedural fairness.  Applying a new policy to an old offence violates that.


Halifax Tar said:


> Wrong.  You have no higher level of trust or responsibility over a Jr Officer as a CWO/CPO1.  That commissioning scroll trumps everything.


I have both a Warrant and Commissioning Scroll.  I was always held to a higher standard under the former than the latter as my level of institutional influence was greater as a CWO.


Halifax Tar said:


> A CPO1, or CPO2 in my case, exists to look after those Jr to me and advise those Snr to me.  My level of responsibility and trust is trumped by the A/Slt or the 2Lt.  What I do provide is level of professional expectation to those Snr and Jr to me.


I agree and disagree with this.  Different uniform thing, I guess.


Halifax Tar said:


> With respect, this blurring of the line WRT roles and responsibility between the Non commissioned and the commissioned needs to be reestablished.


I liked the way I learned it as a junior NCO:  "the officer creates the conditions and allots the time and resources for the job.  The NCO gets the job done."


----------



## Haggis

dapaterson said:


> He was appointed to the order Dec 2019, after his court martial.


I missed that.  This should have never been allowed to happen and places the process into disrepute. If not removed, he can resign from the Order.


----------



## btrudy

Haggis said:


> There is none. But there is procedural fairness.  Applying a new policy to an old offence violates that.


Naw, I don't buy that. "You can be kicked out for sexual misconduct" is an existing policy. If the application of that policy had in the past been not applied in the manner in which it should have, then fixing that problem is the way to go about it. BY applying the policy as it should have been done at the time the incident occurred.

Oh and for what it's worth, re: Gen Vance, he wasn't convicted of an OP Honour related offence, he was convicted of obstruction of justice.



Haggis said:


> I missed that.  This should have never been allowed to happen and places the process into disrepute. If not removed, he can resign from the Order.



We should never rely upon people who have already proven that their moral compasses are faulty to do the right thing to fix the department's problems.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Haggis said:


> I have both a Warrant and Commissioning Scroll.  I was always held to a higher standard under the former than the latter as my level of institutional influence was greater as a CWO.
> 
> A certain standard would have been expected of you by way of production, behavior and advisement, but the 2/Lt held rank and responsibility.
> 
> I agree and disagree with this.  Different uniform thing, I guess.
> 
> The rank system is the same for all elements.  Just some different avatars and names.  I might suggest that an organization that forgets/disregards the foundational structure and absolves those responsible of responsibility is doomed to fail.
> 
> I liked the way i learned it as a junior NCO:  "the officer creates the conditions and allots the time and resources for the job.  The NCO gets the job done."
> 
> The officer is also ultimately responsible for the final product.  No matter how you and I, as Snr NCMs, organize and conduct the task.


----------



## captloadie

I would say that this Court Martial demonstrates further that the CAF justice system once again has failed. The CWO was allowed to only plead guilty to the Drunkenness charge, and the two NDA 129 charges were dropped. The whole reason he was up on charges wasn't because he was drunk, it was because even after years of the CAF trying to change the culture, he made comments that were unacceptable. And he was not punished for those comments in a disciplinary manner. He received only a fine, no severe reprimand which should have kept him from being considered for a future key billet. 
We can only assume he was placed on some sort of Remedial Measures, which when his file was reviewed for a key appointment should have stuck out to someone as being lacking. When are we in the CAF going to acknowledge that not all fuck ups can and should be forgiven. Why would the senior MPOs who sat on this selection board think that it would be a could idea to put someone who so recently had a sexual misconduct issue on their file into a position of trust? Optics do matter, and trying to convince taxpayers that the Military Police can be trusted to investigate these types of allegations while openly placing this CWO in a position of power says what to them?


----------



## Takeniteasy

I heard many homaphobic comments through my 22 years; when faced with discrimination, as a WO, on a deployment with a NATO unit I was told I could be sent home if I went forward with a formal complaint. I never once used words or alcohol out of line. Further along in the grievance process knowing it would be denied i did not act insubordinate to higher ranks or act out on lower ones. I did leave under what I call CAFs environment of constructive dismissal though, and look at what has transpired since 2012! I knew it was a matter of time  before the mess caught up to the COC.


----------



## Eaglelord17

btrudy said:


> Look... I know that you've got enough time in that you should know that administrative measures and disciplinary measures are two different things, and the fact that action was taken in one does not in any way shape or form preclude action from being taken in the other.
> 
> I fully expect that any member who engages in sexual misconduct to also be released. Full stop. Release on the basis of an administrative review is a parallel process to any disciplinary action. He was tried, found guilty, and received a sentence at his criminal trial; he should also be fired. The sentence at the criminal trial is not a replacement for administrative action.



You believe someone should be fired for what? A few stupid comments well drunk which they then proceeded to apologize for and take responsibility for? They didn't sexually assault anyone. They didn't attack anyone. They didn't harm anyone, other than themselves. And they were given a punishment accordingly.



btrudy said:


> We should never rely upon people who have already proven that their moral compasses are faulty to do the right thing to fix the department's problems.


How has his compass been proven to be faulty? He admitted guilt. Apologized to those he wronged. Literally done everything you can do to fix the problem. 

He shouldn't have been made CWO of the trade, as I am sure there is plenty of other competent options without any sort of charge on record, but that also doesn't mean they are incompetent or do their job ineffectively. Some of the best leaders I have ever had are people who have been charged criminally or though the military, they learned from it and proceeded to become better from it.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Eaglelord17 said:


> You believe someone should be fired for what? A few stupid comments well drunk which they then proceeded to apologize for and take responsibility for? They didn't sexually assault anyone. They didn't attack anyone. They didn't harm anyone, other than themselves. And they were given a punishment accordingly.
> 
> He caused enough harm for someone lodge a complaint and commence the investigation.
> 
> Harm doesn't have to be by way of physical attack.
> 
> How has his compass been proven to be faulty? He admitted guilt. Apologized to those he wronged. Literally done everything you can do to fix the problem.
> 
> He shouldn't have been made CWO of the trade, as I am sure there is plenty of other competent options without any sort of charge on record, but that also doesn't mean they are incompetent or do their job ineffectively. Some of the best leaders I have ever had are people who have been charged criminally or though the military, they learned from it and proceeded to become better from it.
> 
> His compass may be recalibrated and true, but has he lost the trust and respect of his superiors and more importantly his juniors ?
> 
> Apologizing doesn't mean dues are paid.


----------



## Weinie

Somebody has risen to the top position in our country, even after egregious conduct both before and during their sinecure. And they have apologized.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Weinie said:


> Somebody has risen to the top position in our country, even after egregious conduct both before and during their sinecure. And they have apologized.



I'd hope the CAF has higher standards of selection... But I may be wrong if I pay attention to the news


----------



## Weinie

Halifax Tar said:


> I'd hope the CAF has higher standards of selection... But I may be wrong if I pay attention to the news


Just sayin.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Humphrey Bogart said:


> We just make them the Navy Commander 🤣 and apparently hanging out with your former boss when he is under investigation for obstruction, which he has since plead guilty for, isn't a big deal though 🤔




Speaking of Vance I read that the judge in his obstruction case didn't bother reading the victim impact statement but did read 6 or 7 "but he's a really good guy" letters.

Good stuff.


----------



## btrudy

Eaglelord17 said:


> You believe someone should be fired for what? A few stupid comments well drunk which they then proceeded to apologize for and take responsibility for? They didn't sexually assault anyone. They didn't attack anyone. They didn't harm anyone, other than themselves. And they were given a punishment accordingly.


 I'll be completely frank here. The manner in which you attempt to downplay this as merely "A few stupid comments well <sic> drunk" makes it clear that you're a part of the problem. People need to stop downplaying sexual misconduct, and they sure as shit need to stop using voluntary alcohol intoxication as if it's some sort of mitigating factor. 


Eaglelord17 said:


> He shouldn't have been made CWO of the trade, as I am sure there is plenty of other competent options without any sort of charge on record, but that also doesn't mean they are incompetent or do their job ineffectively. Some of the best leaders I have ever had are people who have been charged criminally or though the military, they learned from it and proceeded to become better from it.


"Do your job without sexually harassing people" is a core component of doing the job effectively. Failure to do so does indeed mean that he's doing the job ineffectively.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Jarnhamar said:


> Speaking of Vance I read that the judge in his obstruction case didn't bother reading the victim impact statement but did read 6 or 7 "but he's a really good guy" letters.
> 
> Good stuff.



Have a link for that ?  Not doubting you, just want to read the whole thing.


----------



## dangerboy

Halifax Tar said:


> Have a link for that ?  Not doubting you, just want to read the whole thing.


Mercedes Stephenson had a Twitter post with that info: 



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1509902172812722176


----------



## Halifax Tar

Is there a legal/procedural reason that the victim impact statement wouldnt be read ?  Yet character references would. 

I'm trying to give the court the benefit of the doubt....  Getting hard to do though.


----------



## OldSolduer

btrudy said:


> I'll be completely frank here. The manner in which you attempt to downplay this as merely "A few stupid comments well <sic> drunk" makes it clear that you're a part of the problem. People need to stop downplaying sexual misconduct, and they sure as shit need to stop using voluntary alcohol intoxication as if it's some sort of mitigating factor.
> 
> "Do your job without sexually harassing people" is a core component of doing the job effectively. Failure to do so does indeed mean that he's doing the job ineffectively.


It can be done but when drunkenness is a factor in murder trials you have to factor it in here too.

Be careful when you hunt witches...


----------



## Halifax Tar

OldSolduer said:


> Be careful when you hunt witches...



This sentiment have been shared many times in this thread.  Why ?  Why shouldnt we root out all those who work to undermine our institution ?  

If you wanna know who wrote Vance's character references it's in this article.










						IN HER WORDS: Maj. Kellie Brennan’s victim impact statement about Vance guilty plea - National | Globalnews.ca
					

'I want to be free,' said Maj. Kellie Brennan in a victim impact statement submitted to the court as part of Gen. Jonathan Vance's guilty plea to obstruction of justice.




					globalnews.ca


----------



## Lumber

Jarnhamar said:


> Speaking of Vance I read that the judge in his obstruction case didn't bother reading the victim impact statement but did read 6 or 7 "but he's a really good guy" letters.
> 
> Good stuff.


I believe it was read by the judge and factored into the decision. It just wasn't expressly _read out loud._


----------



## Navy_Pete

Just a procedural point, but demotion requirements are outlined in the QR&Os as a Court Martial punishment (under reduction in rank). ARs can't demote someone, and don't believe anyone has that authority outside a CM.

QR&O: Volume II - Chapter 104 Punishments and Sentences - Canada.ca

There was a CANFORGEN last week of someone resigning from the OMM so it's possible, but think Vance should be stripped accordingly of whatever appointments he has.

In retrospect, might be a bit tin foil hat, but with his conduct can see why there was no movement in fixing the loophole that left him untouchable by the CMJ system while he was CDS. Greasy bastard.

He's earned that mental dis-honorarium in my book and would be kind of appalled if any company brought him on as a SME to be the interface with DND as a defence contractor.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> It also must be said that legally speaking, the Chief is a lower rank (literally) than even the most Junior Officer so are we going to hold the member to a higher standard than a Junior Officer?



The Senior Service has been doing that since mids were allowed to give direction and still go skylarking.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Brad Sallows said:


> The Senior Service has been doing that since mids were allowed to give direction and still go skylarking.



Recently there was a CO of a HMC Ship who would only let his non commissioned members go ashore if they were accompanied by an officer.   

That went over really well in C&POs   Many a poor subby was latched on too and had their free time completely bogarted by a crusty PO or Chief


----------



## Blackadder1916

Navy_Pete said:


> Just a procedural point, but demotion requirements are outlined in the QR&Os as a Court Martial punishment (under reduction in rank). ARs can't demote someone, and don't believe anyone has that authority outside a CM.
> 
> QR&O: Volume II - Chapter 104 Punishments and Sentences - Canada.ca



Besides "demotion" (the proper term for the punishment is "reduction in rank"), NCMs can also be "reverted" to a lower rank for inefficiency, or for misconduct if convicted by a civilian authority.

QR&O: Volume I - Chapter 11 - Promotion, Reversion and Compulsory Remustering


----------



## btrudy

OldSolduer said:


> It can be done but when drunkenness is a factor in murder trials you have to factor it in here too.
> 
> Be careful when you hunt witches...


The problem with witch hunts is that witches don't exist, and thus any witch hunt is inherently going to be targeting and punishing perfectly innocent people.

Sexual predators do exist. There are, in fact, far too many of them. Purging them from our ranks is a perfectly reasonable goal.


----------



## Haggis

Navy_Pete said:


> There was a CANFORGEN last week of someone resigning from the OMM so it's possible, but think Vance should be stripped accordingly of whatever appointments he has.


That's a total of five, now.  Said MWO was also a MSM recipient, I believe.

Previously, one MWO was terminated following a conviction for a service offence and one resigned. One LCol resigned and another was terminated following her second conviction for a total of six service offences.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

btrudy said:


> Look... I know that you've got enough time in that you should know that administrative measures and disciplinary measures are two different things, and the fact that action was taken in one does not in any way shape or form preclude action from being taken in the other.
> 
> I fully expect that any member who engages in sexual misconduct to also be released. Full stop. Release on the basis of an administrative review is a parallel process to any disciplinary action. He was tried, found guilty, and received a sentence at his criminal trial; he should also be fired. The sentence at the criminal trial is not a replacement for administrative action.


How do you know the member didn't receive administrative action?

Oh wait, you don't and are just speculating.



Haggis said:


> There is that, but also the experience factor which I believe places the CPO1/CWO in a higher position of trust and responsibility than the Junior Officer.



But that's not really true is it.  Trust and Responsibility aren't the same thing and shouldn't be used in the same sentence.

Officer's have more authority and with that authority, more responsibility simply due to the nature of them holding a commission.

Who has more Responsibility: 

The Coxswain or the OOW?

The Pilot or the Air Maint Chief?

The Platoon Commander or the RSM?

You along with everyone else has confused trust with authority.  Everyone has trust in my mind to do their job until they prove otherwise, authority is something entirely different.

This entire issue is part of the reason our Officer Corps is acting and behaving the way it is.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> I know its off topic but it's kind of my hobby horse, you also realize how much society has diverged from the military rank structure when you think of it like that........4 years of smoking dope and bad-mouthing your country puts you in a higher rank then someone who's been busting their hump for 20 years.     It's still the last bastion of complete unbridled stupidity from our Mother Countries....


I agree but it's presently the system we have.  We don't have a true meritocracy in our Armed Forces, we have the illusion of one.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Humphrey Bogart said:


> This entire issue is part of the reason our Officer Corps is acting and behaving the way it is.



It's a huge problem.  We have blurred line too much and it needs to be re-established.


----------



## Haggis

Humphrey Bogart said:


> But that's not really true is it.  Trust and Responsibility aren't the same thing and shouldn't be used in the same sentence.


Agreed, to a point.  If I don't trust someone I will be less likely to allow them to assume responsibility for a critical task.


Humphrey Bogart said:


> Officer's have more authority and with that authority, more responsibility simply due to the nature of them holding a commission.


I never disputed that.  Even as a CWO, I knew my place in QR&O 3.01 was below 2Lts.


Humphrey Bogart said:


> You along with everyone else has confused trust with authority.  Everyone has trust in my mind to do their job until they prove otherwise, authority is something entirely different.


Agreed.  I trust you until you lose/betray that trust.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I agree but it's presently the system we have.  We don't have a true meritocracy in our Armed Forces, we have the illusion of one.


The CF in general, the army especially has always been a buddyocracy. Lots of incompetent and\or abusive assholes on both sides of the commission line have risen to dizzying heights simply by drinking with or going to school with the right people. Many times the right surname is enough


----------



## Good2Golf

Kat Stevens said:


> The CF in general, the army especially has always been a buddhockeyocracy. Lots of incompetent and\or abusive assholes on both sides of the commission line have risen to dizzying heights simply by drinking with or going to school with the right people. Many times the right surname is enough


@Kat Stevens, I think your spell-checker wasn’t working right, or something.


----------



## OldSolduer

btrudy said:


> The problem with witch hunts is that witches don't exist, and thus any witch hunt is inherently going to be targeting and punishing perfectly innocent people.
> 
> Sexual predators do exist. There are, in fact, far too many of them. Purging them from our ranks is a perfectly reasonable goal.


I agree with you but you're going to trap the innocent as well. 

And witches do exist....


----------



## OldSolduer

Halifax Tar said:


> This sentiment have been shared many times in this thread.  Why ?  Why shouldnt we root out all those who work to undermine our institution ?
> 
> If you wanna know who wrote Vance's character references it's in this article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IN HER WORDS: Maj. Kellie Brennan’s victim impact statement about Vance guilty plea - National | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> 'I want to be free,' said Maj. Kellie Brennan in a victim impact statement submitted to the court as part of Gen. Jonathan Vance's guilty plea to obstruction of justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> globalnews.ca


You know that I am all for rooting them out but be bloody careful how you do it. 

And I never said we shouldn`t. What about the 19 year old recruit who thinks he/she is being witty but tossed out due to an inappropriate remark.

Don`t tell me `that wouldn`t happen`. It just might.


----------



## Eaglelord17

btrudy said:


> I'll be completely frank here. The manner in which you attempt to downplay this as merely "A few stupid comments well <sic> drunk" makes it clear that you're a part of the problem. People need to stop downplaying sexual misconduct, and they sure as shit need to stop using voluntary alcohol intoxication as if it's some sort of mitigating factor.
> 
> "Do your job without sexually harassing people" is a core component of doing the job effectively. Failure to do so does indeed mean that he's doing the job ineffectively.



And you need to stop up playing how bad this is. He made mistakes well drunk, admitted fault, apologized, was charged and punished. That is what OP Honour was all about, making sure events like that if they do happen have consequences. I don't think pulling out a firing squad is justifiable over a few comments which they immediately regretted. Life is about learning and getting better. This person was given punishment and appears to have learned from their actions. I don't believe in throwing away someone's career over something so minor. 

As to you calling me part of the problem, I will avoid ad hominem attacks simply because you aren't worth them. Unlike many who have just heard 'bad comments' and 'inappropriate jokes' I have actually been a victim of the type of events that made OP Honour needed in the first place. The serious end of the spectrum not the 'oh what they said offended me' side. I also went through the whole process and had the individuals involved charged, following all the way through to heading to trial and being convicted. I have done more than my fair share to ensure that individuals are held accountable for their actions. 

We don't need to be robots in this organization, and if we are wondering why people are leaving in droves, part of it is the puritanical witch hunting we are doing. Oh no that person made a inappropriate joke, lets fire them. This person made a mistake and owned up to it, lets burn them. That person said a swear word, hang them. It is a toxic work environment, but to the other end, where people are afraid to say anything or build comradery due to fear of it being taken wrong. The CAF is just turning into a average job for many, and as it becomes more of a average job, it loses much of its appeal. There is a lot of better average jobs you can do for the same money.


----------



## btrudy

Humphrey Bogart said:


> How do you know the member didn't receive administrative action?
> 
> Oh wait, you don't and are just speculating.


If an administrative measure was given and it was a slap on the wrist, then that's still the system failing. 

Because we need to be taking these issues seriously, instead of bloody well continuing to promote people who engage in this behaviour. 

We need to stop letting sexual misconduct have zero career implications; more to the point we need to ensure that anyone who lets such behaviour go unchecked should themselves see their career in trouble. I can't trust the system to properly manage sexual harassment when the people who should be responsible for ensuring that actions have consequences don't see any consequences themselves when they just let things slide.

The old boy network needs to be razed. People protecting sexual predators are almost as much of a threat to the CAF as the the predators themselves.


----------



## Brad Sallows

"We need to stop letting sexual misconduct have zero career implications"

How about: "We need to stop letting misconduct have zero career implications"

Nothing special about "sexual".


----------



## Booter

Brad Sallows said:


> "We need to stop letting sexual misconduct have zero career implications"
> 
> How about: "We need to stop letting misconduct have zero career implications"
> 
> Nothing special about "sexual".


This is actually important in Canada in general. I never really see misconduct affect selection and promotion. It’s certainly never referenced in the selections I see in my present orgs. 

It leads to some absurd stories


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

So lets say the member was given a C&P of 6 or 12 months with a clear action plan of things they had to do including counselling, etc?

They successfully fulfilled all the terms and conditions of their C&P and corrected their behaviour?

What then?

This isn't as black and white as you're making it and you're making assumptions without knowing the complete picture.  I've dealt with complex HR files before, it's not so clear cut. 

LETS LOOK AT THE TIMEFRAME:

The member should have received both Administrative and Disciplinary Action, they should have received an adverse PER for that year they were convicted of Drunkeness. 

That may have kept them off the promotion list for that year or maybe the CoC didn't do the administrative action properly? 

Also the member was convicted of Drunkeness and ATT the new DAOD, DAOD 9005-1 Sexual Misconduct Response, did not yet exist and would have only been released well after the member would have completed their administrative action.

Given the timeframe of this, there is a strong likelihood that they received an Admin Action under the context of DAOD 5019-7 Alcohol Misconduct as opposed to the new directive of DAOD 9005-1 Sexual Misconduct Response.

So the Member was counselled IAW the Administrative Measures that existed ATT.

You're making assumptions based on incorrect/incomplete information.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Booter said:


> This is actually important in Canada in general. I never really see misconduct affect selection and promotion. It’s certainly never referenced in the selections I see in my present orgs.
> 
> It leads to some absurd stories



It does affect selection and promotion BUT only for that year it happened.

As for Military Discipline, a reprimand will affect promotion for a few years, a severe reprimand will affect promotion forever.

The member was convicted of drunkeness, not conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline, or anything else.

You can't give a punishment for something someone wasn't convicted of obviously.


----------



## Haggis

Humphrey Bogart said:


> So lets say the member was given a C&P of 6 or 12 months with a clear action plan of things they had to do including counselling, etc?
> 
> They successfully fulfilled all the terms and conditions of their C&P and corrected their behaviour?
> 
> What then?
> 
> This isn't as black and white as you're making it and you're making assumptions without knowing the complete picture.  I've dealt with complex HR files before, it's not so clear cut.
> 
> LETS LOOK AT THE TIMEFRAME:
> 
> The member should have received both Administrative and Disciplinary Action, they should have received an adverse PER for that year they were convicted of Drunkeness.
> 
> That may have kept them off the promotion list for that year or maybe the CoC didn't do the administrative action properly?
> 
> Also the member was convicted of Drunkeness and ATT the new DAOD, DAOD 9005-1 Sexual Misconduct Response, did not yet exist and would have only been released well after the member would have completed their administrative action.
> 
> Given the timeframe of this, there is a strong likelihood that they received an Admin Action under the context of DAOD 5019-7 Alcohol Misconduct as opposed to the new directive of DAOD 9005-1 Sexual Misconduct Response.
> 
> So the Member was counselled IAW the Administrative Measures that existed ATT.
> 
> You're making assumptions based on incorrect/incomplete information.


Thanks, HB.

I was looking for exactly this  earlier (timelines and applicability of the DAODs in force at the time) but my brain is COVID addled this week.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

It's been clear to me for a long time that a lot of people, including some that shouldn't, have a very poor or even basic grasp of:

A.  The Code of Service Discipline
B.  CAF Orders and Directives 

Also, how to apply both.   They also confuse Administrative Action + Remedial Measures as being the same thing when they are not exactly.

Remedial Measures are a form of Administrative Action, so is an Administrative Review, Occupational Transfer, Medical Releases, etc.  

Remedial Measures are a sub-section/component of Administrative Action. They are not the only Administrative Action there is.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Haggis said:


> Thanks, HB.
> 
> I was looking for exactly this  earlier (timelines and applicability of the DAODs in force at the time) but my brain is COVID addled this week.


Ironically this is what we should be paying our Officers for and what they are supposed to have an understanding of to earn that high priced salary.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Humphrey Bogart said:


> It's been clear to me for a long time that a lot of people, including some that shouldn't, have a very poor or even basic grasp of:
> 
> A.  The Code of Service Discipline
> B.  CAF Orders and Directives
> 
> Also, how to apply both.   They also confuse Administrative Action + Remedial Measures as being the same thing when they are not exactly.
> 
> Remedial Measures are a form of Administrative Action, so is an Administrative Review, Occupational Transfer, Medical Releases, etc.
> 
> Remedial Measures are a sub-section/component of Administrative Action. They are not the only Administrative Action there is.



From the NCM side of the house this is some the important stuff that we don't spend enough time on during our "leadership" training.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Halifax Tar said:


> From the NCM side of the house this is some the important stuff that we don't spend enough time on during our "leadership" training.


We don't spend nearly enough time on anything related to administration.

Which is why we are so phenomenally bad at it.  

It's like we got given a 500 page book on Prussian Staff Systems and decided to only let everyone read a 2 page synopsis but magically expect them to know everything 😉


----------



## Kat Stevens

Humphrey Bogart said:


> So lets say the member was given a C&P of 6 or 12 months with a clear action plan of things they had to do including counselling, etc?
> 
> They successfully fulfilled all the terms and conditions of their C&P and corrected their behaviour?
> 
> What then?
> 
> This isn't as black and white as you're making it and you're making assumptions without knowing the complete picture.  I've dealt with complex HR files before, it's not so clear cut.
> 
> LETS LOOK AT THE TIMEFRAME:
> 
> The member should have received both Administrative and Disciplinary Action, they should have received an adverse PER for that year they were convicted of Drunkeness.
> 
> That may have kept them off the promotion list for that year or maybe the CoC didn't do the administrative action properly?
> 
> Also the member was convicted of Drunkeness and ATT the new DAOD, DAOD 9005-1 Sexual Misconduct Response, did not yet exist and would have only been released well after the member would have completed their administrative action.
> 
> Given the timeframe of this, there is a strong likelihood that they received an Admin Action under the context of DAOD 5019-7 Alcohol Misconduct as opposed to the new directive of DAOD 9005-1 Sexual Misconduct Response.
> 
> So the Member was counselled IAW the Administrative Measures that existed ATT.
> 
> You're making assumptions based on incorrect/incomplete information.


I have first hand knowledge of two, and anecdotal knowledge of a few more, guys who were put on C&P for various and sundry acts of stupidity. They all jumped through every flaming hoop put in front of them for the duration of the C&P, and were subsequently kicked out. No worries though, they were only Cpls, MCpls, and Sprs, and only a few of them had families to feed. no big deal.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Kat Stevens said:


> I have first hand knowledge of two, and anecdotal knowledge of a few more, guys who were put on C&P for various and sundry acts of stupidity. They all jumped through every flaming hoop put in front of them for the six months of C&P, and were subsequently kicked out. No worries though, they were only Cpls, MCpls, and Sprs, and only a few of them had families to feed. no big deal.


It's a garbage system and our entire organization has such a poor understanding of even the most basic HR best practices.

Anyways, I'm #triggered now 🤣


----------



## Kat Stevens

Humphrey Bogart said:


> It's a garbage system and our entire organization has such a poor understanding of even the most basic HR best practices.
> 
> Anyways, I'm #triggered now 🤣


My work here is done. Again.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Humphrey Bogart said:


> It does affect selection and promotion BUT only for that year it happened.
> 
> As for Military Discipline, a reprimand will affect promotion for a few years, a severe reprimand will affect promotion forever.
> 
> The member was convicted of drunkeness, not conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline, or anything else.
> 
> You can't give a punishment for something someone wasn't convicted of obviously.


That's one of the issues with the severe personnel shortages; people are getting promoted without much time in rank, and with far less competitive scores then a decade ago.

Previously scores were so tight that something like that might knock you out of the running until that one year PER clears the couple of years worth  (3 or 4 years?) that gets brought to the board. Now some trades are so short staffed that low readies are getting brought up to the board so people are getting promoted before they are ready, and items like that which somewhat torpedo that PER year just blend in with the normal selection of files. Under that setup someone can screw up, correct themselves and keep their noses clean for a few years, and get back on track, which is great.  The way it is now it can maybe only slow someone down for 12 months or less (if at all) which is wrong IMHO.

Things like that are supposed to be considered when you submit a file for an OMM though; put one in and had to argue why a summary trial for being late and drunk 34 years ago as an OS shouldn't really matter on an otherwise spotless 35+ year career for consideration. Kind of mind blowing that some people are getting it anyway with recent convictions; makes it somewhat meaningless if it just means people are getting written up for it when they hit certain jobs.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Brad Sallows said:


> "We need to stop letting sexual misconduct have zero career implications"
> 
> How about: "We need to stop letting misconduct have zero career implications"
> 
> Nothing special about "sexual".


I think similarly we need to stop lumping everything together under 'sexual misconduct'. Sexual assault is obviously not the same as sexual misconduct, and putting up a bikini calendar doesn't make someone a predator.

I don't think there is really any discussion about keeping rapists or grabby hands around in uniform, and plenty of military and civilian charges exist to cover that kind of criminal behaviour, but there is a pretty wide range of non-criminal behaviour where there is a lot of opportunity for rehabilitation and unwise decisions (like hanging a bikini calendar).


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Navy_Pete said:


> That's one of the issues with the severe personnel shortages; people are getting promoted without much time in rank, and with far less competitive scores then a decade ago.
> 
> Previously scores were so tight that something like that might knock you out of the running until that one year PER clears the couple of years worth  (3 or 4 years?) that gets brought to the board. Now some trades are so short staffed that low readies are getting brought up to the board so people are getting promoted before they are ready, and items like that which somewhat torpedo that PER year just blend in with the normal selection of files. Under that setup someone can screw up, correct themselves and keep their noses clean for a few years, and get back on track, which is great.  The way it is now it can maybe only slow someone down for 12 months or less (if at all) which is wrong IMHO.
> 
> Things like that are supposed to be considered when you submit a file for an OMM though; put one in and had to argue why a summary trial for being late and drunk 34 years ago as an OS shouldn't really matter on an otherwise spotless 35+ year career for consideration. Kind of mind blowing that some people are getting it anyway with recent convictions; makes it somewhat meaningless if it just means people are getting written up for it when they hit certain jobs.


Thank you for this post!

If you read a Commissioning Scroll it says:

You will be given people to exercise and discipline and that they are to obey your orders.

Nowhere does it say those people are good or bad, they could be absolute garbage for all we know 🤣

It's up to you to make it work.  The car is broken and you still got 200 laps left, better hope the duck tape holds!


----------



## btrudy

I really don't get some of you people. Any other employer, if you got trashed at a work function and started propositioning your subordinates, you'd be fired the next day. 

But here, in the military, where we're supposed to pride ourselves on discipline and proper conduct, that type of behaviour gets a free pass as long as they don't screw up for 6 months afterwards? In an organization that is known to have a massive issue with sexual misconduct that we're desperately trying to fix? 

We do not fix the problems plaguing our organization by continuing to condone behaviour like this. It's never going to bloody well stop as long as the people who do it keep getting promoted; it's never going to stop as long as the people who make decisions to promote those people are left in positions where such decisions can be made. 

Sexual misconduct needs to be met with actual bloody consequences. Not some slap on the wrist that allows everyone to pretend like nothing ever happened after a few months. 

Read the god-damned room people, continuing to allow such behaviour to occur without consequences is continuing to erode what little confidence the Canadian public has in our professionalism. And that's not just limited to the Canadian public; it's also clearly displaying to everyone else in the forces exactly how much the institution cares about the well being of victims versus the well being of high-ranked offenders. 

The old boys club needs to be dismantled. Fire people who do shit like this, and demote people who try to protect them from the consequences of their actions, or we'll never have any chance of curbing behaviour like this.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Kat Stevens said:


> I have first hand knowledge of two, and anecdotal knowledge of a few more, guys who were put on C&P for various and sundry acts of stupidity. They all jumped through every flaming hoop put in front of them for the duration of the C&P, and were subsequently kicked out. No worries though, they were only Cpls, MCpls, and Sprs, and only a few of them had families to feed. no big deal.



As a young OS posted to CFB Kingston Base Supply I was put on C&P.  Back in the stone age you had to give CANEX a blank cheque to use their credit plan.  So I went and bought a fouton and a DVD player.  No one told me the money didn't actually come out on the 15 and 31st, and that it actually came out a few days after the fact.  Id never written a cheque before.  So I bounced a few payments and was unaware until I was pulled in with my WO and SM and given C&P.  



Navy_Pete said:


> That's one of the issues with the severe personnel shortages; people are getting promoted without much time in rank, and with far less competitive scores then a decade ago.
> 
> Previously scores were so tight that something like that might knock you out of the running until that one year PER clears the couple of years worth  (3 or 4 years?) that gets brought to the board. Now some trades are so short staffed that low readies are getting brought up to the board so people are getting promoted before they are ready, and items like that which somewhat torpedo that PER year just blend in with the normal selection of files. Under that setup someone can screw up, correct themselves and keep their noses clean for a few years, and get back on track, which is great.  The way it is now it can maybe only slow someone down for 12 months or less (if at all) which is wrong IMHO.
> 
> Things like that are supposed to be considered when you submit a file for an OMM though; put one in and had to argue why a summary trial for being late and drunk 34 years ago as an OS shouldn't really matter on an otherwise spotless 35+ year career for consideration. Kind of mind blowing that some people are getting it anyway with recent convictions; makes it somewhat meaningless if it just means people are getting written up for it when they hit certain jobs.



During a recent opportunity to speak to some big wigs I brought it up that our honors and awards VS admin and discipline process is upside down. 

I provided three on paper examples I had of where it was easier and faster to caution, conduct a UDI, lay chargers and proceed with ST than it was to nominate a member for an award.


----------



## KevinB

btrudy said:


> Oh and for what it's worth, re: Gen Vance, he wasn't convicted of an OP Honour related offence, he was convicted of obstruction of justice.
> .


IMHO he should be charged now, given there is court given evidence to that fact now. 

He’s paying child support too.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

btrudy said:


> The old boys club needs to be dismantled.


I believe I had to say this to you before to try and curb your enthusiasm.  I've been touched a lot more by women then by men......


btrudy said:


> I really don't get some of you people. Any other employer, if you got trashed at a work function and started propositioning your subordinates, you'd be fired the next day.


No you wouldn't, but you'd be officially apologizing and taking some courses.  You're not that special.


----------



## Remius

btrudy said:


> I really don't get some of you people. Any other employer, if you got trashed at a work function and started propositioning your subordinates, you'd be fired the next day.
> 
> But here, in the military, where we're supposed to pride ourselves on discipline and proper conduct, that type of behaviour gets a free pass as long as they don't screw up for 6 months afterwards? In an organization that is known to have a massive issue with sexual misconduct that we're desperately trying to fix?
> 
> We do not fix the problems plaguing our organization by continuing to condone behaviour like this. It's never going to bloody well stop as long as the people who do it keep getting promoted; it's never going to stop as long as the people who make decisions to promote those people are left in positions where such decisions can be made.
> 
> Sexual misconduct needs to be met with actual bloody consequences. Not some slap on the wrist that allows everyone to pretend like nothing ever happened after a few months.
> 
> Read the god-damned room people, continuing to allow such behaviour to occur without consequences is continuing to erode what little confidence the Canadian public has in our professionalism. And that's not just limited to the Canadian public; it's also clearly displaying to everyone else in the forces exactly how much the institution cares about the well being of victims versus the well being of high-ranked offenders.
> 
> The old boys club needs to be dismantled. Fire people who do shit like this, and demote people who try to protect them from the consequences of their actions, or we'll never have any chance of curbing behaviour like this.


You are missing a lot of points that are trying to be made.

Not a single person here has condoned anything being presented here.


----------



## Navy_Pete

I think in most other companies, consequences still depend on who you know and what your position is (until it makes a newspaper).

The problem with the old boys club is it creates different rules for everyone, which needs to go (for all kinds of other reasons besides covering up for misconduct).

I think if we end up at a spot where people actions are treated similarly, with increasingly severe consequences the more senior you get without exceptions, we'd be a leader across Canadian employers.

We'll never eliminate sexual misconduct, harassment or assault in the CAF (unless it miraculously disappears in Canadian society) but we also won't get rid of it overnight. Someone who does things like that at a senior rank likely has a history of it, so if you catch it early and deal with it when it's a minor infraction, then people won't feel like they can get away with things when they move up the ladder.

I think the current junior folks have an expectation for higher standards of deportment then current senior folks did when they were in the same spot 25 years ago, so it's really a generational change, but means it will take a long time for it to really roll through things thoroughly.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Humphrey Bogart said:


> You can't give a punishment for something someone wasn't convicted of obviously.



_laughs in NCM_


----------



## McG

Humphrey Bogart said:


> It does affect selection and promotion BUT only for that year it happened.


This, but with caveats.

Most remedial measures cannot even be mentioned on a PER, and where remedial measures can be mentioned there is no obligation to do so. So the a member gets that shielding too.

But, if someone scores a C&P for misconduct and the conduct on/off duty bubble is still marked positive … is that really true? And the right justified ethics & values bubble?

Too often I have seen PERs go to the wrong extremes when someone has screwed up. Either the failing is ignored because “he is a good troop” and the scores are all high, or the failing washes away all the good and even strengths are scored low.

But if we could find the middle ground and acutely score each bubble, then a year with a significant remedial measure would impact scoring at boards for at least three years but it would not necessarily prevent selection for promotion.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

btrudy said:


> I really don't get some of you people. Any other employer, if you got trashed at a work function and started propositioning your subordinates, you'd be fired the next day.
> 
> But here, in the military, where we're supposed to pride ourselves on discipline and proper conduct, that type of behaviour gets a free pass as long as they don't screw up for 6 months afterwards? In an organization that is known to have a massive issue with sexual misconduct that we're desperately trying to fix?
> 
> We do not fix the problems plaguing our organization by continuing to condone behaviour like this. It's never going to bloody well stop as long as the people who do it keep getting promoted; it's never going to stop as long as the people who make decisions to promote those people are left in positions where such decisions can be made.


Nobody is condoning anything.  The Military is clearly doing something about it, they have created new policies and regulations WHICH DIDN'T EXIST when this fellow was Court Martialled for "drunkeness".  

They literally created new rules to prevent the above from happening again.  They was operating under the old framework, they have been counselled and now know the new rules, what else is there you want done?

They literally fired a bunch of GOFOs and the former highest ranking Officer in the CAF just plead guilty to Obstruction.... that's absolutely amazing and would never have happened even five years ago.

Change takes time and people need to be afforded the opportunity to adapt to change.  



btrudy said:


> Sexual misconduct needs to be met with actual bloody consequences. Not some slap on the wrist that allows everyone to pretend like nothing ever happened after a few months.
> 
> Read the god-damned room people, continuing to allow such behaviour to occur without consequences is continuing to erode what little confidence the Canadian public has in our professionalism. And that's not just limited to the Canadian public; it's also clearly displaying to everyone else in the forces exactly how much the institution cares about the well being of victims versus the well being of high-ranked offenders.
> 
> The old boys club needs to be dismantled. Fire people who do shit like this, and demote people who try to protect them from the consequences of their actions, or we'll never have any chance of curbing behaviour like this.


We get it, you were obviously personally affected by these issues and probably have an axe to grind.  #takeanumber #jointheclub

I have news for you.  The World is full of terrible people who do unjust things. You can sit around on here and whine about it and call us all idiots or you can do something positive about it, like educate others or even educate yourself on how to find ways to improve things using the systems in place to make it a little better.

One thing that won't get you anywhere is dismissing others for no apparent reason.  

Sorry I lied, it will get you one thing:  an echo chamber 😉


----------



## FJAG

Halifax Tar said:


> Is there a legal/procedural reason that the victim impact statement wouldnt be read ?  Yet character references would.
> 
> I'm trying to give the court the benefit of the doubt....  Getting hard to do though.


I think this is merely an issue of the wording in the reporting.

If a victim impact statement is tendered in evidence, like here, then it would be highly unusual for a judge not to read it. I'm certain this one did but not having access to the transcript I can't be certain.

There is a difference between submitting a statement or letter as evidence in the case and "reading it into the record" like the defence counsel did with the "good boy letters" here. That means standing up in court and actually reading the letter out loud for everyone to hear and to be part of the transcript of the hearing.

I have no idea why the prosecutor would not have read the victim impact statement out loud "into the record"; especially if the victim asked for that. If you have any skill as a public speaker you can make a statement come alive rather than just be a dry piece of text on a page. With a joint sentencing recommendation you are not trying so much to influence the judge but to play to the "audience" - the victim, interested people, reporters and so on.

Let me simply say there is nothing in the newspaper reports that makes me doubt the judge as to his reading the evidence and making his decision in accordance with the law. With a joint recommendation such as this and the facts as they were, the judge really had very little choice, in law, but to accept the sentencing agreement presented to him.

There are things, like the sentencing recommendation and the failure to read the victim impact statement out loud into the record, when the victim wanted that that, which makes me doubt the prosecutor in this case. It felt a little "phoned in".

🍻


----------



## Brad Sallows

"Misconduct" deserves consequences, proportionate to severity of misconduct.  "Sexual" isn't a special kind of misconduct which warrants throwing everything else aside.


----------



## QV

Navy_Pete said:


> Now some trades are so short staffed that low *readies* are getting brought up to the board so people are getting promoted before *they are ready*,


You have to chuckle at the irony of this statement and the system as a whole. You‘re rating someone “Ready” for promotion and saying they aren’t ready. Well then…


----------



## Navy_Pete

QV said:


> You have to chuckle at the irony of this statement and the system as a whole. You‘re rating someone “Ready” for promotion and saying they aren’t ready. Well then…



For sure, but the way the system is currently set up you go from 'need improvement' to 'ready', so there really isn't a 'good job' kind of category for someone that is doing well but still needs time in rank for experience.

It's stupid, but generally that's effectively what a ready score is, with an immediate really a recommendation for promotion (and needs improvement basically recommending against promotion).  🤷‍♂️ 

Part of the PaCE pilot and suspect it will trend the same way, if you can figure out the VBasic style homebrew interface (and don't accidentally miss scoring some things). A lot of poorly explained mumbo jumbo on it though, and lots of the feedback notes etc never transferred over, so bit of a dogs breakfast so far.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Navy_Pete said:


> For sure, but the way the system is currently set up you go from 'need improvement' to 'ready', so there really isn't a 'good job' kind of category for someone that is doing well but still needs time in rank for experience.


Isn’t it the definition of « developing? »


----------



## Haggis

Humphrey Bogart said:


> We don't spend nearly enough time on anything related to administration.
> 
> Which is why we are so phenomenally bad at it.
> 
> It's like we got given a 500 page book on Prussian Staff Systems and decided to only let everyone read a 2 page synopsis but magically expect them to know everything 😉


Although I'm now a few years removed from the Green Machine, I always sought out advice on HR matters from the RMS (HRA) world, rather than going it alone.  Also, through a personal interest, I became quite good at researching regulations, orders and directives and policies.  That allowed me to ask better questions of the SMEs when I hit a roadblock.

Those SME's weren't always right or helpful and one of the most challenging areas to get answers in was Honours and Awards.

We have an onion-like  system, particularly in HR.  We try to incorporate the best practices of the business world and overlay that on a military system.  An order leads to a regulation which leads to directives which lead to policies which lead to procedures which lead to processes which lead to SOPs which leads to a workaround which violates the order.

Those workarounds give us something like the old Windows based PeopleSoft 7.54 Human Resources Management System (HRMS) which was used by DND and the CAF prior to Guardian.  In order to work for the CAF it was about 90% customized by us - so much so that Oracle refused to offer support any longer.  In short, they didn't recognize their own product.


----------



## quadrapiper

FJAG said:


> Let me simply say there is nothing in the newspaper reports that makes me doubt the judge as to his reading the evidence and making his decision in accordance with the law. With a joint recommendation such as this and the facts as they were, the judge really had very little choice, in law, but to accept the sentencing agreement presented to him.
> 
> 🍻


Looking back a few pages, there was comment about Vance being assessed as being of good character: how is that contextualized by judges? Is it more a question of "the individual is not a known career criminal with only felons for friends," versus anything more ideal?


----------



## FJAG

quadrapiper said:


> Looking back a few pages, there was comment about Vance being assessed as being of good character: how is that contextualized by judges? Is it more a question of "the individual is not a known career criminal with only felons for friends," versus anything more ideal?


Depending on whether its a superior court judge or a provincial judge, they see dozens to hundreds of these cases a year. I don't want to say everyone is jaded but, ... everyone is jaded. The judges and lawyers all know how the system works.

Generally, they see through the bullshit. Lots of folks are there over and over again while others are just first timers. First timers generally get a break because they are sentenced on the one thing that they are there for and not what the judge suspects their lifelong character might be like. Repeat offenders are proven dickheads so they get progressively more stomped on.

Judges aren't stupid (wait, wait - I knew one who was). Judges, generally, aren't stupid. They clearly know that one of those character letters is really saying "But for this really dumb thing the accused did, I've generally known him to be a good guy". It carries some weight because the principles of sentencing do consider several things which can either mitigating (such as good character, a willingness to accept responsibility through a guilty plea, etc) or aggravating (continued denial, no remorse, etc).

🍻


----------



## KevinB

FJAG said:


> Depending on whether its a superior court judge or a provincial judge, they see dozens to hundreds of these cases a year. I don't want to say everyone is jaded but, ... everyone is jaded. The judges and lawyers all know how the system works.
> 
> Generally, they see through the bullshit. Lots of folks are there over and over again while others are just first timers. First timers generally get a break because they are sentenced on the one thing that they are there for and not what the judge suspects their lifelong character might be like. Repeat offenders are proven dickheads so they get progressively more stomped on.
> 
> Judges aren't stupid (wait, wait - I knew one who was). Judges, generally, aren't stupid. They clearly know that one of those character letters is really saying "But for this really dumb thing the accused did, I've generally known him to be a good guy". It carries some weight because the principles of sentencing do consider several things which can either mitigating (such as good character, a willingness to accept responsibility through a guilty plea, etc) or aggravating (continued denial, no remorse, etc).
> 
> 🍻


I’d just wonder what sort of character his character references had…


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Remember Paul Bernardo's and lots even worse then him pass through those halls......"good character" is not a very high bar there.


----------



## dangerboy

KevinB said:


> I’d just wonder what sort of character his character references had…


You might recognize some of the names. 



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1511082178263846919


----------



## OldSolduer

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Remember Paul Bernardo's and lots even worse then him pass through those halls......"good character" is not a very high bar there.


This. Is. So. Accurate.

A good character here - in jail - is one that hasn't raped someone else.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

ModlrMike said:


> He failed as a senior police officer, and he failed as a SNCO. It's time for him to salvage whatever shred of honour remains, and fall on his sword. Prior punishment notwithstanding.



WOs/MWOs/CWOs are not NCOs or Snr NCOs.

Would you like it if your  C & Ps referred to you as a Subordinate or Junior Officer?   Probably not...professional courtesy is a 2 way gig.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Eaglelord17 said:


> You believe someone should be fired for what? A few stupid comments well drunk which they then proceeded to apologize for and take responsibility for? They didn't sexually assault anyone. They didn't attack anyone. They didn't harm anyone, other than themselves. And they were given a punishment accordingly.



This strikes me as a pretty big downplay of what happened.  The comment about the one Sgt who had a BF in Afghanistan...that sort of jumps the fence of the "stupid comment" to something more serious, to me at least.  That was just one of several that he plead guilty to.

Suggesting the comments didn't harm anyone other than then-MWO....this is the type of thinking people need to change.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Navy_Pete said:


> Just a procedural point, but demotion requirements are outlined in the QR&Os as a Court Martial punishment (under reduction in rank). ARs can't demote someone, and don't believe anyone has that authority outside a CM.
> 
> QR&O: Volume II - Chapter 104 Punishments and Sentences - Canada.ca



ARs can end with administrative action including "reversion in rank" (DAOD 5019-2, Para 5.9).  Different tool/method, same end state.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

SupersonicMax said:


> Isn’t it the definition of « developing? »



Yes, but now we'll have to  open up a new thread called "_inflating PERs - the CAF standard_".

I know of people who have remustered, and were not yet complete their QL3 course on 31 Mar and were unhappy to receive a "Developing" PER. My first question was..."you're still on the BTL, why are you getting a PER?".


----------



## Halifax Tar

dangerboy said:


> You might recognize some of the names.
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1511082178263846919



I know one of them.  Very surprised to see their name on that list.


----------



## Haggis

Eye In The Sky said:


> Suggesting the comments didn't harm anyone other than then-MWO....this is the type of thinking people need to change.


Clearly, someone other than the MWO was harmed, otherwise no complaints would've been made. And more than one person complained, so there's that.

However, he was not punished *by a CM* for the comments, but for the drunkenness.  He may well have been dealt with through the AR process for the comments (and I would hope that he was) but that's not a matter of public record as the CM is.  His subsequent and seemingly rapid appointment to the ORMM, promotion to CWO and appointment to a KP/SA still perplexes me. Regardless of his punishment, remedial measures (if any) applied, prior and current performance, atonement or regret, the optics are very bad.


----------



## OldSolduer

Haggis said:


> Clearly, someone other than the MWO was harmed, otherwise no complaints would've been made. And more than one person complained, so there's that.
> 
> However, he was not punished *by a CM* for the comments, but for the drunkenness.  He may well have been dealt with through the AR process for the comments (and I would hope that he was) but that's not a matter of public record as the CM is.  His subsequent and seemingly rapid appointment to the ORMM, promotion to CWO and appointment to a KP/SA still perplexes me. The optics are very bad.


The CAF has a good system but like any system humans and their bias and prejudices will affect the outcomes.


----------



## Haggis

OldSolduer said:


> The CAF has a good system but like any system humans and their bias and prejudices will affect the outcomes.


Agreed.  I have seen many very well deserved appointments to the ORMM and some "how the hell did that happen?" ones.


----------



## OldSolduer

Haggis said:


> Agreed.  I have seen many very well deserved appointments to the ORMM and some "how the hell did that happen?" ones.


And wonder why some were not awarded it.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

OldSolduer said:


> And wonder why some were not awarded it.



Isn't there an "equal distribution" requirement?  I haven't seen it written anywhere, but there seems to be these H & A get 'shared' across the CAF;  so many go to the Reg Force L1s across their commands, some to the PRes (including Rangers).

Kind of like the Jubilee's;  distribution/awarding isn't based solely on 'merit', but "merit within your group".


----------



## Haggis

Eye In The Sky said:


> Isn't there an "equal distribution" requirement?  I haven't seen it written anywhere, but there seems to be these H & A get 'shared' across the CAF;  so many go to the Reg Force L1s across their commands, some to the PRes (including Rangers).
> 
> Kind of like the Jubilee's;  distribution/awarding isn't based solely on 'merit', but "merit within your group".


1/10 of 1% of the CAF (Reg F and PRes) may be appointed to the Order on each list. There were 109 on the 72nd list in 2022 and 111 on the 71st list in 2020.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Haggis said:


> 1/10 of 1% of the CAF (Reg F and PRes) may be appointed to the Order on each list. There were 109 on the 72nd list in 2022 and 111 on the 71st list in 2020.


I suspect the eligibility pool is pretty small anyway just in time served; but with the files I've seen rejected can't believe someone could get it right after a CM, when other people got their files rejected for a similar summary trial conviction that was from the 80s. Shows the power of a 'fairy godfather' I guess, which really needs to be purged.


----------



## Haggis

Navy_Pete said:


> I suspect the eligibility pool is pretty small anyway just in time served;


I recall a window of 18-23 years of service as a consideration.


Navy_Pete said:


> but with the files I've seen rejected can't believe someone could get it right after a CM, when other people got their files rejected for a similar summary trial conviction that was from the 80s. Shows the power of a 'fairy godfather' I guess, which really needs to be purged.


After having time to do some Google-Fu, I found that he was appointed to the Order while a MWO on 12 Oct 2017, prior to the offence, which occurred on 01 December 1, 2017.  He was promoted to CWO on 31 January 2019 and was tried  on June 17, 2019. Therefore, my assumption at reply 4555 that he was appointed AFTER being convicted was wrong.


----------



## dapaterson

His appointment was announced in a CANFORGEN in 2019.

Regardless, that the Provost Marshall though he was worthy of appointment as the MP group CWO after his conviction says everything you need to know about the CAF's GOFOs and their moral depravity.

They are morally bereft and have abandoned any pretence of protecting the profession of arms.


----------



## kev994

Eye In The Sky said:


> Isn't there an "equal distribution" requirement?  I haven't seen it written anywhere, but there seems to be these H & A get 'shared' across the CAF;  so many go to the Reg Force L1s across their commands, some to the PRes (including Rangers).
> 
> Kind of like the Jubilee's;  distribution/awarding isn't based solely on 'merit', but "merit within your group".


This year’s nomination request came with ‘targets’. Off the top of my head they were aiming for younger people (I remember there was a target number meet of WO), certain number of francophone, etc.


----------



## kev994

Eye In The Sky said:


> Yes, but now we'll have to  open up a new thread called "_inflating PERs - the CAF standard_".
> 
> I know of people who have remustered, and were not yet complete their QL3 course on 31 Mar and were unhappy to receive a "Developing" PER. My first question was..."you're still on the BTL, why are you getting a PER?".


For a remuster who presumably already held a higher rank in their previous trade it’s completely feasible to me that they have the potential to leadership at the next rank, it becomes a question of whether they were able to demonstrate it in the reporting period. Their section 4 is probably not going to be very good though. But yeah, I have seen a couple PERs where a good portion of their reporting period was on course but they’re OFP so…. Member showed up to work we think…


----------



## Eye In The Sky

kev994 said:


> For a remuster who presumably already held a higher rank in their previous trade it’s completely feasible to me that they have the potential to leadership at the next rank, it becomes a question of whether they were able to demonstrate it in the reporting period. Their section 4 is probably not going to be very good though. But yeah, I have seen a couple PERs where a good portion of their reporting period was on course but they’re OFP so…. Member showed up to work we think…



The issue with the situation I posted...members on BTL do not get a PER, they get a PERX;  CFPAS policy (CFPAS Help File, Ch 1, Sect's 110 and 111).


----------



## kev994

Eye In The Sky said:


> The issue with the situation I posted...members on BTL do not get a PER, they get a PERX;  CFPAS policy.


I thought there was a bit about they get a PER if they’ve been OFP in a previous trade? I seem to recall having to write one for a pilot because he used to be a Nav.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

kev994 said:


> I thought there was a bit about they get a PER if they’ve been OFP in a previous trade? I seem to recall having to write one for a pilot because he used to be a Nav.



Yup;  CFPAS Help File Ch 1, Sect 110, Para 2(a):

when a person is assigned or posted to any of the above establishments and will not be returning prior to the end of the reporting period, the losing unit is responsible for writing the Annual PER or PER Exemption (PERX; see sect 118), which is to be forwarded IAW chap 2 sect 203 Method of Transmission. This PER shall be rendered prior to departure and the reporting period is to cover 01 Apr to the Change Of Status (COS) date. Comment must be made in section 3 of the PER indicating the posting and COS date; and

Note: No potential ranking in MOS in rank within the unit is to be completed when a person is assigned or posted prior to 01 Jan to any of the above establishments. Personnel in receipt of this Annual PER or PERX shall not count toward the ranking total (see chap 5 sect 506(4), Potential Ranking)


----------



## Haggis

dapaterson said:


> His appointment was announced in a CANFORGEN in 2019.


True. Gazetted in October 2017, an over two year delay before the announcement was made and well after his conviction.  Maybe the C of C was having second thoughts or waiting to see how the CM turned out?


dapaterson said:


> Regardless, that the Provost Marshall though he was worthy of appointment as the MP group CWO after his conviction says everything you need to know about the CAF's GOFOs and their moral depravity.


I'm sure there were other, more suitable candidates.  If not, it doesn't look good for the trade or branch as a whole.


----------



## Blackadder1916

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-armed-forces-character-references-new-guidance-1.6417750#:~:text=The%20guidance%20says%20that%20while,the%20Canadian%20Armed%20Forces%20itself.
		



> Military bans use of its letterhead in court character references for soldiers convicted of crime​The Canadian Armed Forces is attempting to distance itself from senior military leaders who offer positive character references to soldiers convicted of a criminal offence.
> 
> After almost a year-long review prompted by a CBC News story, the military recently released new internal guidance on character references submitted to court to be taken into consideration by a judge during sentencing.
> 
> The guidance says that while military members have every legal right to give character references to those found guilty of crimes, it's a personal choice — and military members can't present such references as coming from the Canadian Armed Forces itself.
> 
> "CAF members providing a character reference do so as individuals … [and] shall not use letterhead representing any CAF organization," says the new guidance.
> 
> The military appears to be trying to avoid a repeat of what played out in criminal court in Ottawa almost two weeks ago when retired general Jonathan Vance, former chief of the defence staff, pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice in relation to an investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct  — allegations Vance denies.
> 
> The judge granted Vance a conditional discharge with one year probation  — and no criminal record. The judge said he didn't feel it was "necessary to burden" Vance with a criminal conviction. Among the factors the judge said he considered were the seven positive character references written by retired military members praising Vance's leadership skills and performance in combat.
> 
> . . .


----------



## The Bread Guy

MilEME09 said:


> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/danny-croucher-new-civlian-job-misconduct-allegations-1.6205306
> 
> 
> 
> Oh FFS.... can we go a week without something new


Bumped with the latest ...


> The Department of National Defence (DND) has dismissed retired navy commander Danny Croucher following a probe into how he was hired back as a civilian at his old navy base after a sexual misconduct investigation.
> 
> A second review conducted by the military of Croucher's rapid release from service also found that the military broke its own regulations by signing off on Croucher's request last year to voluntarily leave the navy before his case reached the disciplinary stage.
> 
> Croucher landed a job at CFB Halifax in June 2021 — the same month he left his military job at that base.
> 
> DND says that Croucher had the right to retire because of his years of service.
> 
> The Chief of Military Personnel is now looking into whether "additional steps are necessary to address situations where members may have violated professional standards, but have a right to release," DND said in a media statement ...


----------



## kev994

The Bread Guy said:


> Bumped with the latest ...


I wonder what kind of package this came with…. I’m pretty sure you can’t just fire a DND civilian when you don’t like the optics.


----------



## lenaitch

kev994 said:


> I wonder what kind of package this came with…. I’m pretty sure you can’t just fire a DND civilian when you don’t like the optics.


Contract position perhaps?  Non-disclosure on application (admittedly non-disclosure of stuff they should already know about)?


----------



## SupersonicMax

kev994 said:


> I wonder what kind of package this came with…. I’m pretty sure you can’t just fire a DND civilian when you don’t like the optics.


Isn’t there a probationary period?


----------



## daftandbarmy

The Bread Guy said:


> Bumped with the latest ...



As bad as it all sounds, it's a good thing they nailed him.... eventually.


----------



## Halifax Tar

daftandbarmy said:


> As bad as it all sounds, it's a good thing they nailed him.... eventually.



There was a few happy faces walking around Stadacona today.


----------



## OldSolduer

Halifax Tar said:


> There was a few happy faces walking around Stadacona today.


I'm glad that is happening.


----------



## MJP

SupersonicMax said:


> Isn’t there a probationary period?


Yea, he was easily within the year probationary period so much easier to say good bye


----------



## Jarnhamar

> found that the military broke its own regulations by signing off on Croucher's request last year to voluntarily leave the navy before his case reached the disciplinary stage.



An officer/s will be held accountable for this, right?

We let this guy release knowing full well he was evading disciplinary action. Surely_ someone_ will at least an IC since we take sexual misconduct so seriously.


----------



## MJP

Jarnhamar said:


> An officer/s will be held accountable for this, right?
> 
> We let this guy release knowing full well he was evading disciplinary action. Surely_ someone_ will at least an IC since we take sexual misconduct so seriously.


Clearly the release clerk should have known better


----------



## Halifax Tar

Jarnhamar said:


> An officer/s will be held accountable for this, right?
> 
> We let this guy release knowing full well he was evading disciplinary action. Surely_ someone_ will at least an IC since we take sexual misconduct so seriously.



I would imagine this would fall in the career management arena somewhere.  Will there be accountability ?  If so you and I will probably never hear of it.


----------



## McG

Jarnhamar said:


> An officer(s) will be held accountable for this, right?


Were there military involved in the hiring, or was this staffed entirely through civilian employees?  Doesn’t change the fact that the hire never should have happened, but there are different corrective mechanisms if civilians were involved in the fault.


----------



## Jarnhamar

McG said:


> Were there military involved in the hiring, or was this staffed entirely through civilian employees?  Doesn’t change the fact that the hire never should have happened, but there are different corrective mechanisms if civilians were involved in the fault.



I'm thinking more of the release. His chain of command and the career shop would have known full well what was going on with him when he put in his 30 day release.  

If it's accurate that the military can't do a single thing about members running away in 30 days to avoid disciplinary action like this then that's a huge loophole we've been living with this whole time. I feel something should have been available to hold him accountable.

Whoever hired him would have been tracking his quick exit and turned their back on it.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

The Navy is full of post-retirement "jobs for the boys" gigs.  The respective HQs in and around Esquimalt and Halifax are full of them.

Worse is when said Civvies still act like they have their rank 🤣


----------



## Brad Sallows

Once upon a time I met a fellow who did a double-take when the commissionaire at the desk turned up later at the officer's mess gathering in a uniform with 3 rings...or maybe I read about it here...


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Humphrey Bogart said:


> The Navy is full of post-retirement "jobs for the boys" gigs.  The respective HQs in and around Esquimalt and Halifax are full of them.
> 
> Worse is when said Civvies still act like they have their rank 🤣


Kingston as well. It's amazing to see the Friday-DWD-to-Monday-Public-Servant transition happen.


----------



## McG

Jarnhamar said:


> I'm thinking more of the release. His chain of command and the career shop would have known full well what was going on with him when he put in his 30 day release.
> 
> If it's accurate that the military can't do a single thing about members running away in 30 days to avoid disciplinary action like this then that's a huge loophole


Seen. There is a policy that says you cannot voluntarily release to avoid being kicked out, but I think there are lots of chains of command that see any release as good enough. It is the same reason that we offer TOS renewal to people that we are trying to kick out. Everyone is protected when the release item correctly identifies those that don’t belong in CAF or other parts of government.


----------



## Weinie

rmc_wannabe said:


> Kingston as well. It's amazing to see the Friday-DWD-to-Monday-Public-Servant transition happen.


Who cares? If the person applying for the job is the best qualified, then so be it, Your post suggests malfeasance, nepotism, or straight out innuendo that something nefarious is going on.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Weinie said:


> Who cares? If the person applying for the job is the best qualified, then so be it, Your post suggests malfeasance, nepotism, or straight out innuendo that something nefarious is going on.


I mean some of the jobs probably were nepotism, if we are being honest 🤣


----------



## Weinie

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I mean some of the jobs probably were nepotism, if we are being honest 🤣


Do you know that, or are you just saying?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Weinie said:


> Do you know that, or are you just saying?


I'm going to avoid providing you an answer, lets revisit in a few months 🤣


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Weinie said:


> Who cares? If the person applying for the job is the best qualified, then so be it, *Your post suggests malfeasance, nepotism, or straight out innuendo that something nefarious is going on.*


Your words not mine. I was just commenting on how often it occurs and how incestuous the Public Service/CAF relationship tends to be with DND jobs.


----------



## dimsum

rmc_wannabe said:


> Kingston as well. It's amazing to see the Friday-DWD-to-Monday-Public-Servant transition happen.


_NCR enters the chat_


----------



## kev994

dimsum said:


> _NCR enters the chat_


It’s not technically nepotism if you’re making a job for yourself.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

kev994 said:


> It’s not technically nepotism if you’re making a job for yourself.


----------



## Lumber

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Worse is when said Civvies still act like they have their rank 🤣


That's why I'm staying in the PRes: so technically I _will _still have my rank.


----------



## dimsum

Lumber said:


> That's why I'm staying in the PRes: so technically I _will _still have my rank.


But that VAC education benefit   😕


----------



## Lumber

dimsum said:


> But that VAC education benefit   😕


Later. I don't have time with two kids under 3 to work AND take classes.


----------



## dapaterson

dimsum said:


> But that VAC education benefit   😕


So go Supp Res and attach-post to the P Res.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

What is the policy for a mbr who is in position to do a 30 day release but has allegations against them?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Eye In The Sky said:


> What is the policy for a mbr who is in position to do a 30 day release but has allegations against them?



Je ne sais pas.  Bon question


----------



## Haggis

Eye In The Sky said:


> What is the policy for a mbr who is in position to do a 30 day release but has allegations against them?


First, there were no allegations against me when I released.  But, as I recall, I had to start the process by submitting a Voluntary Release Application which contained my desired release date.  Until the CO signed off on it, my release date was not guaranteed.


----------



## GR66

Haggis said:


> First, there were no allegations against me when I released.  But, as I recall, I had to start the process by submitting a Voluntary Release Application which contained my desired release date.  Until the CO signed off on it, my release date was not guaranteed.


----------



## OldSolduer

Eye In The Sky said:


> What is the policy for a mbr who is in position to do a 30 day release but has allegations against them?


That is a very good question. I do suppose the CO could refuse to sign off on that release but since I am no longer current any member currently serving should be able to answer that.


----------



## Haggis

GR66 said:


>


...or after.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Haggis said:


> ...or after.


Great save, Tretiak!


----------



## Blackadder1916

Eye In The Sky said:


> What is the policy for a mbr who is in position to do a 30 day release but has allegations against them?



I'm not sure if this was linked previously (Fowler's thoughts have been quoted before in this thread) but it seems to be a good analysis of the initial reports (back in October) about Croucher's release and the controversary it created.









						Inaccurate Reporting Regarding Voluntary Release
					

Inaccurate Reporting Regarding Voluntary Release     Sloppy news reporting does not sit well with me.  On 8 October 2021, Ashley Burke of the CBC News published a report regarding the voluntary release of Commander Danny Croucher (now retired) from the Canadian Forces (CF): “Minister orders...




					roryfowlerlaw.com
				





> . . .
> Notwithstanding that paragraph 15.18(3) of the QR&O applies to ‘all’ requests for voluntary releases, practically, it can only bar a request for voluntary release where there is no statutory right of release – i.e. a release under item 4(c) of the Table to article 15.01 of the QR&O.
> 
> If Cdr Croucher had a statutory right of release – and it certainly appears that he did – no one contravened the QR&O in granting his release.  In fact, had a CO or other statutory decision-maker refused to approve a release lawfully claimed under art 15.02 of the QR&O, then that would have constituted a contravention of the legislation.
> 
> Just as whoever disclosed Cdr Croucher’s personal information would have contravened the _Privacy Act_ if it was done without lawful authority.
> 
> The CBC news report also appears to insinuate that the ‘avoidance’ of a so-called ‘5(f) release’ was done to permit Cdr Croucher to obtain civilian employment:
> 
> Sources said a subsequent investigation found wrongdoing on Croucher’s part. Sources said he was expected to receive a so-called “5-F” — an involuntary release from the military. Instead, multiple sources confirmed Croucher’s request for a voluntary release was granted, permitting him to land a civilian job at the base in June.
> 
> That assertion also appears to be predicated upon an incorrect appreciation of law and policy.  A release under item 5(f) is not a ‘misconduct’ release.  Nor is it a ‘dishonourable release’ – principally because ‘dishonourable releases’ do not actually exist under Chapter 15 of the QR&O.  In fact, pursuant to paragraph 15.01(4) of the QR&O, a release under item 5(f) of the Table to QR&O 15.01 is an ‘Honourable Release’, just like a release under item 3 (Medical) or item 4 (Voluntary).  A release under item 5(f) would not bar employment in the federal public administration.  It could potentially bar the released officer or NCM from rejoining the CF, but that is not an absolute certainty.
> 
> A release under item 2(a) of the Table to article 15.01 of the QR&O (“Service Terminated”) would typically prevent a person from rejoining the CF or seeking employment with the federal public administration.  A release under item 1(a) (“Dismissed with Disgrace for Misconduct” or “Dismissed for Misconduct”) or items 1 (b), (c), or (d) (“Released for Misconduct”) would also bar the former officer or NCM from rejoining the CF or seeking employment with the federal public administration.  And, frankly, the type of conviction that would lead to a release under item 1(a) or item 1(b) would bar such opportunities in any event.
> 
> Finally, I would hasten to add that a release from the CF does not terminate, absolutely, any liability under the Code of Service Discipline.  Pursuant to subsection 60(2) of the _NDA_:
> 
> Every person subject to the Code of Service Discipline under subsection (1) at the time of the alleged commission by the person of a service offence continues to be liable to be charged, dealt with and tried in respect of that offence under the Code of Service Discipline notwithstanding that the person may have, since the commission of that offence, ceased to be a person described in subsection (1).
> 
> Cdr Croucher (retired) would not escape the jurisdiction of the Code of Service Discipline by virtue of his voluntary release – or any other form of release.  However, there is no discussion in the CBC report regarding the actual application of true disciplinary mechanisms.  The focus is on ‘administrative measures’ and apparent complaints that they are not being used in a sufficiently robust manner to ‘discipline’ Cdr Croucher (retired).  And, as I indicate above, therein lies part of the problem with how these issues are being miscommunicated to the Canadian public.
> 
> . . .



In Fowler's discussion he mentions a previous blog post he made about CF releases in general.  It's a long read but interesting.









						A Word or Two on Release Items in the Canadian Forces
					

A Word or Two on Release Items in the Canadian Forces     Introduction  Compulsory release has been in the news frequently of late.  Over the past few years, compulsory release has been one of the principal tools that the ‘chain of command’ of the Canadian Forces (CF) has used to address...




					roryfowlerlaw.com
				




While paragraph 15.18 (3) of the QR&Os requires that a commanding officer certify "that his recommendation is not made for the purpose of allowing the applicant to avoid the consequences of his inefficiency, unsuitability or misconduct", it should be noted that QR&O article applies to officers and there is no other article requiring a similar certification for NCMs.  However, since the same form (from CFAO 15-2 Release Regular Force) is used for both officers and NCMs to apply for voluntary release/transfer, the pro forma certification is there for both.


----------



## Navy_Pete

rmc_wannabe said:


> Your words not mine. I was just commenting on how often it occurs and how incestuous the Public Service/CAF relationship tends to be with DND jobs.


Bit of a sidebar, but it is a great way to retain that experience while filling empty jobs. A lot of the policy changes around transferring pension, priority hires etc were specifically built up to actually make this easier. Typically they will actually get a raise for doing the same job as a public servant than they did as a military member.

There is a challenge function for people to actually lodge complaints about this, and does happen from time to time, but as long as you keep HR in the loop it's pretty straightforward.

Much easier to retain someone in DND if they are leaving the CAF then hiring them back as a contractor (at a higher rate, with an additional premium for the staffing company). We have so many pers holes when someone actually gets experienced enough to do it hiring them on as a civilian really makes a massive difference in effectiveness. It can take a few years to figure out a job, so the posting cycle can kill sections with high proportions of military members, as you are always training people to do the basics of it. Living through that right now and we are essentially foxed (and have been for a while) but now it's resulting in actual operational impacts so the big giant heads are finally listening.

When HR is your #1 risk for a decade in providing support, it will eventually catch up to operations, and usually in big and unexpected ways.


----------



## OldSolduer

Navy_Pete said:


> Bit of a sidebar, but it is a great way to retain that experience while filling empty jobs. A lot of the policy changes around transferring pension, priority hires etc were specifically built up to actually make this easier. Typically they will actually get a raise for doing the same job as a public servant than they did as a military member.
> 
> There is a challenge function for people to actually lodge complaints about this, and does happen from time to time, but as long as you keep HR in the loop it's pretty straightforward.
> 
> Much easier to retain someone in DND if they are leaving the CAF then hiring them back as a contractor (at a higher rate, with an additional premium for the staffing company). We have so many pers holes when someone actually gets experienced enough to do it hiring them on as a civilian really makes a massive difference in effectiveness. It can take a few years to figure out a job, so the posting cycle can kill sections with high proportions of military members, as you are always training people to do the basics of it. Living through that right now and we are essentially foxed (and have been for a while) but now it's resulting in actual operational impacts so the big giant heads are finally listening.
> 
> When HR is your #1 risk for a decade in providing support, it will eventually catch up to operations, and usually in big and unexpected ways.


I think you're onto something. SO what you are in effect saying is that conceivably a retiring LCol could transfer to a civilian in DND and finish the project they started on. I like it.


----------



## Navy_Pete

OldSolduer said:


> I think you're onto something. SO what you are in effect saying is that conceivably a retiring LCol could transfer to a civilian in DND and finish the project they started on. I like it.


A lot of the people in the NSS projects have done this, and it's not uncommon on the LCMM side. Not just officers, a lot of senior non-commissioned folks transfer over to EG or similar classifications.

Makes a big difference in terms of continuity and consistency side of things, and when you have a 20-year project changing out key people a lot is a big risk. Even if you still have a new LCol come in those civi positions are really helpful.

The downside to this is you can get stuck in the 'old way' of doing things because that's always how it's been done, so always good to have some fresh perspective too (like hiring civilians with experience from different industries).

Although we suck at generally planning for anyone's retirement; even when they give years notice, usually hard to get someone else in place to do that knowledge transfer by doubling up on the job and doing proper succession management. Losing over a century of combined experience in the near future were I'm working, with multi-month gaps before we get a completely unexperienced posting in (maybe). Fortunately there is a robust training and support network avail... ah crap.

A lot of people could take the same skilset and go to industry for a higher wage, but the civi positions are attractive if they want to keep doing the same kind of work and progress medium term items, while having an option for a pay bump without having to chase a promotion (that they may not want anyway). We spend decades developing some genuine specialists so it's a great way to keep them in the picture and taking advantage of that knowledge. The alternative is usually paying some random consultant far more money for the same skill (which they get by hiring that retired specialist), so getting someone trying to apply commercial practices that may not apply in the context of what we do (like trying to fit a combatant warship into commercial standards for safety, and pretending that results in combat capable ships).

Sure, there is some pretty greasy back door stuff on the go somewhere on occasion, but that's human nature. The recent Ottawa police board deal to let the previous chief retire and escape sexual misconduct charges that included inappropriate groping comes to mind.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> Later. I don't have time with two kids under 3 to work AND take classes.



Early childhood education.  Bring them to the labs.


----------



## MJP

Navy_Pete said:


> Bit of a sidebar, but it is a great way to retain that experience while filling empty jobs. A lot of the policy changes around transferring pension, priority hires etc were specifically built up to actually make this easier. Typically they will actually get a raise for doing the same job as a public servant than they did as a military member.
> 
> There is a challenge function for people to actually lodge complaints about this, and does happen from time to time, but as long as you keep HR in the loop it's pretty straightforward.
> 
> Much easier to retain someone in DND if they are leaving the CAF then hiring them back as a contractor (at a higher rate, with an additional premium for the staffing company). We have so many pers holes when someone actually gets experienced enough to do it hiring them on as a civilian really makes a massive difference in effectiveness. It can take a few years to figure out a job, so the posting cycle can kill sections with high proportions of military members, as you are always training people to do the basics of it. Living through that right now and we are essentially foxed (and have been for a while) but now it's resulting in actual operational impacts so the big giant heads are finally listening.
> 
> When HR is your #1 risk for a decade in providing support, it will eventually catch up to operations, and usually in big and unexpected ways.
> 
> 
> Makes a big difference in terms of continuity and consistency side of things, and when you have a 20-year project changing out key people a lot is a big risk. Even if you still have a new LCol come in those civi positions are really helpful.
> 
> Although we suck at generally planning for anyone's retirement; even when they give years notice, usually hard to get someone else in place to do that knowledge transfer by doubling up on the job and doing proper succession management. Losing over a century of combined experience in the near future were I'm working, with multi-month gaps before we get a completely unexperienced posting in (maybe). Fortunately there is a robust training and support network avail... ah crap.
> 
> A lot of people could take the same skilset and go to industry for a higher wage, but the civi positions are attractive if they want to keep doing the same kind of work and progress medium term items, while having an option for a pay bump without having to chase a promotion (that they may not want anyway). We spend decades developing some genuine specialists so it's a great way to keep them in the picture and taking advantage of that knowledge. The alternative is usually paying some random consultant far more money for the same skill (which they get by hiring that retired specialist), so getting someone trying to apply commercial practices that may not apply in the context of what we do (like trying to fit a combatant warship into commercial standards for safety, and pretending that results in combat capable ships).
> 
> Sure, there is some pretty greasy back door stuff on the go somewhere on occasion, but that's human nature. The recent Ottawa police board deal to let the previous chief retire and escape sexual misconduct charges that included inappropriate groping comes to mind.



Indeed, despite the narrative that this is somehow backhanded these lateral movements are often good for all the reasons you point out.  In many cases the person leaving the CAF got the posn through proper internal or staffing actions anyway. There are likely cases where it was an internal non-advertised but I suspect that is rarer than the narrative of the chattering masses think it is.  Regardless, any method chosen to bring them onboard has recourse options avail that could lead to an investigation of the hiring in the first place.

Like you I have no doubt there is some shady crap at times but most post CAF hiring is done properly IAW public service practices IMHO


----------



## McG

Navy_Pete said:


> Much easier to retain someone in DND if they are leaving the CAF th[a]n hiring them back as a contractor


Not to mention that trying to get a specific person via contract is a great big no-no. Payrolling can result in the system getting nobody at all.


----------



## Navy_Pete

@MJP, the level of scrutiny we've had on any hiring is pretty substantial, and honestly I'd like to know how they shady folks are bypassing that, as it can take 6M or more to jump through hoops. We had a few that took years, and lost the hire because they moved on to something else.

@McG That's true, but when there are only a handful of people with the prerequisite knowledge, the easiest option for the staffing company is to just poach the incumbent. A lot of the staff companies do a lot of networking and keep track of people retiring, so sure they have a rolodex too when things come up. So when you have to go to a contractor because you can't find a replacement, really easy for them to look up previous people and see if they are interested. (And then/than is still my Achilles heel...) As long as they meet the posting requirements, it's pretty straightfoward, and when they are below the 3 ringer level there is no restriction on conflict of interest.


----------



## Haggis

McG said:


> Not to mention that trying to get a specific person via contract is a great big no-no. Payrolling can result in the system getting nobody at all.


Unless you're hiring a retiring Reg F member into a Class B position.


----------



## McG

Haggis said:


> Unless you're hiring a retiring Reg F member into a Class B position.


That’s not contracting.


----------



## Jarnhamar

* posted elsewhere


----------



## Haggis

McG said:


> That’s not contracting.


To the outsider looking in, it is.  News readers see the phrase "Class B contract" and don't differentiate between that and hiring a dude from SNC Lavalin for a project.


----------



## McG

Haggis said:


> To the outsider looking in, it is.  News readers see the phrase "Class B contract" and don't differentiate between that and hiring a dude from SNC Lavalin for a project.


You are saying that the average civilian news watcher sees DND employing a reservist the same as DND giving a contract to SNC Lavalin for the company to provide a worker? I think you are wrong. I think the average Canadian perceives the difference. What’s more, you should understand the difference. Your comment about hiring Reg F into Class B positions is irrelevant to government  contracting rules that prohibit payrolling.


----------



## daftandbarmy

McG said:


> You are saying that the average civilian news watcher sees DND employing a reservist the same as DND giving a contract to SNC Lavalin for the company to provide a worker? I think you are wrong. I think the average Canadian perceives the difference. What’s more, you should understand the difference. Your comment about hiring Reg F into Class B positions is irrelevant to government  contracting rules that prohibit payrolling.



Well, the truth is that the average Canadian pays no attention to what the CAF/DND do so....


----------



## kev994

.


----------



## kev994

Reset the counter? There’s a lot to unpack in this one, I had to stop reading when I got too confused. 








						'The culture needs to change': Victim of alleged sexual assault by military major calling for more support from CAF
					

A woman who alleges she was sexually assaulted twice by a major with the Royal Canadian Air Force at 15 Wing Moose Jaw is calling on the military to provide more help and resources for alleged victims.




					regina.ctvnews.ca


----------



## Jarnhamar

kev994 said:


> Reset the counter? There’s a lot to unpack in this one, I had to stop reading when I got too confused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'The culture needs to change': Victim of alleged sexual assault by military major calling for more support from CAF
> 
> 
> A woman who alleges she was sexually assaulted twice by a major with the Royal Canadian Air Force at 15 Wing Moose Jaw is calling on the military to provide more help and resources for alleged victims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regina.ctvnews.ca



Awkward on a few levels.


----------



## Halifax Tar

kev994 said:


> Reset the counter? There’s a lot to unpack in this one, I had to stop reading when I got too confused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'The culture needs to change': Victim of alleged sexual assault by military major calling for more support from CAF
> 
> 
> A woman who alleges she was sexually assaulted twice by a major with the Royal Canadian Air Force at 15 Wing Moose Jaw is calling on the military to provide more help and resources for alleged victims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regina.ctvnews.ca



Very twisted tale.  

I hope the lady finds peace.


----------



## dimsum

So, this person is married (open marriage or separated, whatever), dating said now-deceased Major, had non-consensual sex with him twice, and is complaining about not being able to speak to the CO.

I'm going to leave the part about the relationships and the alleged offence aside.  My question is if she (a civilian) is supposed to have a direct line with the sqn CO?  I didn't think that's how it worked.

I mean, it could be.  Thankfully I, or my partner, have never had to consider doing that.


----------



## Jarnhamar

dimsum said:


> So, this person is married (open marriage or separated, whatever), dating said now-deceased Major, had non-consensual sex with him twice, and is complaining about not being able to speak to the CO.
> 
> I'm going to leave the part about the relationships and the alleged offence aside.  My question is if she (a civilian) is supposed to have a direct line with the sqn CO?  I didn't think that's how it worked.
> 
> I mean, it could be.  Thankfully I, or my partner, have never had to consider doing that.



Open door policy..


----------



## Good2Golf

Jarnhamar said:


> Open door policy..


Does such a policy extend to spouses? Children? Other relatives?

Don’t know if there are details deliberately left out, especially as regards the timeline, but it seems that there is a narrow window of when the CAF is being complained about, ie. between when the complainant (may have) notified the CAF of the member’s alleged conduct and the formal laying of charges against the CAF member.  Also not clear as presented if the CAF only responded to the complainant after the charged member died, but the complainant on one hand complains about not being communicated with properly, yet in the other hand dismissed the communications by the CAF to her as being insincere, or at least not sincere enough for her.  

Perhaps my post CAF employment in private industry has been an anomaly, but in a number of cases of ‘twisted webs woven’ amongst employees and other employees/spouses, I have seen a “it’s yours to sort out, or the courts to sort out…” position.  If anything, I’d say what I’ve seen reported in this article shows more engagement by the CAF (even if not to the complainant’s satisfaction) than might occur elsewhere in society.  🤷🏻‍♂️ 

TBH, if I were in the chain here somewhere, a not insignificant concern of mine would be how is the situation influencing any of the CAF members’ involved abilities to conduct their duties, particularly if it involved safety-of-flight elements by the members’ direct duties at the Wing.


----------



## Ostrozac

Eye In The Sky said:


> What is the policy for a mbr who is in position to do a 30 day release but has allegations against them?


They still get their voluntary release, and their pension, but they can still be investigated and potentially court-martialled for actions that occurred while they were serving. It’s one of the few instances where civilians can be subject to a court martial.


----------



## dimsum

Jarnhamar said:


> Open door policy..


As @Good2Golf says, does that extend to non-military folks?  The times I've heard that was so that you (the member) can talk to your boss freely.  Not that your spouse can get in the unit lines to do so.

Hypothetically, if I was at any other workplace, would my civilian boss care about this aside from how it would make the company look?

This brings up a good point.  We're supposed to take care of our members and their families, which is really more than what most civilian companies would do.  It is quite telling that in this article, there is nothing said about the "member" (the alleged victim's married partner).  What is their view on this?  They already named her so it's not hard to figure out who the other person is, but they don't even say "member chose not to speak to CTV"? 

This story really leaves me with more questions than answers.


----------



## McG

I believe it is a QR&O that obliges a CO to meet with members who want a conversation. The obligation does not extend to family of members. 

In the 80s when everyone lived in base and the unit was more central to the whole family’s life, that might have been appropriate.

I don’t know for today, when more people live away from base and the centrality of the unit has been eroded away with many former functions now aggregated into formation & base responsibility.


----------



## Ostrozac

McG said:


> I believe it is a QR&O that obliges a CO to meet with members who want a conversation. The obligation does not extend to family of members.


Exactly. It’s QR&O 19.12 “An officer or non-commissioned member may, upon application, see the member's commanding officer on any personal matter.” That access clearly does not extend to the spouse.


----------



## OldSolduer

Ostrozac said:


> Exactly. It’s QR&O 19.12 “An officer or non-commissioned member may, upon application, see the member's commanding officer on any personal matter.” That access clearly does not extend to the spouse.


Should a CO meet with a spouse? 

I reckon it depends on what the matter is.


----------



## daftandbarmy

dimsum said:


> As @Good2Golf says, does that extend to non-military folks?  The times I've heard that was so that you (the member) can talk to your boss freely.  Not that your spouse can get in the unit lines to do so.
> 
> Hypothetically, if I was at any other workplace, would my civilian boss care about this aside from how it would make the company look?
> 
> This brings up a good point.  We're supposed to take care of our members and their families, which is really more than what most civilian companies would do.  It is quite telling that in this article, there is nothing said about the "member" (the alleged victim's married partner).  What is their view on this?  They already named her so it's not hard to figure out who the other person is, but they don't even say "member chose not to speak to CTV"?
> 
> This story really leaves me with more questions than answers.



As I recall, it seems that the MFRCs are frequently left to deal with the 'wreckage', of one kind or another, with insufficient resources and support.



			https://www.cafconnection.ca/National/Programs-Services/Deployment-Support/Deployment-Support-for-Families/Military-Family-Resource-Centres-(MFRC).aspx


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

dimsum said:


> So, this person is married (open marriage or separated, whatever), dating said now-deceased Major, had non-consensual sex with him twice, and is complaining about not being able to speak to the CO.
> 
> I'm going to leave the part about the relationships and the alleged offence aside.  My question is if she (a civilian) is supposed to have a direct line with the sqn CO?  I didn't think that's how it worked.
> 
> I mean, it could be.  Thankfully I, or my partner, have never had to consider doing that.


CTV News is now moonlighting as Maury Povich!

What did I just read!?


----------



## kev994

Humphrey Bogart said:


> CTV News is now moonlighting as Maury Povich!
> 
> What did I just read!?


I don’t know. I think the report just said ‘I don’t know what this means but it looks like the flavour of the day so I’m gonna write it all down and see what sticks.’


----------



## Good2Golf

daftandbarmy said:


> As I recall, it seems that the MFRCs are frequently left to deal with the 'wreckage', of one kind or another, with insufficient resources and support.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cafconnection.ca/National/Programs-Services/Deployment-Support/Deployment-Support-for-Families/Military-Family-Resource-Centres-(MFRC).aspx


The CAF also supports families before things devolve to one member of the couple sleeping with someone else (to some degree irrelevant whether they too are a CAF member or not).

I can personally attest to the CAF’s provision of counseling services to couples to work things out, having made use of those free services in the earlier part of my career, with positive results.   I was quite open about my use of such services to other members in my unit, knowing that some were having issues and would likely benefit from such CAF assistance.  

I do find it interesting in the article that the complainant also made it clear she was still the spouse of a CAF member, supporting her entitlement to a level of treatment that she felt she was still not getting.  That seems to be at odds with the overall situation as it developed. 

I would be interested to know if any effort was made to address marital differences prior to the follow on developments, of which one factor was allegedly a disfunctional sexual relationship?

As others have noted, there is a lot to unpack here, and only a fraction of the elements seem to be presented in the article.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

dimsum said:


> I'm going to leave the part about the relationships and the alleged offence aside.  My question is if she (a civilian) is supposed to have a direct line with the sqn CO?  I didn't think that's how it worked.



My fairly recent experience in these situations is the spouse will be supported by CAF resources to the extent offered CAF families, such as MAP, Spiritual Services and MFRC supports.  The BHosp is not included and the CO is not in direct contact with the spouse necessarily but ensures provision of mentioned services.

Some Bases might have a FVAT (Family Voilence Advisory Team) that identifies policy, resources, etc for CAF mbrs and families and conducts awareness trg (I attended a workshop recently).  If anyone has the chance to attend one I say it is time well spent.



			https://www.cafconnection.ca/National-Capital-Region/Adults/Health/Family-Violence-and-COVID-19.aspx


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Short addition;  CAF supervisors and COs have some responsibilities that have Shalls and Shoulds;  I recommend all Jnr NCOs and above read and understand Sect 5 of the DAOD.






						DAOD 5044-4, Family Violence - Canada.ca
					

Defence Administrative Orders and Directives - DAOD 5044-4 - Family Violence




					www.canada.ca


----------



## OldSolduer

Eye In The Sky said:


> Short addition;  CAF supervisors and COs have some responsibilities that have Shalls and Shoulds;  I recommend all Jnr NCOs and above read and understand Sect 5 of the DAOD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DAOD 5044-4, Family Violence - Canada.ca
> 
> 
> Defence Administrative Orders and Directives - DAOD 5044-4 - Family Violence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.canada.ca


Agreed

When I took my SLC in Borden our DS said “shall “ means you do it.
“Should” means it’s a very strong suggestion yiu do it.

“May” means do what you see fit but it’s on you if something goes awry.


----------



## Kilted

If the charge was currently proceeding through the civilian court system, would it have really been appropriate for the CAF to speak to her?


----------



## SupersonicMax

Looks like Vance returned his CMM.



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/jonathan-vance-order-of-merit-1.6445250


----------



## The Bread Guy

SupersonicMax said:


> Looks like Vance returned his CMM.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/jonathan-vance-order-of-merit-1.6445250


Like the Dilbert cartoon once suggested, if the "he's gone" email's short, not good ....


> May 7, 2022
> 
> TERMINATION OF APPOINTMENT TO THE ORDER OF MILITARY MERIT​
> Notice is hereby given that, further to his individual request and the Governor General’s subsequent approval, the appointment of General (Retired) Jonathan Holbert Vance to the Order of Military Merit was terminated by Ordinance signed on April 20, 2022.
> 
> 
> Ottawa, May 7, 2022
> 
> 
> *Ian McCowan*
> Secretary General of the Order of Military Merit


----------



## Jarnhamar

Thoughtful of Vance to save the Honourable Prime Minister from having to deal with that (or should I say having to keep avoiding that).


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Jarnhamar said:


> Thoughtful of Vance to save the Honourable Prime Minister from having to deal with that (or should I say having to keep avoiding that).


First honorable thing Vance has done in this whole debacle.

Bit like pouring a glass of water after setting the house on fire though...


----------



## Haggis

Jarnhamar said:


> Thoughtful of Vance to save the Honourable Prime Minister from having to deal with that (or should I say having to keep avoiding that).


The PM said he would have no involvement in the removal/return of Vance's ORMM...unlike his participation in encouraging the Norman prosecution.


----------



## brihard

Haggis said:


> The PM said he would have no involvement in the removal/return of Vance's ORMM...unlike his participation in encouraging the Norman prosecution.


Honours is the exclusive prerogative of the Crown, through the Governor General as viceregal.


----------



## Haggis

brihard said:


> Honours is the exclusive prerogative of the Crown, through the Governor General as viceregal.


Yup, knew that.  I was simply paraphrasing le Dauphin who was asked if he would revoke Vance's ORMM.   My aim was to contrast this against his statements regarding the Norman fiasco.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Meanwhile, in Toronto:

Under his control​
_A CBC investigation has linked victims of an alleged serial abuser. Two of the survivors were on parallel paths for decades, neither knowing the other existed. Now those paths have converged and together, the women seek answers._


Robinson and McKay have traveled remarkably similar paths since high school, but had never met in person.

Both married young, had children early and got divorced, twice each. Both attended university as mature students, established successful careers, and married again.

Before all that, as teenagers, both had sex with the same music teacher.

William Douglas Walker, 74, taught music for 25 years. As a warrant officer with the Canadian military, he recruited students into the Royal Regiment of Canada Band.

A CBC investigation has uncovered a dark history of alleged serial abuse in Toronto-area band programs dating back decades, and has connected victims, witnesses and events that were either missed, ignored or minimized by school administrators, the military and police.

The victims say while shame and guilt kept them from coming forward sooner, unsympathetic authorities and antiquated laws left them retraumatized – but also sent them on a search for accountability.

An apology would come, belatedly and indirectly, but not before the women would discover they aren’t the only ones to have endured this teacher’s abuse.



			https://www.cbc.ca/newsinteractives/features/under-his-control


----------



## The Bread Guy

More "Here's your hat - what's your hurry?" for Vance ...








						Gen. Jonathan Vance expelled from Royal Military College alumni group over guilty plea - National | Globalnews.ca
					

Global News has confirmed official photos of Jonathan Vance and Art McDonald have been temporarily removed from outside their former office.




					globalnews.ca
				



Official notice attached


----------



## kev994

The Bread Guy said:


> More "Here's your hat - what's your hurry?" for Vance ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gen. Jonathan Vance expelled from Royal Military College alumni group over guilty plea - National | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> Global News has confirmed official photos of Jonathan Vance and Art McDonald have been temporarily removed from outside their former office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Official notice attached


Does he get his lifetime membership fee back?


----------



## Weinie

kev994 said:


> Does he get his lifetime membership fee back?


Forget that. Do we as taxpayers get the framing costs for him and MacDonald back?


----------



## Ostrozac

Weinie said:


> Forget that. Do we as taxpayers get the framing costs for him and MacDonald back?


We didn't frame pictures for Admiral MacDonald as CDS. As understand it, he resigned in disgrace before he got around to sitting for his official portrait, saving the taxpayer some money in the process. And General Vance, as the longest ever serving CDS by far, also gave us good value if you value it in terms of portrait cost per year.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Meanwhile, not to be outdone by some Canadian General


----------



## dimsum

Colin Parkinson said:


> Meanwhile, not to be outdone by some Canadian General


I read that.  WTF.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Incoming... take cover

Highly anticipated report on military's sexual misconduct crisis to be released today​Government has come under attack for failing to fully implement 2015 report's recommendations

A lengthy and detailed report by former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour on sexual harassment and misconduct in the Canadian military is set for release today.

The minister of national defence, Anita Anand, has had the report for more than a week and is holding a news conference at 12:30 p.m. ET with Arbour and the chief of the defence staff, Gen. Wayne Eyre. 



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/former-supreme-court-justice-louise-arbour-sexual-misconduct-report-1.6468834


----------



## Haggis

daftandbarmy said:


> Incoming... take cover
> 
> Highly anticipated report on military's sexual misconduct crisis to be released today​


That should ensure the new legal gun legislation being tabled today gets ignored by the MSM.


----------



## OldSolduer

Haggis said:


> That should ensure the new legal gun legislation being tabled today gets ignored by the MSM.





SupersonicMax said:


> Looks like Vance returned his CMM.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/jonathan-vance-order-of-merit-1.6445250



And fuel the fire that only white males are (insert bad characteristics here)


----------



## McG

daftandbarmy said:


> Incoming... take cover
> 
> Highly anticipated report on military's sexual misconduct crisis to be released today​Government has come under attack for failing to fully implement 2015 report's recommendations
> 
> A lengthy and detailed report by former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour on sexual harassment and misconduct in the Canadian military is set for release today.
> 
> The minister of national defence, Anita Anand, has had the report for more than a week and is holding a news conference at 12:30 p.m. ET with Arbour and the chief of the defence staff, Gen. Wayne Eyre.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/former-supreme-court-justice-louise-arbour-sexual-misconduct-report-1.6468834


Watch the announcement live from here:  https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2038095427717


----------



## Brad Sallows

Presumably this one will be relevant and specific.


----------



## CBH99

Haggis said:


> That should ensure the new legal gun legislation being tabled today gets ignored by the MSM.


Good catch Haggis.

Unreal how insidious & sneaky politics _can_ be.  Open & transparent JT?  Yeah…right…



I wonder where some of the big accusations over the last few years have come from?  

Could it be the very same office that directed the RCMP to investigate a former VCDS, and charge him despite their recommendation not to?  

Or seemingly countless accusations of sexual misconduct directed towards senior military personnel who don’t go along with the PM on everything?  The same accusations which never seem to have a complainant mentioned, or result in any actual charges?

Nah…no way…


----------



## Haggis

Brad Sallows said:


> Presumably this one will be relevant and specific.


Always the optimist, eh?


----------



## dimsum

McG said:


> Watch the announcement live from here:  https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2038095427717


When is it supposed to be announced?


----------



## brihard

dimsum said:


> When is it supposed to be announced?


1230


----------



## Blackadder1916

The recommendations from the report provide a lot of meat for discussion.  Watching the presser, the first question directed specifically to Gen Eyre referenced recommendation #29.  






						Part III – Conclusion and List of Recommendations - Canada.ca
					

Final report and recommendations from the Independent External Comprehensive Review into Sexual Misconduct and Sexual Harassment in the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces




					www.canada.ca
				





> *Recommendation #29: *A combination of Defence Team members and external experts, led by an external education specialist, should conduct a detailed review of the benefits, disadvantages and costs, both for the CAF and more broadly, of continuing to educate ROTP cadets at the military colleges. The review should focus on the quality of education, socialization and military training in that environment. It should also consider and assess the different models for delivering university-level and military leadership training to naval/officer cadets, and determine whether the RMC Kingston and the RMC Saint-Jean should continue as undergraduate degree-granting institutions, or whether officer candidates should be required to attend civilian university undergraduate programs through the ROTP.
> 
> In the interim, the CPCC should engage with the RMC Kingston and the RMC St-Jean authorities to address the long-standing culture concerns unique to the military college environment, including the continuing misogynistic and discriminatory environment and the ongoing incidence of sexual misconduct. Progress should be measured by metrics other than the number of hours of training given to cadets. The Exit Survey of graduating cadets should be adapted to capture cadets’ experiences with sexual misconduct or discrimination.


----------



## Remius

Blackadder1916 said:


> The recommendations from the report provide a lot of meat for discussion.  Watching the presser, the first question directed specifically to Gen Eyre referenced recommendation #29.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Part III – Conclusion and List of Recommendations - Canada.ca
> 
> 
> Final report and recommendations from the Independent External Comprehensive Review into Sexual Misconduct and Sexual Harassment in the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.canada.ca


I think that’s a great thing to review.


----------



## ModlrMike

I've just had a recruit returned to me to whom I'd like to apply recommendation #25.


----------



## Booter

Rightly they have also drawn a line through “sexual misconduct” as an umbrella term that is too broad. In hindsight had they done that years ago it might not have happened the way it has, since the government and military were using criminal sexual offences and the non criminal harrassment interchangeably,


----------



## Remius

Another good one. 


Recommendation #20: The CAF should restructure and simplify its recruitment, enrolment and basic training processes in order to significantly shorten the recruitment phase and create a probationary period in which a more fulsome assessment of the candidates can be performed, and early release effected, if necessary.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Remius said:


> Another good one.
> 
> 
> Recommendation #20: The CAF should restructure and simplify its recruitment, enrolment and basic training processes in order to significantly shorten the recruitment phase and create a probationary period in which a more fulsome assessment of the candidates can be performed, and early release effected, if necessary.


Please god, yes. It should not take us years to get rid of a mouth-breather at the recruit level. Nor should we ever have an “everybody passes” policy at any school or course in the CAF.


----------



## McG

SeaKingTacco said:


> Please god, yes. It should not take us years to get rid of a mouth-breather at the recruit level. Nor should we ever have an “everybody passes” policy at any school or course in the CAF.


Wasn't release authority for pre-OFP delegated to training centre COs to facilitate this?


----------



## MJP

McG said:


> Wasn't release authority for pre-OFP delegated to training centre COs to facilitate this?


Yes, less misconduct as regardless of status that still falls to DMCA.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

McG said:


> Wasn't release authority for pre-OFP delegated to training centre COs to facilitate this?


Could be, but I am not sure how often that gets actioned, especially when the overt message from the Centre is Pass Everyone!


----------



## rmc_wannabe

McG said:


> Wasn't release authority for pre-OFP delegated to training centre COs to facilitate this?


Working at a training establishment currently. Release Authority for pre-OFP candidates is the Training Establishment CO.


----------



## OldSolduer

I like this one:

"In her consultation with the CDS, the Minister should examine what efforts are being made to correct the over-representation of white men in GOFO ranks."

These white men didn't join the CAF  a year ago and all of a sudden they're GOFOs. Many have a career spanning 3 decades, prior to the "the CAF has to be more representative of Canadian society"  mantra we have heard for a number of years.

SO how should we ensure those under represented groups make it to GOFO ranks? Anyone ever thought of that?


----------



## Quirky

OldSolduer said:


> SO how should we ensure those under represented groups make it to GOFO ranks? Anyone ever thought of that?



Ensure people who are not white men are given preferential treatment for promotion into the GOFO ranks? Forced succession planning?


----------



## OldSolduer

Quirky said:


> Ensure people who are not white men are given preferential treatment for promotion into the GOFO ranks? Forced succession planning?


SO during PER season would you have only white males identified on the paperwork? And shuffled to the bottom of the merit list?


----------



## Navy_Pete

A couple of odd recommendations that I'll need to dig into the report to figure out the background for it (like 35 and 39) but a quick look at the list it generally makes a lot of sense. Might have missed it, but disapointed to not see anything about the current inability to effectively court martial some senior people, (like the CDS and JAG judges). That directly let Vance skate.

#29 is an interesting one; from what I can tell my Uni experience was a lot more diverse than RMC in general. Not that there still isn't sexual harrassment/assault, but you will have a lot more viewpoints and whatnot just by having that many more people, and I think my graduating class spoke something like 17 different languages with people from every continent, major religion etc. Having friends who immigrated from Iran and some other countries that are typically demonized really helped put everything in context and humanize the situation. The engineering department was still a big sausage fest, but it was a pretty diverse group of nerds, and there were lots of general classes that everyone took so you got a lot of exposure to a lot of different people. Really doubt there was a local pacifist league or communist club at RMC.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> SO how should we ensure those under represented groups make it to GOFO ranks? Anyone ever thought of that?



Plenty of people make the mistake of looking at whole populations.  What's relevant to the representation in group "N" is the representation in the members of group "N-1" who meet all requirements for promotion into group "N".


----------



## daftandbarmy

OldSolduer said:


> SO during PER season would you have only white males identified on the paperwork? And shuffled to the bottom of the merit list?



Well, they'd have to 'self-identify' so the career minded would likely pick a different ethnic background and pronouns, of course


----------



## Quirky

OldSolduer said:


> SO during PER season would you have only white males identified on the paperwork? And shuffled to the bottom of the merit list?



I think the biggest question is, what ratio of male to women GOFOs would be the acceptable standard? If 25% of all officer recruits are women, according to the report, then wouldn't a ratio of 10 to 1 be normal if you factor in attrition and competence? Just ballparking it.


----------



## Remius

Quirky said:


> I think the biggest question is, what ratio of male to women GOFOs would be the acceptable standard? If 25% of all officer recruits are women, according to the report, then wouldn't a ratio of 10 to 1 be normal if you factor in attrition and competence? Just ballparking it.


Setting targets is setting up the conditions for failure not success.  Targets should be aspirational not set in stone.  The recommendation calls on a demonstration of efforts to fix the over representation.


----------



## Brad Sallows

The effort is simple.  If there are 20 candidates for promotion to the next MGen slots and 2 are women and the promoting authority (theoretically) can't tell from the files who is who, roughly 1 in 10 of the slots should end up going to a woman.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Quirky said:


> I think the biggest question is, what ratio of male to women GOFOs would be the acceptable standard? If 25% of all officer recruits are women, according to the report, then wouldn't a ratio of 10 to 1 be normal if you factor in attrition and competence? Just ballparking it.


Women would have higher representation in the GOFO ranks if more of them opted for an operations vice support trade.

You wanna be the big boss?  Gotta do your time in the trenches like everybody else 😉

There are lots of industries where women are attaining the highest positions.  They put their time in and do the jobs required to get there.


----------



## dapaterson

OldSolduer said:


> I like this one:
> 
> "In her consultation with the CDS, the Minister should examine what efforts are being made to correct the over-representation of white men in GOFO ranks."
> 
> These white men didn't join the CAF  a year ago and all of a sudden they're GOFOs. Many have a career spanning 3 decades, prior to the "the CAF has to be more representative of Canadian society"  mantra we have heard for a number of years.
> 
> SO how should we ensure those under represented groups make it to GOFO ranks? Anyone ever thought of that?


Fix DP3 selection which is biased towards male-dominated occupations.  Pick the best CAF members for DP3, and remove the occupational filters that are biased towards male-dominated occupations.

TL;DR: Select majors for JCSP on merit; don't apportion seats based on occupations.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Women would have higher representation in the GOFO ranks if more of them opted for an operations vice support trade.
> 
> You wanna be the big boss?  Gotta do your time in the trenches like everybody else 😉
> 
> There are lots of industries where women are attaining the highest positions.  They put their time in and do the jobs required to get there.



Why should being a Log O preclude someone from making to the GO/FO ranks ?  

Perhaps part of our problem is we keep turning to the crayons eaters instead of the rest ?  

Forgive me as this one is personal for me as I am all but capped professionally simply because I am a Storesman.  It's get my hackles up.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Halifax Tar said:


> Why should being a Log O preclude someone from making to the GO/FO ranks ?
> 
> Perhaps our problem is we keep turning to the crayons eaters instead of the rest ?
> 
> Forgive me as this one is personal for me as I am all but capped professionally simply because I am a Storesman.  It's get my hackles up.


They can be a GOFO, they just can't be the Big Cheese.

Many industries are like this, not just the CAF. 

LogO's complaining about not being able to be the Big Cheese is like Infanteers complaining about the Rear Echelon having better chow.

"You know what you signed up for 😉"


----------



## Remius

Halifax Tar said:


> Why should being a Log O preclude someone from making to the GO/FO ranks ?
> 
> Perhaps part of our problem is we keep turning to the crayons eaters instead of the rest ?
> 
> Forgive me as this one is personal for me as I am all but capped professionally simply because I am a Storesman.  It's get my hackles up.



Why not make certain ranks and or appointments a competitive process with a call out and have people that are qualified apply.   Write exams/boards/interviews etc.  You could actually anonymize a good portion of that process.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Halifax Tar said:


> Why should being a Log O preclude someone from making to the GO/FO ranks ?



Based on how I've seen the Combat Arms work with logisticians, it's mainly because they'd ruin all the fun with 'facts' and 'accountability' etc


----------



## Halifax Tar

Humphrey Bogart said:


> They can be a GOFO, they just can't be the Big Cheese.
> 
> Many industries are like this, not just the CAF.
> 
> LogO's complaining about not being able to be the Big Cheese is like Infanteers complaining about the Rear Echelon having better chow.
> 
> "You know what you signed up for 😉"



You know I love you so Im gonna call you your BS.  And that's BS and it's a cop out. 

What does being an infanteer, pilot or NWO bequeath for higher levels of leadership ? 

I would point out we've kept putting the same people in that position and doesn't seem to have been working out. 

Perhaps it's time to let others give it a shot.


----------



## dapaterson

We want the best strategic commanders for the CAF's senior positions.  Occupation should have nothing to do with it.

If the top three majors in the CAF are three nurses, then they should all proceed to JCSP.  Not the top nurse plus a pilot and an armoured officer who are good at hockey.

The CAF confuses perceived tactical prowess with strategic acumen, to its perpetual detriment.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Remius said:


> Why not make certain ranks and or appointments a competitive process with a call out and have people that are qualified apply.   Write exams/boards/interviews etc.  You could actually anonymize a good portion of that process.


All of this sounds really good in the super peaceful no war Canadian Army of 2022.

I'd love to watch it play out if you subbed Canada for either Russia or Ukraine.  

Would be a great way to cull our "Chateau Officer" problem though 😁


----------



## Halifax Tar

Remius said:


> Why not make certain ranks and or appointments a competitive process with a call out and have people that are qualified apply.   Write exams/boards/interviews etc.  You could actually anonymize a good portion of that process.



As long as the stake holders who have the most lose or gain by the appointments are no where near involved, sure. 



daftandbarmy said:


> Based on how I've seen the Combat Arms work with logisticians, it's mainly because they'd ruin all the fun with 'facts' and 'accountability' etc



Heavens above!


----------



## Kat Stevens

daftandbarmy said:


> Incoming... take cover
> 
> Highly anticipated report on military's sexual misconduct crisis to be released today​Government has come under attack for failing to fully implement 2015 report's recommendations
> 
> A lengthy and detailed report by former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour on sexual harassment and misconduct in the Canadian military is set for release today.
> 
> The minister of national defence, Anita Anand, has had the report for more than a week and is holding a news conference at 12:30 p.m. ET with Arbour and the chief of the defence staff, Gen. Wayne Eyre.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/former-supreme-court-justice-louise-arbour-sexual-misconduct-report-1.6468834


I though reccomendations were exactly that, not orders or obligations.


----------



## Remius

Kat Stevens said:


> I though reccomendations were exactly that, not orders or obligations.


They are,  the MND has agreed to all of them.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Brad Sallows said:


> Plenty of people make the mistake of looking at whole populations.  What's relevant to the representation in group "N" is the representation in the members of group "N-1" who meet all requirements for promotion into group "N".


That's a lot of N-Bombs in one short post...


----------



## Remius

Humphrey Bogart said:


> All of this sounds really good in the super peaceful no war Canadian Army of 2022.
> 
> I'd love to watch it play out if you subbed Canada for either Russia or Ukraine.
> 
> Would be a great way to cull our "Chateau Officer" problem though 😁


You’ll note I said certain ranks and appointments.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Halifax Tar said:


> You know I love you so Im gonna call you your BS.  And that's BS and it's a cop out.
> 
> What does being an infanteer, pilot or NWO bequeath for higher levels of leadership ?
> 
> I would point out we've kept putting the same people in that position and doesn't seem to have been working out.
> 
> Perhaps it's time to let others give it a shot.



Because the job they do is based on planning/leading/conducting operations.  

For the same reasons I don't want a "non Air Ops" Snr Officer as a CO, I wouldn't want one as the Div Comd or Comd RCAF.   No air ops experience, and that is what the job of the RCAF is, at the root;  to plan/conduct Air Ops.


----------



## Remius

Halifax Tar said:


> As long as the stake holders who have the most lose or gain by the appointments are no where near involved, sure.
> 
> 
> 
> Heavens above!


Create an impartiality system that forces those involved to account for and justify its decisions


----------



## Brad Sallows

> We want the best strategic commanders for the CAF's senior positions.  Occupation should have nothing to do with it.



Neither should "Top N", unless the criteria are entirely relevant to strategic military command.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Eye In The Sky said:


> Because the job they do is based on planning/leading/conducting operations.
> 
> For the same reasons I don't want a "non Air Ops" Snr Officer as a CO, I wouldn't want one as the Div Comd or Comd RCAF.   No air ops experience, and that is what the job of the RCAF is, at the root;  to plan/conduct Air Ops.



There is more to Ops and Planning than flying, marching or sailing.  In fact I would argue thats the easy part. 

From my experience the biggest impediment in our ops and planning is a complete disregard and lack of understanding Logistics and Logistics capabilities.  Funny thing, we have a trade for that.


----------



## daftandbarmy

dapaterson said:


> We want the best strategic commanders for the CAF's senior positions.  Occupation should have nothing to do with it.
> 
> If the top three majors in the CAF are three nurses, then they should all proceed to JCSP.  *Not the top nurse plus a pilot and an armoured officer who are good at hockey.*
> 
> The CAF confuses perceived tactical prowess with strategic acumen, to its perpetual detriment.



And just because you mentioned hockey, it seems to be pervading the military 'afterlife' as well. Personally, I haven't noticed the connection between hockey and business success on civvy street, but UBC clearly knows better 

UBC recruits military men for research program involving hockey, to help veterans transition to civilian life​Program first launched by UBC, now being expanded across the country​
Canadian troops warm up before a ball hockey game at the military base in Kandahar, Afghanistan in February 2010. The game is popular on Canadian bases worldwide and a new program designed to help veterans transition back to civilian life has ball hockey at the centre of it. 

If you are a Canadian military veteran who identifies as male and loves a good game of ball hockey, a new program created by researchers at the University of British Columbia could be for you.

It's called the Purpose After Service through Sport program, or PASS, and brings together men who have served or are currently serving in the military, for weekly scrimmages where they can connect socially, access resources to make the transition out of the military less stressful, and blow off steam with some friendly competition.

The program was first launched by UBC researchers in 2019 and now, with funding from Veterans Affairs Canada, is being expanded to nine locations across the country — including Esquimalt, B.C. — on a trial basis to evaluate how well PASS can support the health and well-being of male military veterans.

"Men, in particular, are very reluctant often to reach out and seek help," said  UBC kinesiology professor and PASS lead researcher, Mark Beauchamp, speaking Wednesday on CBC's _On The Island._



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/ubc-pass-program-1.6425028?fbclid=IwAR2cvqw9Dz7QCywzxDJowvh49ui48LniI0-1s_-Dyo48KwuJ9FIgSMbBjUI


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Halifax Tar said:


> You know I love you so Im gonna call you your BS.  And that's BS and it's a cop out.
> 
> What does being an infanteer, pilot or NWO bequeath for higher levels of leadership ?
> 
> I would point out we've kept putting the same people in that position and doesn't seem to have been working out.
> 
> Perhaps it's time to let others give it a shot.


It's because we are in the business of fighting war.

I want my institutional leaders to also be good warfighters.  That means commanding brigades, fleets and wings, etc.  

Imagine a Navy Commander that didn't have a schmick about driving ships or fighting ships?  It would make no sense.

Supporters support, there are roles in Upper Management for them, but they ain't leading the fight because they lack the experience and by extension, the credibility with actual fighters.

Again, you wanna be the big cheese?  Do your time in the trenches like everyone else 😎



Remius said:


> You’ll note I said certain ranks and appointments.



Like what?  CDS?  Commander of the Navy?  Commander of the Air Force?  Commander of the Army?  Commander of Special Operations Forces?


----------



## Remius

Halifax Tar said:


> There is more to Ops and Planning than flying, marching or sailing.  In fact I would argue thats the easy part.
> 
> From my experience the biggest impediment in our ops and planning is a complete disregard and lack of understanding Logistics and Logistics capabilities.  Funny thing, we have a trade for that.


Honestly this makes sense.  If we are in rebuilding and force reconstitution maybe someone with an intimate knowledge of our logistics would make sense.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Remius said:


> Create an impartiality system that forces those involved to account for and justify its decisions


What the hell would that look like?

I’m not trolling you, but it is about like saying “just go invent a cheap, pollution free source of energy”.

At it’s heart, the military is about human beings- which are imperfect beings. And trying to get them to do impossible things under the worst conditions imaginable. That is the sort of system which has trouble switching gears between peacetime and wartime.

I am all ears if somebody has a specific set of workable recommendations for a new way to do business that works both in garrison and in wartime.


----------



## Good2Golf

dapaterson said:


> Fix DP3 selection which is biased towards male-dominated occupations.  Pick the best CAF members for DP3, and remove the occupational filters that are biased towards male-dominated occupations.
> 
> TL;DR: Select majors for JCSP on merit; don't apportion seats based on occupations.


A few questions follow:

1.  What is the Department's official assessment identifying the male-dominated MOSIDs?

2.  So de-link the primary selection of candidates by MOSID, from the future command MOSID demands, then?

3.  With 2. above accomplished, should not the PINK LIST also be eliminated?  Or should it be kept as insurance?


----------



## Remius

Humphrey Bogart said:


> It's because we are in the business of fighting war.
> 
> I want my institutional leaders to also be good warfighters.  That means commanding brigades, fleets and wings, etc.
> 
> Imagine a Navy Commander that didn't have a schmick about driving ships or fighting ships?  It would make no sense.
> 
> Supporters support, there are roles in Upper Management for them, but they ain't leading the fight because they lack the experience and by extension, the credibility with actual fighters.
> 
> Again, you wanna be the big cheese?  Do your time in the trenches like everyone else 😎
> 
> 
> 
> Like what?  CDS?  Commander of the Navy?  Commander of the Air Force?  Commander of the Army?  Commander of Special Operations Forces?





Not sure but it could be explored.  How about a transition from Junior to senior.  Maybe make a promotion from Capt to Maj a competitive process.  Or Sgt to WO.  Maybe from Col to The first rung of general.  

Everyone is so focused on the CDS and other GOFO spots and we forget that it’s getting through some of the other lower ranks and opportunities that creates the talent pool and opportunities.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Humphrey Bogart said:


> It's because we are in the business of fighting war.
> 
> I want my institutional leaders to also be good warfighters.  That means commanding brigades, fleets and wings, etc.
> 
> Imagine a Navy Commander that didn't have a schmick about driving ships or fighting ships?  It would make no sense.
> 
> Supporters support, there are roles in Upper Management for them, but they ain't leading the fight because they lack the experience and by extension, the credibility with actual fighters.
> 
> Again, you wanna be the big cheese?  Do your time in the trenches like everyone else 😎
> 
> 
> 
> Like what?  CDS?  Commander of the Navy?  Commander of the Air Force?  Commander of the Army?  Commander of Special Operations Forces?



Ya I'm not talking commanding ships and fleets.  We have trades for that.  But CDS and VCDS, there is no reason a Log O or Engineering Officer couldnt do those jobs.

CDS, CRCN is about representing the organization and dealing with our political leaders and the government machine.  I highly doubt that Hiller was making tactical decisions for the BG in Panjway.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Halifax Tar said:


> There is more to Ops and Planning than flying, marching or sailing.  In fact I would argue thats the easy part.
> 
> From my experience the biggest impediment in our ops and planning is a complete disregard and lack of understanding Logistics and Logistics capabilities.  Funny thing, we have a trade for that.



I'll stick to the flying part as it's my lane;

You're right of course...there is more to it.  We rely on Medical, Logistics, AERE Officers to be able to conduct air ops.  More importantly, we also rely on "everyone who isn't a Plt/FE/ACSO or AES Op" to also get airplanes in the air heading towards their Op Area.

The difference is, they are supporting ops, usually 'from a distance' and don't ever get involved in the planning/conducting part.  This doesn't speak to their intelligence or abilities in a derogatory manner, it is simply a huge difference in experience which leads to huge differences in skills/competencies/knowledge.

It is rare for even our Techs on a deployed Det to have knowledge of what the actual op details and planning factors are;  they simply don't have a need to know requirement for the info and aren't part of the pre and post mission brief/analysis stuff.  Int is different, of course.

AERE Officers would be a good comparison in Aurora-world.  Despite working in the same hanger as Pilot or ACSO Majors, they support but don't conduct air ops.  When they are COs, they traditionally become COs of Air Maint Sqn's vice flying Sqns.

Again, the differences is in their experience and skills/knowledge....not their intelligence, etc. 


For our side of the house as Warrant/Petty Officers....the SEMS/TEMS project is supposed to remove those barriers at the CWO/CPO levels...time will tell.  If I'm honest, I don't agree with a 'chief is a chief is a chief'.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Good2Golf said:


> A few questions follow:
> 
> 1.  What is the Department's official assessment identifying the male-dominated MOSIDs?
> 
> 2.  So de-link the primary selection of candidates by MOSID, from the future command MOSID demands, then?
> 
> 3.  *With 2. above accomplished, should not the PINK LIST also be eliminated?  Or should it be kept as insurance?*



What, if you don't mind, is the PINK LIST?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Eye In The Sky said:


> I'll stick to the flying part as it's my lane;
> 
> You're right of course...there is more to it.  We rely on Medical, Logistics, AERE Officers to be able to conduct air ops.
> 
> The difference is, they are supporting ops, usually 'from a distance' and don't ever get involved in the planning/conducting part.  This doesn't speak to their intelligence or abilities in a derogatory manner, it is simply a huge difference in experience which leads to huge differences in skills/competencies/knowledge.
> 
> AERE Officers would be a good comparison in Aurora-world.  Despite working in the same hanger as Pilot or ACSO Majors, they support but don't conduct air ops.  When they are COs, they traditionally become COs of Air Maint Sqn's vice flying Sqns.
> 
> Again, the differences is in their experience and skills/knowledge....not their intelligence, etc.
> 
> 
> For our side of the house as Warrant/Petty Officers....the SEMS/TEMS project is supposed to remove those barriers at the CWO/CPO levels...time will tell.  If I'm honest, I don't agree with a 'chief is a chief is a chief'.



Again tactical level decisions can be made by the tactical leaders insitu.  

Strategic should be open to all.  

I'm not advocating for the CO or 1 RCR it even Bde Cmdr to be open all.  I'm advocating for well above that to be open to all for competition.  Log, RCEME ect all have their versions of tactical level leadership.


----------



## dapaterson

Good2Golf said:


> A few questions follow:
> 
> 1.  What is the Department's official assessment identifying the male-dominated MOSIDs?
> 
> 2.  So de-link the primary selection of candidates by MOSID, from the future command MOSID demands, then?
> 
> 3.  With 2. above accomplished, should not the PINK LIST also be eliminated?  Or should it be kept as insurance?


You can command at unit level without JCSP.

Selection of institutional leadership should not be predicated on MOSID, but on capacity to lead the institution.  So eliminate the various branch / regimental section processes; move to self-motivated selection for DP3 (which acts as a future filter for Col and above).

And that, in turn, can eliminate the pink lists.

And will serve to eliminate the bad-toothed toxic folks who are branch darlings who should never have gone beyond BK.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I think the elephant in the room might not be how we select GOFOs, but that we might have too many of them.

Can a Force of 65K (and dropping) really produce 150 quality GOFOs? What would be a realistic number for the CAF: 40-50? 

Above a certain level, I would be inclined to agree that any occupation (except the Geneva Convention restricted ones) could realistically do any job. What that level is (2 star?) is open for debate.

I would actually like to see most GOFOs stay in a portfolio long enough to get smart and see the consequences of their decisions, vice getting moved on every 18 months or so.


----------



## dapaterson

I'd like to see development of core competencies in some fields before we name someone a GOFO...


----------



## Halifax Tar

dapaterson said:


> You can command at unit level without JCSP.
> 
> Selection of institutional leadership should not be predicated on MOSID, but on capacity to lead the institution.  So eliminate the various branch / regimental section processes; move to self-motivated selection for DP3 (which acts as a future filter for Col and above).
> 
> And that, in turn, can eliminate the pink lists.
> 
> And will serve to eliminate the bad-toothed toxic folks who are branch darlings who should never have gone beyond BK.



We have to shed this idea that certain MOSIDs are the only true leaders in our institution.


----------



## Remius

SeaKingTacco said:


> What the hell would that look like?
> 
> I’m not trolling you, but it is about like saying “just go invent a cheap, pollution free source of energy”.
> 
> At it’s heart, the military is about human beings- which are imperfect beings. And trying to get them to do impossible things under the worst conditions imaginable. That is the sort of system which has trouble switching gears between peacetime and wartime.
> 
> I am all ears if somebody has a specific set of workable recommendations for a new way to do business that works both in garrison and in wartime.


Systems like that already exist.  It’s is not a novel thing.  Selection is based on criteria and specific benchmarks.  People making the selections or recommendations should be as impartial as possible by anonymizing the process as much as possible. 

In the US, people apply for their WO program?  The RCMP have application processes for their various ranks with tests and interviews.  

We already do this with VOTs, CFRs, UTNCM etc etc 

Some of these could be looked into at certain stages of a CAF career trajectory.


----------



## Halifax Tar

SeaKingTacco said:


> I think the elephant in the room might not be how we select GOFOs, but that we might have too many of them.
> 
> Can a Force of 65K (and dropping) really produce 150 quality GOFOs? What would be a realistic number for the CAF: 40-50?
> 
> Above a certain level, I would be inclined to agree that any occupation (except the Geneva Convention restricted ones) could realistically do any job. What that level is (2 star?) is open for debate.
> 
> I would actually like to see most GOFOs stay in a portfolio long enough to get smart and see the consequences of their decisions, vice getting moved on every 18 months or so.



Also might be bingo


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Remius said:


> Systems like that already exist.  It’s is not a novel thing.  Selection is based on criteria and specific benchmarks.  People making the selections or recommendations should be as impartial as possible by anonymizing the process as much as possible.
> 
> In the US, people apply for their WO program?  The RCMP have application processes for their various ranks with tests and interviews.
> 
> We already do this with VOTs, CFRs, UTNCM etc etc
> 
> Some of these could be looked into at certain stages of a CAF career trajectory.


Sure- but I don’t see how applying for your next promotion and job justifies your decision making?

Besides, having purely self-driven promotion system can have other downsides. Maybe the only folks applying for certain jobs/promotions are not the folks you want with 10NM of the job, but they were the only applicant, so…


----------



## dapaterson

SeaKingTacco said:


> I think the elephant in the room might not be how we select GOFOs, but that we might have too many of them.
> 
> Can a Force of 65K (and dropping) really produce 150 quality GOFOs? What would be a realistic number for the CAF: 40-50?


The 1997 Report to the PM on the Leadership and Management of the CAF suggested 65-70 maximum.

That fell by the wayside as successive CDSes learned that making new GOFO positions is a great form of patronage to shore up your position.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Humphrey Bogart said:


> It's because we are in the business of fighting war.
> 
> I want my institutional leaders to also be good warfighters.  That means commanding brigades, fleets and wings, etc.
> 
> Imagine a Navy Commander that didn't have a schmick about driving ships or fighting ships?  It would make no sense.
> 
> Supporters support, there are roles in Upper Management for them, but they ain't leading the fight because they lack the experience and by extension, the credibility with actual fighters.
> 
> Again, you wanna be the big cheese?  Do your time in the trenches like everyone else 😎
> 
> 
> 
> Like what?  CDS?  Commander of the Navy?  Commander of the Air Force?  Commander of the Army?  Commander of Special Operations Forces?


----------



## MilEME09

dapaterson said:


> The 1997 Report to the PM on the Leadership and Management of the CAF suggested 65-70 maximum.
> 
> That fell by the wayside as successive CDSes learned that making new GOFO positions is a great form of patronage to shore up your position.


Time for a claw back


----------



## Halifax Tar

Edward Campbell said:


> View attachment 71106View attachment 71107



Forgive me ERC, who am I looking at here ?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Halifax Tar said:


> Again tactical level decisions can be made by the tactical leaders insitu.
> 
> Strategic should be open to all.
> 
> I'm not advocating for the CO or 1 RCR it even Bde Cmdr to be open all.  I'm advocating for well above that to be open to all for competition.  Log, RCEME all have their versions of tactical level leadership.



This I fully agree with;  except for the Environmental Commander (CRCN, RCAF Comd, C Army Comd, CANSOF Comd) positions.  

I think what we might be dancing around is the "L1s don't HAVE to be the ones who move on to the LGen and Gen ranks", but coming at it from different angles?


----------



## Jarnhamar

Halifax Tar said:


> I'm not advocating for the CO or 1 RCR it even Bde Cmdr to be open all.



I don't see why not. If 1 RCR is going to Latvia and 1RCR fails to get their checks in the box in Wainwright for work up training guess what.
1 RCR is still going to Latvia.

Seems safer for the CAF to make all unit COs gender advisors.


----------



## dapaterson

If 1 RCR fails, don't worry, come APS they get a new CO and yet the Army pretends that new leadership throughout the unit doesn't change their readiness.

It's intellectual fraud, but the Army swears by it.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Eye In The Sky said:


> This I fully agree with;  except for the Environmental Commander (CRCN, RCAF Comd, C Army Comd, CANSOF Comd) positions.
> 
> I think what we might be dancing around is the "L1s don't HAVE to be the ones who move on to the LGen and Gen ranks", but coming at it from different angles?



Mostly  

But I see no reason Environmental Commanders cant be from a CS or CSS branch.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Jarnhamar said:


> I don't see why not. If 1 RCR is going to Latvia and 1RCR fails to get their checks in the box in Wainwright for work up training guess what.
> 1 RCR is still going to Latvia.
> 
> Seems safer for the CAF to make all unit COs gender advisors.



I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said.  Can you clarify ?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Halifax Tar said:


> We have to shed this idea that certain MOSIDs are the only true leaders in our institution.



Meanwhile, MARENG Officers


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Halifax Tar said:


> Mostly
> 
> But I see no reason Environmental Commanders cant be from a CS or CSS branch.



To me, it's the lack of experience in say, planning and conducting air operations at the Capt to Col level (starting at a Capt on crew, moving to Crew Commander, moving to Flt Comd in a Sqn, DCO in a Sqn, CO in a Sqn, moving to a Wing Comd...and do on).

The difference isn't in intelligence and those things.  It's purely experience and knowledge differences.


----------



## dapaterson

If CRCN is personally worried about which killick is in which bunk on a warship then I suggest that we've lost the plot.

The CAF has for too long confused tactical acumen (or, more precisely, perceived tactical acumen) with ability to think and operate at the strategic level.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Eye In The Sky said:


> To me, it's the lack of experience in say, planning and conducting air operations at the Capt to Col level (starting at a Capt on crew, moving to Crew Commander, moving to Flt Comd in a Sqn, DCO in a Sqn, CO in a Sqn, moving to a Wing Comd...and do on).
> 
> The difference isn't in intelligence and those things.  It's purely experience and knowledge differences.



I'm not sure what intrinsic value your stated experience brings that's any more valuable than a Log Os career path through tactical level commands and up when it comes to say Commander of the RCN.  Which is again a political position with vast swaths of staff officers in support. 

*Caveat I keep saying Log O but really my intention is any CS or CSS occupation.


----------



## Halifax Tar

dapaterson said:


> If CRCN is personally worried about which killick is in which bunk on a warship then I suggest that we've lost the plot.
> 
> The CAF has for too long confused tactical acumen (or, more precisely, perceived tactical acumen) with ability to think and operate at the strategic level.



Bingo.  

Jeez, we've been agreeing alot the last couple days lol


----------



## Remius

SeaKingTacco said:


> Sure- but I don’t see how applying for your next promotion and job justifies your decision making?
> 
> Besides, having purely self-driven promotion system can have other downsides. Maybe the only folks applying for certain jobs/promotions are not the folks you want with 10NM of the job, but they were the only applicant, so…



You misunderstood. The selection board or what not would still have to Justify the promotion and decision to promote and selection based on specific criteria. 

I never said “purely self driven promotion system”

It wouldn’t have to be at every rank.  But maybe at key junctions of career progression.


----------



## Halifax Tar

daftandbarmy said:


> Meanwhile, MARENG Officers



I know lol I keep saying Log O but my intention is all CS and CSS occupations.  I'm just a lazy typer... My thumbs are sore from a 120Km ATV ride lol


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Remius said:


> You misunderstood. The selection board or what not would still have to Justify the promotion and decision to promote and selection based on specific criteria.
> 
> I never said “purely self driven promotion system”
> 
> It wouldn’t have to be at every rank.  But maybe at key junctions of career progression.


Gotcha- sorry, I was thinking you were saying something else entirely. The light bulb just went on!


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Edward Campbell said:


> View attachment 71106View attachment 71107


Guderian was a Signals Officer.  Our problem is the way we train our GSOs means they are incredibly specialized from the get-go.  

The nature of our Armed Forces and its structure means that our Officers don't get the broad Military Education afforded to the Prussians of old.



Halifax Tar said:


> Bingo.
> 
> Jeez, we've been agreeing alot the last couple days lol



Hence the need for less bureaucrats in uniform and more actual war fighters.

@dapaterson  institutional leaders are there to provide Military Advice to the Government of Canada, not act as Government of Canada sock puppets.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Halifax Tar said:


> I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said.  Can you clarify ?


Just being snarky suggesting the expertise that comes with CO+trade isn't that vital.


----------



## dapaterson

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Hence the need for less bureaucrats in uniform and more actual war fighters.
> 
> @dapaterson  institutional leaders are there to provide Military Advice to the Government of Canada, not act as Government of Canada sock puppets.


And thus we need those who can think and operate at the strategic level.  A good company commander is not a selection criteria to be Army commander.  A HoD is not a selection criteria to be CRCN.  And being able to book a good hotel is not a selection criteria to be Comd RCAF.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Hence the need for less bureaucrats in uniform and more actual war fighters.
> 
> @dapaterson  institutional leaders are there to provide Military Advice to the Government of Canada, not act as Government of Canada sock puppets.



I think your focus on the tactical level is not giving you a true appreciation for the art of war fighting.  Which is much much more than trigger pulling or driving fast things that fly or slow things that float.  

I would argue the tactical acumen of CS and CSS occupations and their experience would be better leveraged in these higher positions where their first hand knowledge and experience of the government machine and a life of policy understanding and practice would come in handy when dealing with civilian bureaucrats.

The small tactical portion of these higher commands can still be accomplished and run well with good staff support.



Jarnhamar said:


> Just being snarky suggesting the expertise that comes with CO+trade isn't that vital.



Ah, thanks!


----------



## MilEME09

Jarnhamar said:


> I don't see why not. If 1 RCR is going to Latvia and 1RCR fails to get their checks in the box in Wainwright for work up training guess what.
> 1 RCR is still going to Latvia.
> 
> Seems safer for the CAF to make all unit COs gender advisors.


My solution to that would be previous Roto stays, 1 RCR gets 30 days to go green, if not leadership team gets the boot. This whole we can't fail mentality is going to get troops killed.


----------



## Good2Golf

dapaterson said:


> You can command at unit level without JCSP.
> 
> Selection of institutional leadership should not be predicated on MOSID, but on capacity to lead the institution.  So eliminate the various branch / regimental section processes; move to self-motivated selection for DP3 (which acts as a future filter for Col and above).
> 
> And that, in turn, can eliminate the pink lists.
> 
> And will serve to eliminate the bad-toothed toxic folks who are branch darlings who should never have gone beyond BK.



I didn't say unit-level, you did.  

Is there not Command above unit-level?  Does this not require JCSP?

CAF states it does: Joint Command and Staff Programme


> The aim of the Joint Command and Staff Programme (JCSP) is to prepare selected senior officers of the Defence Team for command and staff appointments in the contemporary operating environment across the continuum of operations in national and international settings.



If, as you seem to imply, JCSP really isn't need, especially with the current distribution of MOSIDs to selection, then why have DP3/JCSP at all?  

It seems awfully flawed to many, so is it really needed any more?

Or is it the distribution of MOSID quotas that is the issue?  What would a better quota system be?  Go for more MOSIDs that aren't male-dominated (although you dodged my question about what are the formally identified "male-dominated" MOSIDs in the CAF).

Some folks seem to be a bit short on institutional memory, and having been in the CA, dapaterson, and in the particular MOSID, you should know better, but I recall a Logistician commanding the Canadian Army.  Yup, not an infanteer, tanker, gunner or even a combat engineer.  A logistician.

But at least I'll give the Army credit where credit is due, it chose a supporter as its Commander, vice an operator and the Army didn't fall apart.

Navy and Air Force have yet to at least show the maturity to have a support MOSID as Commander...shame really, I can think of a current RCAF GO who would make an excellent Commander, even if she is a support MOSID.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Guderian was a Signals Officer. . . .



As was Ramsey Withers, the CDS from 1980 to 1983.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Halifax Tar said:


> I'm not sure what intrinsic value your stated experience brings that's any more valuable than a Log Os career path through tactical level commands and up when it comes to say Commander of the RCN.  Which is again a political position with vast swaths of staff officers in support.
> 
> *Caveat I keep saying Log O but really my intention is any CS or CSS occupation.



I will stick to the RCAF Comd side and use LRP as my example.

- As a Capt, a Plt or ACSO is on a crew.  They are planning and conducting air operations.  Some will be selected for Crew Commander; commanding air operations at the crew level.

They will, usually, move to instructing people on planning and conducting air operations.

As a Major, they can expect to be a Flt Commander (Aircrew Flight, Standards & Trg), Operatons Officer and D/CO at a Sqn and remain involved with planning and conducting air operations.  They can also be expected to take on Air Task Force Commander positions, commanding that ATF, on deployed operations and/or exercises.

As LCols, they can be COs including COs on deployed operations if a large Det is deploying (IMPACT as an example).

As Wing Commanders, they will command the Wing, in my world that also includes SAR Sqns, AMSs, and all the OSS and MSS on the Wing.

In addition to being Flt Comds/ATF Comds/COs/Wind Commander, they could also deploy to and perform specific tasks in a CAOC (Combined Air Operations Center) as Battle Watch O, Battle Director, LNOs, etc.

This list isn't exhaustive.  There are all other other CAS/CAD SO jobs...I didn't mention them because they aren't directly related to planning/conducting air operations, or not as Directly.  But to mention some....CO of AETE is also the Flight Test Authority for the RCAF/CAF.  CO 434 is the CO of the TEFs for each fleet (Test and Eval Flight).  

The same, or similar paths would exist for Plts and ACSOs in their respective fleets.  These Snr Officers and General Officers would all converge towards the most snr RCAF positions, and from there, the best candidates should be the ones who are given the nod for things like 1/2 CAD Comd, RCAF Comd, etc.

What comparable air operations experience will a Log O have, that would lead them to being the best candidate as the Comd RCAF?  The RCAF job is to conduct aerospace operations, domestically and internationally.   I don't support the "subordinate commanders can support" idea;  if you can't actually LEAD, you shouldn't be the leader - at any level.  

It's just not what the Log O trade prepares Officers for.  That isn't meant as a slight to Log Os, the Log branch by any means.  It's just reality.   Air Operations branch officers are naturally going to gain the experience and knowledge needed to best lead the RCAF.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Remius said:


> You misunderstood. The selection board or what not would still have to Justify the promotion and decision to promote and selection based on specific criteria.
> 
> I never said “purely self driven promotion system”
> 
> It wouldn’t have to be at every rank.  But maybe at key junctions of career progression.



IIRC from my earlier read of the recommendations, this was the basic idea at the (1) promotion to CWO/CPO1 level for NCMs and (2) LCol + level for SnrOs/GOFOs.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

dapaterson said:


> And being able to book a good hotel is not a selection criteria to be Comd RCAF.



STRONGLY DISAGREE  😁


----------



## dapaterson

CJOC does operations.  Environments force generate.  The latter is a management function.  If successive generations of "leaders" (and I use that term loosely) haven't built robust systems to enable and support that, but instead micromanage (say, for example, if the Army HQ dictated to Divs / Bdes/ Units specific companies for high readiness) then that tactical obsession has done significant damage to the institutional ability to generate.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

The CJOC line is blurred at the ATF level in my experience and isn't important.  The ATF Comd is the onsite Comd, and in my world at least, we were working for a completely different Boss anyways.

CJOC isn't cutting the ATO and if anything, they were usually "in the way" and didn't add anything to efficiency or effectiveness.  Maybe CJOC is one of the things that "needs to go".   We didn't need them and they didn't 'add value' to the ops we conducted.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Eye In The Sky said:


> I will stick to the RCAF Comd side and use LRP as my example.
> 
> - As a Capt, a Plt or ACSO is on a crew.  They are planning and conducting air operations.  Some will be selected for Crew Commander; commanding air operations at the crew level.
> 
> They will, usually, move to instructing people on planning and conducting air operations.
> 
> As a Major, they can expect to be a Flt Commander (Aircrew Flight, Standards & Trg), Operatons Officer and D/CO at a Sqn and remain involved with planning and conducting air operations.  They can also be expected to take on Air Task Force Commander positions, commanding that ATF, on deployed operations and/or exercises.
> 
> As LCols, they can be COs including COs on deployed operations if a large Det is deploying (IMPACT as an example).
> 
> As Wing Commanders, they will command the Wing, in my world that also includes SAR Sqns, AMSs, and all the OSS and MSS on the Wing.
> 
> In addition to being Flt Comds/ATF Comds/COs/Wind Commander, they could also deploy to and perform specific tasks in a CAOC (Combined Air Operations Center) as Battle Watch O, Battle Director, LNOs, etc.
> 
> This list isn't exhaustive.  There are all other other CAS/CAD SO jobs...I didn't mention them because they aren't directly related to planning/conducting air operations, or not as Directly.  But to mention some....CO of AETE is also the Flight Test Authority for the RCAF/CAF.  CO 434 is the CO of the TEFs for each fleet (Test and Eval Flight).
> 
> The same, or similar paths would exist for Plts and ACSOs in their respective fleets.  These Snr Officers and General Officers would all converge towards the most snr RCAF positions, and from there, the best candidates should be the ones who are given the nod for things like 1/2 CAD Comd, RCAF Comd, etc.
> 
> What comparable air operations experience will a Log O have, that would lead them to being the best candidate as the Comd RCAF?  The RCAF job is to conduct aerospace operations, domestically and internationally.   I don't support the "subordinate commanders can support" idea;  if you can't actually LEAD, you shouldn't be the leader - at any level.
> 
> It's just not what the Log O trade prepares Officers for.  That isn't meant as a slight to Log Os, the Log branch by any means.  It's just reality.   Air Operations branch officers are naturally going to gain the experience and knowledge needed to best lead the RCAF.



All of those operations and activities and levels are enabled by the scores of people who don't fly in grey fast things.  Their efforts a no less valuable or impactful to the operation.  

I can't speak for RCAF Log Os but RCN Log Os proceed through different levels of command culminating in unit level Command of a shore establishment and then off into higher HQs... Or the mist as I call it lol

The whole idea of planning at the strategic level is really an exercise of logistics.  How to get the people and stuff from A to Z and sustain the task through to and beyond victory.  And then repatriation.  

At the Environmental level the knowledge of conducting LRP ops matters less than knowledge of the institution and larger governmental works and an ability represent the command and advocate on its behalf.  

All of which a very senior CS or CSS occupation with deployment experience with RCAF could do just fine.  

I had a CO on FRE in '16 who always wanted to help store ship and always on the forecastle, so I got tons of face time with him, which is unusual for a P2 Storesman.  

We talked at length about this during the long hours hauling boxes of food.  

Winning a fight is the easy part, sustaining the fight and victory after is the true test of a military.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Eye In The Sky said:


> The CJOC line is blurred at the ATF line in my experience and isn't important.  The ATF Comd is the onsite Comd, and in my world at least, we were working for a completely different (usually Allied).
> 
> CJOC isn't cutting the ATO and if anything, they were usually "in the way" and didn't add anything to efficiency or effectiveness.  Maybe CJOC is one of the things that "needs to go".   We didn't need them and they didn't 'add value' to the ops we conducted.



Yes please, cut CJOC.  We don't need them either.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Halifax Tar said:


> All of those operations and activities and leva  are enabled by the scores of people who don't fly in grey fast things.  Their efforts a no less valuable or impactful to the operation.



You're right, of course.  The context though, isn't in "value of contributions".  It's "knowledge and experience".   Again and very sincerely, I don't mean that as a slight in any way.   

I'd be somwhat useless in the Wing Replen Flight.  My Snr NCOs would have to prop me up and explain things to me I would already know as a Log WO "insert which Flt here (Food/TEME/Supply/etc).  My Officers wouldn't benefit from my experience...because I have no Log experience.  I might have opinions, but they wouldn't be based on XX years of experience and knowledge.   I could do the job...but I certainly wouldn't be the best choice for any WO position in any of the MSS sub-units; square peg/round hole.  OSS, there are sub-units there that spend their days planning and supporting air ops.  I would fit there, Round Peg/Round Hole.  



Halifax Tar said:


> At the Environmental level the knowledge of conducting LRP ops matters less than knowledge of the institution and larger governmental works and an ability represent the command and advocate on its behalf.
> 
> All of which a very senior CS or CSS occupation with deployment experience with RCAF could do just fine.



At the RCAF Comd, even Div Comd/equivalent levels...the LRP specific knowledge isn't relevant in itself.  But an innate understanding of air operations from life as a Capt on crew, to CO, to WComd+ and the mentioned domestic/deployed Operational experiences  related to "planning/conducting air ops" certainly is, and should be.  

During Op IMPACT, the Log Os that supported air ops wouldn't have specific knowledge of what those ops were...generally yes _targetting ISIS_ or something similar.  Most of them probably couldn't tell you which planes were Canadian ones driving by the airfield on the DFAC bus.  

The Plts and ACSOs that worked in the DMSC, or Det HQ...not only did they know which planes were ours;  they planned and conducted the air ops - they flew with the crews (our HQ positions were all flyers except 1 posn, Det MWO, the DMSC were ground only posns).

Again...not meant as a slight to any of the trades that enable air ops.  Enabling vs conducting just bring difference experience and knowledge.



Halifax Tar said:


> Winning a fight is the easy part, sustaining the fight and victory after is the true test of a military.



Agree 100%...and I bet you wouldn't want me in one of your valuable Log WO positions.  There are just better people for that job...


----------



## McG

Eye In The Sky said:


> During Op IMPACT, the Log Os that supported air ops wouldn't have specific knowledge of what those ops were...generally yes _targetting ISIS_ or something similar. Most of them probably couldn't tell you which planes were Canadian ones driving by the airfield on the DFAC bus.


I bet the supporters have no less comprehension of what operators do than the operators have comprehension of how they are supported.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Eye In The Sky said:


> You're right, of course.  The context though, isn't in "value of contributions".  It's "knowledge and experience".   Again and very sincerely, I don't mean that as a slight in any way.
> 
> I'd be somwhat useless in the Wing Replen Flight.  My Snr NCOs would have to prop me up and explain things to me I would already know as a Log WO "insert which Flt here (Food/TEME/Supply/etc).  My Officers wouldn't benefit from my experience...because I have no Log experience.  I might have opinions, but they wouldn't be based on XX years of experience and knowledge.   I could do the job...but I certainly wouldn't be the best choice for any WO position in any of the MSS sub-units; square peg/round hole.  OSS, there are sub-units there that spend their days planning and supporting air ops.  I would fit there, Round Peg/Round Hole.
> 
> 
> 
> At the RCAF Comd, even Div Comd/equivalent levels...the LRP specific knowledge isn't relevant in itself.  But an innate understanding of air operations from life as a Capt on crew, to CO, to WComd+ and the mentioned domestic/deployed Operational experiences  related to "planning/conducting air ops" certainly is, and should be.
> 
> During Op IMPACT, the Log Os that supported air ops wouldn't have specific knowledge of what those ops were...generally yes _targetting ISIS_ or something similar.  Most of them probably couldn't tell you which planes were Canadian ones driving by the airfield on the DFAC bus.
> 
> The Plts and ACSOs that worked in the DMSC, or Det HQ...not only did they know which planes were ours;  they planned and conducted the air ops - they flew with the crews (our HQ positions were all flyers except 1 posn, Det MWO, the DMSC were ground only posns).
> 
> Again...not meant as a slight to any of the trades that enable air ops.  Enabling vs conducting just bring difference experience and knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> Agree 100%...and I bet you wouldn't want me in one of your valuable Log WO positions.  There are just better people for that job...



I'm not taking anything you say as a slight.  This is the online equivalent to beers around a fire to me.  I also respect your input.  No issues at all my friend. 

I think we over value tactical level experience at the pointy end and undervalue tactical level support to the pointy end.  

Both avenues can produce excellent experts and leaders and they best should be pushed up regardless of their MOSID. 

The fact the largest branch in CAF is precluded from the highest positions is complete idiocy.  By pure statistics we are passing over some of the very best because of a capbadge.


----------



## KevinB

Halifax Tar said:


> I'm not taking anything you say as a slight.  This is the online equivalent to beers around a fire to me.  I also respect your input.  No issues at all my friend.
> 
> I think we over value tactical level experience at the pointy end and undervalue tactical level support to the pointy end.
> 
> Both avenues can produce excellent experts and leaders and they best should be pushed up regardless of their MOSID.
> 
> The fact the largest branch in CAF is precluded from the highest positions is complete idiocy.  By pure statistics we are passing over some of the very best because of a capbadge.


Generally that’s been the way since warfare started. 
   Folks who want to lead, go into a ‘combat’ arm, and staff and support people make them look good… 
(Well it’s hard to make some of them look good regardless).


----------



## Halifax Tar

Eye In The Sky said:


> Agree 100%...and I bet you wouldn't want me in one of your valuable Log WO positions.  There are just better people for that job...



Why not ?  Our current employment of CWOs says this is very possible, in fact is happens all the time.  

The unit chief (Coxswain equivalent) of BAdmin (Base OR and HR Services ect) at CFB Halifax hasn't been a Clerk let alone a Log Chief for at least 15 years, it's been all hard sea trades.  The unit chief of Base Supply in Halifax right now is a cook.


----------



## brihard

At the risk of getting @daftandbarmy all hot and bothered here- at any point has CAF gone through an exercise of taking each of the extant GOFO positions, or at least most of them, and mapped out a job task bank for it? I.e., a rigorous process of identifying, concretely and defensibly, each ‘thing’ that the incumbent in that role can be expected to do or potentially need to do (and also what won’t be expected of them)? And then, from there, done an honest assessment of what knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) a new entrant to that position must or should bring to do each job task? Has that been run upstream to map where those KSAs are generated earlier on in a career?

It strikes me that if a very rigorous inventory of what is needed from various GOFO roles - one where there is scrutiny, and the analysts need to show their work - has not been done, then it seems premature to opine on where senior executive leadership can and cannot originate from, and what career paths can and cannot generate these institutional leaders…


----------



## kev994

Good2Golf said:


> Is there not Command above unit-level?  Does this not require JCSP?
> 
> CAF states it does: Joint Command and Staff Programme
> 
> 
> If, as you seem to imply, JCSP really isn't need, especially with the current distribution of MOSIDs to selection, then why have DP3/JCSP at all?


IIRC it’s one point in the Scrit, plus 2 more if you do the Masters’ program (I’ve heard that the difference is that 2 of the papers are ~20 pages instead of 10). I know of at least once person to make O5 without JCSP.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Halifax Tar said:


> I can't speak for RCAF Log Os but RCN Log Os proceed through different levels of command culminating in unit level Command of a shore establishment and then off into higher HQs... Or the most as I call it lol



When the RCN goes on ops, the entire crew is in the Op Area.  Not with us (I'd be guessing if I said what Herc, 18 or other fleets do).  The plane goes into and returns from the op area.  

The SAO (Sqn Admin O) isn't involved with ops ;  we usually had 1 HRA on an ATF to assist the ATF Comd and ATF WO.  At best, Log Os might have an idea of where a crew/crews are going and why, but they'd have zero exposure to the planning/conducting ops part.

I just assume that, sailing and being part of the Wardroom they'd be more directly knowledgeable and linked into the ops piece.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Firstly you need a command and staff training system that properly trains "general" officers.  Then you can indulge in the luxury of not caring about the branch badge someone wore as a captain.

When the SHTF you want people like George Marshall, however you manage to prepare them.  You won't know in advance when exactly the SWHTF.  In the absence of a satisfactory system (certainly something better than what Canada has), you tilt the odds in your favour by gravitating to pointy-end types with pointy-end experience.


----------



## Halifax Tar

KevinB said:


> Generally that’s been the way since warfare started.
> Folks who want to lead, go into a ‘combat’ arm, and staff and support people make them look good…
> (Well it’s hard to make some of them look good regardless).



Just because we've always done it that way is no longer a valid response in the CAF.


----------



## kev994

brihard said:


> At the risk of getting @daftandbarmy all hot and bothered here- at any point has CAF gone through an exercise of taking each of the extant GOFO positions, or at least most of them, and mapped out a job task bank for it? I.e., a rigorous process of identifying, concretely and defensibly, each ‘thing’ that the incumbent in that role can be expected to do or potentially need to do (and also what won’t be expected of them)? And then, from there, done an honest assessment of what knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) a new entrant to that position must or should bring to do each job task? Has that been run upstream to map where those KSAs are generated earlier on in a career?
> 
> It strikes me that if a very rigorous inventory of what is needed from various GOFO roles - one where there is scrutiny, and the analysts need to show their work - has not been done, then it seems premature to opine on where senior executive leadership can and cannot originate from, and what career paths can and cannot generate these institutional leaders…


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

KevinB said:


> Generally that’s been the way since warfare started.
> Folks who want to lead, go into a ‘combat’ arm, and staff and support people make them look good…
> (Well it’s hard to make some of them look good regardless).


You would think after how many EPIC Fails we've had, we'd stop trying to trend set and just follow what the adults are doing 😄


----------



## Halifax Tar

Eye In The Sky said:


> When the RCN goes on ops, the entire crew is in the Op Area.  Not with us (I'd be guessing if I said what Herc, 18 or other fleets do).  The plane goes into and returns from the op area.
> 
> The SAO (Sqn Admin O) isn't involved with ops ;  we usually had 1 HRA on an ATF to assist the ATF Comd and ATF WO.  At best, Log Os might have an idea of where a crew/crews are going and why, but they'd have zero exposure to the planning/conducting ops part.
> 
> I just assume that, sailing and being part of the Wardroom they'd be more directly knowledgeable and linked into the ops piece.



In RCN 1.0 Sup Os had to qualify as BWKs and were employed as such as well as conducting their jobs as Sup Os. 

Could be cultural differences.  Good point.


----------



## daftandbarmy

brihard said:


> At the risk of getting @daftandbarmy all hot and bothered here- at any point has CAF gone through an exercise of taking each of the extant GOFO positions, or at least most of them, and mapped out a job task bank for it? I.e., a rigorous process of identifying, concretely and defensibly, each ‘thing’ that the incumbent in that role can be expected to do or potentially need to do (and also what won’t be expected of them)? And then, from there, done an honest assessment of what knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) a new entrant to that position must or should bring to do each job task? Has that been run upstream to map where those KSAs are generated earlier on in a career?
> 
> It strikes me that if a very rigorous inventory of what is needed from various GOFO roles - one where there is scrutiny, and the analysts need to show their work - has not been done, then it seems premature to opine on where senior executive leadership can and cannot originate from, and what career paths can and cannot generate these institutional leaders…



You've just described a competency based leadership development culture which, of course, is intentionally blind to specific technical skills and is used effectively by many gigantic organizations around the world.

And now I need to sit down because my head is spinning with excitement


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Guderian was a Signals Officer.  Our problem is the way we train our GSOs means they are incredibly specialized from the get-go.



Isn't this what the US Army uses it's Warrant Officers to avoid?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Eye In The Sky said:


> When the RCN goes on ops, the entire crew is in the Op Area.  Not with us (I'd be guessing if I said what Herc, 18 or other fleets do).  The plane goes into and returns from the op area.
> 
> The SAO (Sqn Admin O) isn't involved with ops ;  we usually had 1 HRA on an ATF to assist the ATF Comd and ATF WO.  At best, Log Os might have an idea of where a crew/crews are going and why, but they'd have zero exposure to the planning/conducting ops part.
> 
> I just assume that, sailing and being part of the Wardroom they'd be more directly knowledgeable and linked into the ops piece.



I bet your SQN COs and up do more Admin than just about anything else.


----------



## Remius

The CDS leads the institution without really having led the other 2/3rds elements. 

And if we say that the element commanders must be trade XYZ then why can’t we offer an alternate path to CDS.  

How about having the right CDS at the right time for the right job.  If we are about to go into a restructuring seems to me a logistician could make sense.   If the CRNC, Commander RCAF and the Commander of the Army have their elements covered then why would that be an issue?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Humphrey Bogart said:


> You would think after how many EPIC Fails we've had, we'd stop trying to trend set and just follow what the adults are doing 😄



The problem is the epic fails have always had the same people at the helm.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

It probably is time to be honest and admit that at least2/3rds of the GOFO positions are just pork barreling, by a very close to corrupt group of folks who should be more concerned with defending our way of life, then stealing tax payers money.


----------



## Halifax Tar

daftandbarmy said:


> You've just described a competency based leadership development culture which, of course, is intentionally blind to specific technical skills and is used effectively by many gigantic organizations around the world.
> 
> And now I need to sit down because my head is spinning with excitement



That might be a bridge to far for an organization that believes leadership capabilities and potential and their best predictor is a badge on a hat.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Eye In The Sky said:


> I will stick to the RCAF Comd side and use LRP as my example.
> 
> - As a Capt, a Plt or ACSO is on a crew.  They are planning and conducting air operations.  Some will be selected for Crew Commander; commanding air operations at the crew level.
> 
> They will, usually, move to instructing people on planning and conducting air operations.
> 
> As a Major, they can expect to be a Flt Commander (Aircrew Flight, Standards & Trg), Operatons Officer and D/CO at a Sqn and remain involved with planning and conducting air operations.  They can also be expected to take on Air Task Force Commander positions, commanding that ATF, on deployed operations and/or exercises.
> 
> As LCols, they can be COs including COs on deployed operations if a large Det is deploying (IMPACT as an example).
> 
> As Wing Commanders, they will command the Wing, in my world that also includes SAR Sqns, AMSs, and all the OSS and MSS on the Wing.
> 
> In addition to being Flt Comds/ATF Comds/COs/Wind Commander, they could also deploy to and perform specific tasks in a CAOC (Combined Air Operations Center) as Battle Watch O, Battle Director, LNOs, etc.
> 
> This list isn't exhaustive.  There are all other other CAS/CAD SO jobs...I didn't mention them because they aren't directly related to planning/conducting air operations, or not as Directly.  But to mention some....CO of AETE is also the Flight Test Authority for the RCAF/CAF.  CO 434 is the CO of the TEFs for each fleet (Test and Eval Flight).
> 
> The same, or similar paths would exist for Plts and ACSOs in their respective fleets.  These Snr Officers and General Officers would all converge towards the most snr RCAF positions, and from there, the best candidates should be the ones who are given the nod for things like 1/2 CAD Comd, RCAF Comd, etc.
> 
> What comparable air operations experience will a Log O have, that would lead them to being the best candidate as the Comd RCAF?  The RCAF job is to conduct aerospace operations, domestically and internationally.   I don't support the "subordinate commanders can support" idea;  if you can't actually LEAD, you shouldn't be the leader - at any level.
> 
> It's just not what the Log O trade prepares Officers for.  That isn't meant as a slight to Log Os, the Log branch by any means.  It's just reality.   Air Operations branch officers are naturally going to gain the experience and knowledge needed to best lead the RCAF.


What’s missing in this analysis is that support trades will also participate in Operational Planning, though a JOPG or AOPG, which is a LOT more relevant to the strategic level than being able to command a crew, squadron or even a Wing. 

At that level (GOFO), you should be able to lean on a team of experts to counsel you on the details of a plan and let you focus on “driving the boat.”  I have known many great support trade senior officers that would have been great as Strat Level commanders, but they were blocked because of their trade.

PS: Pink list is a potential list for females. There are also other lists within the RCAF (O3 at the Major level, and O2 and O1 at the LCol/Col level) that identify people with potential for rapid advancement with potential to make it to GOFO level. A female may not be on the O lists but be on the Pink list, and get priority for career courses over someone on the O lists. That’s one of the affirmative actions that are taken to bolster the number of female senior officers.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Humphrey Bogart said:


> It's because we are in the business of fighting war.
> 
> I want my institutional leaders to also be good warfighters.  That means commanding brigades, fleets and wings, etc.
> 
> Imagine a Navy Commander that didn't have a schmick about driving ships or fighting ships?  It would make no sense.
> 
> Supporters support, there are roles in Upper Management for them, but they ain't leading the fight because they lack the experience and by extension, the credibility with actual fighters.
> 
> Again, you wanna be the big cheese?  Do your time in the trenches like everyone else 😎
> 
> 
> 
> Like what?  CDS?  Commander of the Navy?  Commander of the Air Force?  Commander of the Army?  Commander of Special Operations Forces?


Haha you could probably find a number of proud bearers of the golden moustache who aren't good at either driving or fighting a ship as well.

There are a few positions where it makes more sense like you said to have an operations trade in it, but at the same time it makes more sense to have support type trades in a lot of them, with some kind of mix of the rest of the GOFO positions.

VCDS is probably the perfect example; an operator will probably have very little to no directly relevant experience to that kind of job, but someone coming up from the finance, logistic or equipment side probably would be looking at a lot of bread and butter stuff there. Figuring out what a lot of the L1s and L2s under VCDS do as VCDS isn't really a great idea.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

McG said:


> I bet the supporters have no less comprehension of what operators do than the operators have comprehension of how they are supported.



I'd agree.  In very general, broad term I understand what folks do, what their part is but I don't know the challenges they face.  The closet conversations we'd have would be with our own maintainers, naturally.


----------



## Good2Golf

Halifax Tar said:


> I bet your SQN COs and up do more Admin than just about anything else.


Actually, you make a good case for civil servants administering the CAF.  Operational leadership can stop at sub-unit level, so military HODs reporting to a senior civil servant administering the Ship. 👍🏼


----------



## Remius

Good2Golf said:


> Actually, you make a good case for civil servants administering the CAF.  Operational leadership can stop at sub-unit level, so military HODs reporting to a senior civil servant administering the Ship. 👍🏼


The RCMP did it for a few years.  😜


----------



## dapaterson

There does need to be a frank discussions about what is core military, what is military needed for ship to shore, and what is merely featherbedding by various occupations / military fear of people not in uniform.

The question of why there are any military financial management officers above the rank of Major comes to mind, for example.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Halifax Tar said:


> I bet your SQN COs and up do more Admin than just about anything else.



Admin tends to be a DCO function...so I bet the Sqn Boss "avoids" as much as they can.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Navy_Pete said:


> Haha you could probably find a number of proud bearers of the golden moustache who aren't good at either driving or fighting a ship as well.
> 
> There are a few positions where it makes more sense like you said to have an operations trade in it, but at the same time it makes more sense to have support type trades in a lot of them, with some kind of mix of the rest of the GOFO positions.
> 
> VCDS is probably the perfect example; an operator will probably have very little to no directly relevant experience to that kind of job, but someone coming up from the finance, logistic or equipment side probably would be looking at a lot of bread and butter stuff there. Figuring out what a lot of the L1s and L2s under VCDS do as VCDS isn't really a great idea.



_General _Officer... the hint is in the title.

All big organizations struggle to transition their best operational performers into good Executive Leaders. One place to start is being clear about the competencies expected of higher level, strategic leaders, and hold people accountable for developing strengths in these areas.

I've attached an example used by the BC Public Service, which I think is pretty good:

Core Competencies for All Strategic Leaders

The term competency has various definitions and may seem abstract, but a “behavioural competency” amounts to the meeting of knowledge, a skill, or a mindset, and how you apply this knowledge and demonstrate these skills, attitudes, and behaviours in the workplace. Often, acquiring new knowledge or a new skill is the first step in developing a new competency, but it must also be applied with the appropriate mindset, and translated to actual workplace behaviours to become a mastered behavioural competency.

There are six core competencies that all Strategic Leaders in the BC Public Service are expected to demonstrate:

 Building Strategic Alliances
 Vision and Goal Setting
 Creating and Managing Change
 Solving Problems Creatively
 Promoting Empowerment
 Executive Presence


----------



## Navy_Pete

Halifax Tar said:


> That might be a bridge to far for an organization that believes leadership capabilities and potential and their best predictor is a badge on a hat.


Don't forget the 3rd leadership principle; VOLUME! If you aren't shouting, you aren't inspiring people. Even if it doesn't actually help when things are literally on fire. Bonus points for knife hands.

The JCSP requirement is odd; if you already have a Masters related to your core degree it's simply a checkbox to got to be eligible for 4 ringer, but if you don't want to make it past 3 ringer and turn down JCSP it hurts your chance of promotion to 3 ringer because the mafia will cut you off at the knees in the shadows.

It's really weird to be in an organization where you want to self select for a rank cap, based on an honest assessment of your own capabilities and interests, but if you try and do it you'll get punished with crappy postings and sidelined. Meanwhile power hungry arseholes who are good at self promotion and net working ride the self licking ice cream cone of the old boys club to the upper echelons and create this sort of mess we're in today.

Always kind of wonder too how much of the mess is caused by decision makers being surrounded by sycophants who just want to get promoted, so the majority of what they see if BS or filtered. Maybe I'm just bagged, but that makes more sense than some of the high level decisions and how some things that have come out have been dealt with.

Edit to add: @daftandbarmy that's a great list, and agree that's a good list that you could broadly apply to to the GOFOs, and really has nothing to do with the trades people come in from, as you need to kind of do all of that. (definitely not this guy though)


----------



## Eye In The Sky

SupersonicMax said:


> What’s missing in this analysis is that support trades will also participate in Operational Planning, though a JOPG or AOPG, which is a LOT more relevant to the strategic level than being able to command a crew, squadron or even a Wing.



I'm not reluctant to admit I am limited to my experience level;  which is the Sqn level stuff and Wing level "WO" business.  My planning/conducting experience is at the crew to ATF level for deployed ops and as an A/Ops O - Ops WO at the Wing level.  

The concept I've been basically trying to relate to is  "airmanship" - in my mind, this should develop at the various levels as NCMs and Officers progress in rank and responsibility.  HMPA concepts - also develop (HTEM comes to mind immediately, in terms of risk/consequences).  As Junior Officers, can Lts and Capt's take FSC and other air ops related courses?  These are some of the things I think of when I think of "why Air Ops Branch Officers are likely to more naturally progress to the various Command level up to the L1 level in their respective environments".

Airmanship, which maybe should be renamed, for those who aren't famil with the term is defined as "*the ability to make the right call in any given aviation-related situation"* (RCAF FOM, 2.1.2 - Part 2 Risk Management for Flight Operations, 2.1.2.2 for anyone who wants read the details that talk about experience, knowledge, training including courses like the FSC - Flying Supervisor Course).

My thought is that the skills/knowledge that come from the development of airmanship from the initial Capt/crew levels would also develop and increase as the Officer increases experience and knowledge.  Therefore, the "ability to make the right call in any given aviation-related situation" would be (1) enhanced and (2) expanded to match the level of position/responsibility. 



SupersonicMax said:


> At that level (GOFO), you should be able to lean on a team of experts to counsel you on the details of a plan and let you focus on “driving the boat.”  I have known many great support trade senior officers that would have been great as Strat Level commanders, but they were blocked because of their trade.



Strat level commanders, but would they be the best choice for L1, specifically RCAF Comd with the associated responsibilities as AA etc?



SupersonicMax said:


> PS: Pink list is a merit list for females. There are also other lists within the RCAF (O3 at the Major level, and O2 and O1 at the LCol/Col level that identify people with potential for rapid advancement with potential to make it to GOFO level. A female may not be on the O lists but be on the Pink list, and get priority for career courses over someone on the O lists. That’s one of the affirmative actions that are taken to bolster the number of female senior officers.



Check, and thanks.  I've never heard of any of these before, although I assumed they existed in some form.


Maybe my thinking on this is too narrow.  I am one of the 50+ year old types who've been around long enough that we might not realize how 'institutionalized' we are in our way of thinking.


----------



## daftandbarmy

This just in...

Military should give up control of sexual assault cases permanently: former Supreme Court justice​The time has come for the Canadian Armed Forces to permanently give up control of investigations of sexual offences by its members, says a damning new report by a former Supreme Court justice that recommends sweeping changes — including an overhaul of the recruiting and military college systems.

The release of Louise Arbour's report concludes more than a year of work. Among its 48 recommendations is a call for civilian police and courts to handle all sexual assault cases involving allegations against military members going forward.

"The handling of sexual offences by military courts over the past 20 years has done very little to improve efficiency, discipline and morale. If anything, it has served to erode it," Arbour said Monday as she presented her report.

"Therefore, I see no basis for the Canadian armed forces to retain any jurisdiction over sexual offences and that jurisdiction should be vested exclusively with civilian authorities."

Military sexual trauma complainants have been demanding for decades that civilians take over sexual misconduct cases, arguing that the Canadian Armed Forces has failed to properly support victims and to thoroughly investigate and prosecute cases.

In one of her first acts in the ministry, Defence Minister Anita Anand — acting on an interim recommendation from Arbour last year — moved to temporarily hand over in-progress investigations of sexual misconduct claims to civilian police forces. Complainants retained the right to have their cases handled by the military system.

The military was granted jurisdiction over its own sexual assault cases in 1988.

Arbour said the change is necessary because the military justice system often takes years to implement legal improvements made in the civilian system. She said that while non-military courts are imperfect, they have more experience in sexual misconduct cases and are better equipped to handle them.



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/former-supreme-court-justice-louise-arbour-sexual-misconduct-report-1.6468834


----------



## Navy_Pete

I see this as the natural consequence of being a sustained shit show for a while, and the whole Op Honour under Vance probably was the final nail in the coffin. Which makes me extra annoyed that they still haven't closed the loophole on court martialing some of the top people and don't at least automatically kick things over to the RCMP or similar

Having said that, as much as people complain, do we not have a comparable/better conviction rate for sexual harassment and assault? Would be ironic if after all this the situation got turned over to the civvie side and actually got worse.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Navy_Pete said:


> Having said that, as much as people complain, do we not have a comparable/better conviction rate for sexual harassment and assault? Would be ironic if after all this the situation got turned over to the civvie side and actually got worse.



It might be seen as a win/win to the current political and military leadership;  responsibility for investigation/trial processes is offloaded, military still retains ability to use Admin Measures concurrently.


----------



## SupersonicMax

daftandbarmy said:


> This just in...
> 
> Military should give up control of sexual assault cases permanently: former Supreme Court justice​The time has come for the Canadian Armed Forces to permanently give up control of investigations of sexual offences by its members, says a damning new report by a former Supreme Court justice that recommends sweeping changes — including an overhaul of the recruiting and military college systems.
> 
> The release of Louise Arbour's report concludes more than a year of work. Among its 48 recommendations is a call for civilian police and courts to handle all sexual assault cases involving allegations against military members going forward.
> 
> "The handling of sexual offences by military courts over the past 20 years has done very little to improve efficiency, discipline and morale. If anything, it has served to erode it," Arbour said Monday as she presented her report.
> 
> "Therefore, I see no basis for the Canadian armed forces to retain any jurisdiction over sexual offences and that jurisdiction should be vested exclusively with civilian authorities."
> 
> Military sexual trauma complainants have been demanding for decades that civilians take over sexual misconduct cases, arguing that the Canadian Armed Forces has failed to properly support victims and to thoroughly investigate and prosecute cases.
> 
> In one of her first acts in the ministry, Defence Minister Anita Anand — acting on an interim recommendation from Arbour last year — moved to temporarily hand over in-progress investigations of sexual misconduct claims to civilian police forces. Complainants retained the right to have their cases handled by the military system.
> 
> The military was granted jurisdiction over its own sexual assault cases in 1988.
> 
> Arbour said the change is necessary because the military justice system often takes years to implement legal improvements made in the civilian system. She said that while non-military courts are imperfect, they have more experience in sexual misconduct cases and are better equipped to handle them.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/former-supreme-court-justice-louise-arbour-sexual-misconduct-report-1.6468834


There are some unintended second and third order effects.  How’s a case, from a training establishment in, let’s say, Winnipeg, where there is a sexual assault of someone from Comox by someone from Ottawa.  That investigation, due to the three differenf jurisdictions, will be complex, slow. It will then be hard for Commanders to meet the victim’s right to information.  Not saying we shouldn’t do it but the mechanics of how something like this is implemented needs to be throroughtly looked at to make sure we don’t cause undue harm on victims.


----------



## Good2Golf

Navy_Pete said:


> It's really weird to be in an organization where you want to self select for a rank cap, based on an honest assessment of your own capabilities and interests, but if you try and do it you'll get punished with crappy postings and sidelined. Meanwhile power hungry arseholes who are good at self promotion and net working ride the self licking ice cream cone of the old boys club to the upper echelons and create this sort of mess we're in today.


…not weird.  

This stuff happens in industry as well.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Eye In The Sky said:


> Strat level commanders, but would they be the best choice for L1, specifically RCAF Comd with the associated responsibilities as AA etc?


L1s Commanders are Strat Level commanders. I would have no issue for a non-operator assume the role of AA.  The issues presented at that level don’t need a deep understanding of air operations.  A non-operator Comd would have a cadre of expert within DG Air Rdns to help with that. No different than a Comd pilot that has very little intimate knowledge of the Log side.  They have an A1 for that.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

SupersonicMax said:


> L1s Commanders are Strat Level commanders. I would have no issue for a non-operator assume the role of AA.  The issues presented at that level don’t need a deep understanding of air operations.  A non-operator Comd would have a cadre of expert within DG Air Rdns to help with that. No different than a Comd pilot that has very little intimate knowledge of the Log side.  They have an A1 for that.


Tks.

I am starting to wish courses like our IAEQ introduced NCMs to awareness of higher level functionality/relationships, as opposed to talking about H & A for a morning.  We end up quite disadvantaged on our knowledge and I think I'm demonstrating that well in this thread.   😁


----------



## Brad Sallows

> I am one of the 50+ year old types who've been around long enough that we might not realize how 'institutionalized' we are in our way of thinking.



It's not necessarily the way of thinking that's wrong.  Most lessons have been paid for.  What's flawed is forgetting the lesson.


----------



## dapaterson

SupersonicMax said:


> There are some unintended second and third order effects.  How’s a case, from a training establishment in, let’s say, Winnipeg, where there is a sexual assault of someone from Comox by someone from Ottawa.  That investigation, due to the three differenf jurisdictions, will be complex, slow. It will then be hard for Commanders to meet the victim’s right to information.  Not saying we shouldn’t do it but the mechanics of how something like this is implemented needs to be throroughtly looked at to make sure we don’t cause undue harm on victims.


As Madame Arbour noted in the press conference, there are about 30 CAF sexual assault cases a year - not an unmanageable number.


----------



## SupersonicMax

dapaterson said:


> As Madame Arbour noted in the press conference, there are about 30 CAF sexual assault cases a year - not an unmanageable number.


I am not saying it is unmanageable but there are secondary and tertiary effects that need to be considered.  In he example I provided, I would be interested to see if we would be able, as commanders, to respect victims’ right to information.


----------



## brihard

SupersonicMax said:


> There are some unintended second and third order effects.  How’s a case, from a training establishment in, let’s say, Winnipeg, where there is a sexual assault of someone from Comox by someone from Ottawa.  That investigation, due to the three differenf jurisdictions, will be complex, slow. It will then be hard for Commanders to meet the victim’s right to information.  Not saying we shouldn’t do it but the mechanics of how something like this is implemented needs to be throroughtly looked at to make sure we don’t cause undue harm on victims.


Nothing weird or complex there. Winnipeg Police has the file, and either arranges to obtain a statement from the Comox victim or asks RCMP to obtain one. They do their investigation, seek statements from others as needed, and if they get to the point of charges, lay the charge, and get a warrant for arrest with extension to Ontario, and send a CPIC message to Ottawa Police asking them to execute.

Offences that cross jurisdictions are pretty common and police are accustomed to asking and providing assistance. No different from any police in a resort town having to investigate a sexual assault reported after the fact where victim and accused have each respectively gone home.


----------



## SupersonicMax

brihard said:


> Nothing weird or complex there. Winnipeg Police has the file, and either arranges to obtain a statement from the Comox victim or asks RCMP to obtain one. They do their investigation, seek statements from others as needed, and if they get to the point of charges, lay the charge, and get a warrant for arrest with extension to Ontario, and send a CPIC message to Ottawa Police asking them to execute.
> 
> Offences that cross jurisdictions are pretty common and police are accustomed to asking and providing assistance. No different from any police in a resort town having to investigate a sexual assault reported after the fact where victim and accused have each respectively gone home.


The difference is that there is now a duty to inform a victim of the goings of an investigation (if the victim so desires), would Winnipeg police be open to share some information to the military CoC?


----------



## brihard

SupersonicMax said:


> The difference is that there is now a duty to inform a victim of the goings of an investigation (if the victim so desires), would Winnipeg police be open to share some information to the military CoC?


Keeping victims reasonably informed of the state of an investigation is just good practice. The community expects it. We don’t go into much detail of course, but there’s nothing outlandish about being expected to have some ongoing followup with the victim. I don’t know how, precisely, that information sharing would take place in the CAF context, but quite frankly, I would expect Winnipeg police to keep the victim reasonably up to date, and to offer the chain of command a blank stare. Police can keep a victim in the loop without having to involve the chain of command at all.


----------



## SupersonicMax

brihard said:


> Keeping victims reasonably informed of the state of an investigation is just good practice. The community expects it. We don’t go into much detail of course, but there’s nothing outlandish about being expected to have some ongoing followup with the victim. I don’t know how, precisely, that information sharing would take place in the CAF context, but quite frankly, I would expect Winnipeg police to keep the victim reasonably up to date, and to offer the chain of command a blank stare. Police can keep a victim in the loop without having to involve the chain of command at all.


Except the CoC, with the implementation of Bill C-77, has a duty to inform the victim.


----------



## ballz

I like this one, I actually specifically recommended this to Madam Arbour in my interview with her, albeit I only specified those being selected for CO appointments (and not CO _and above_), she took it to another level.

"*Recommendation #34:* The new processes for GOFOs, including psychometric testing and 360-degree multi-rater assessment should, at a minimum, be expanded to candidates being considered for promotion to the rank of lieutenant-colonel/commander or above, or to the rank of chief warrant officer/chief petty officer 1st class."

I also like the idea of secondments to the private sector... not so much other government departments (which is likely what it will primarily turn into), we've got enough public servants wearing a uniform.

I am disappointed to see DMCA wasn't raked over the coals, nothing was really addressed about our remedial measure system, and certainly not to the extent that I believe necessary (a proper, open and transparent, _public_ system for professional performance and conduct issues) which we've discussed in other parts of the forum.


----------



## daftandbarmy

ballz said:


> I like this one, I actually specifically recommended this to Madam Arbour in my interview with her, albeit I only specified those being selected for CO appointments (and not CO _and above_), she took it to another level.
> 
> "*Recommendation #34:* The new processes for GOFOs, including psychometric testing and 360-degree multi-rater assessment should, at a minimum, be expanded to candidates being considered for promotion to the rank of lieutenant-colonel/commander or above, or to the rank of chief warrant officer/chief petty officer 1st class."
> 
> I also like the idea of secondments to the private sector... not so much other government departments (which is likely what it will primarily turn into), we've got enough public servants wearing a uniform.
> 
> I am disappointed to see DMCA wasn't raked over the coals, nothing was really addressed about our remedial measure system, and certainly not to the extent that I believe necessary (a proper, open and transparent, _public_ system for professional performance and conduct issues) which we've discussed in other parts of the forum.



That's a great recommendation, #34.

However, I don't know what they're getting at with the private sector secondments though. What would be the perceived benefit to each party?

I wouldn't even think of taking on a 'rookie' LCol for anything remotely client related, in a professional services firm context at any rate. That would be far too risky unless we had the opportunity to put them through an appropriate selection process first. 

And then what would you do with the 'rejects'?

Same goes for quite a range of public sector jobs too. CAF Officers/SNCOs working in a heavily unionized workplaces would be hilarious though (I'm looking at you HMCS Dockyard  ).

It would have to be well thought out and executed to ensure that both parties got the maximum benefit from the experience. Maybe build a phased approach with Phase 1 seeing them start at Macdonald's with a night shift, kind of like Undercover Boss


----------



## Edward Campbell

daftandbarmy said:


> You've just described _a competency based leadership development culture which, of course, is intentionally blind to specific technical skills_ and is used effectively by many gigantic organizations around the world.
> 
> And now I need to sit down because my head is spinning with excitement


 The higher levels of the command and the staff *can* be competency based *IF* the military culture is able to (trained) to be blind to cap badges. I used SF Clark as one example. He was, generally, regarded as the officer who, in the 1950s dragged the Army, kicking and screaming, out of Italy and Normandy and made them think about fighting - and beating - masses of Warsaw Pact forces on the North German Plain. We ended up with a modern, effective time, mechanized, mobile, nuclear tipped force despite the efforts of the armoured corps and the infantry.

Someone else used Ramsey Withers as an example. He was well known in his (our) Corps, as a captain, for his technical and leadership skills. He went to the Army Staff College - it was then a two year brutally hard course - all entered the Staff College as fairly senior captains; entrance was by examination, only. About half the course passed, about half of them passed out as majors. The stated aim of the course was to prepare officers for Grade 1 (LCol) and 2 (Maj) staff appointments in a division or higher HQ - several graduate were sent to British div and corps HQs - one of the lessons SF Clark and others learned from the 1930s was that we needed to assign officers to "one way" exchange posts in other armies. The Brits actually accepted us a equals - Canadian officers serving in UK HQs and units were treated almost exactly as the CO or chief of staff treated his British officers and were given full command/staff authority. (This, I have been told, is something the US military finds very, very difficult (Impossible?) to consider, but my own experience - sending officers to a joint technical agency in Annapolis - was that the Americans were very welcoming but there was no command or management authority involved so that might have made a difference.)

By tradition the top candidate from that long, hard Army Staff course, if a major, was selected to be the brigade major (chief of staff) of 4CIBG - a mechanized force of 6,500+ with organic helicopters and a  nuclear missile battery. Ramsey Withers was the top candidate on his course and he went to 4CIBG circa 1964. He never returned to the RCCS/C&E Branch. Every single job he had after BM 4CIBG was of a "general" nature - including SSO Operations at Mobile Command HQ. And that was the model for many of his predecessors and some of his successors: they (people like Clark and Walsh in the Army) were generalists and the Army recognized that. Not everyone liked the idea of engineer and signals officers being formation commanders and very senior staff officers but there were enough people who were 'colour blind' cap badge blind to  make the system work. My personal, out-of-touch ((I've been retired for a quarter off a century) sense is that is no longer the case.


----------



## brihard

SupersonicMax said:


> Except the CoC, with the implementation of Bill C-77, has a duty to inform the victim.


Does it? 70.02 - 70.04 of NDA establish that a victim “has the right, on request” to certain types of information. It doesn’t specify who must provide it. It also applies in the case of “service offences” which, yes, at present would cover it, but which we may see change with future reforms. In any case, if Winnipeg Police provided the victim with the required info, it looks like the statutory requirements would be satisfied.

EDIT TO ADD: I then went further and saw the sections about the “victim liaison officer” that facilitates these things. I’ll have to ponder that further. I suspect this will be something that gets smoothed out in legislative amendment in the wake of the new report. I can see the concern you’re bringing up now.


----------



## dapaterson

But NDA 70.02-70.04 only apply to charges under the NDA, not to charges laid under the criminal code.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Well, we made the New York "quality press" - Canada’s Military, Where Sexual Misconduct Went to the Top, Looks for a New Path

The last time that happened, almost 30 years ago -  Insight: Lessons for U.S. from Canada's "basket case" moment - we, as a country, finally got serious about our national debt and continuing deficits.

Maybe that's what is needed to spark reform.


----------



## dimsum

Edward Campbell said:


> Maybe that's what is needed to spark reform.


Colour me cautiously optimistic.


----------



## AKa

Did I miss the part where they explain who will investigate on deployed operations?


----------



## Eaglelord17

I personally think sending all Sexual Assault and Harassment cases to the civilian police will be a mistake. What people forget is civilian police aren’t necessarily better at handling it (plenty of cases civvy side which are dismissed, screwed up, or considered low priority). Having dealt with the MPs in relation to this they were exceptionally professional and willing to investigate.

I could see cases above a certain rank going the civilian route just for impartiality reasons, but for the rank and file our system as it stands works quite well.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

AKa said:


> Did I miss the part where they explain who will investigate on deployed operations?


Says essentially that on deployed operations, MPs will secure the scene and evidence until such time as a a civilian investigation can be initiated.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

rmc_wannabe said:


> Says essentially that on deployed operations, MPs will secure the scene and evidence until such time as a a civilian investigation can be initiated.


I wonder how practical that will be on a two way range? Which police department? Pembroke OPP? SQ? RCMP? 

I can also just about guarantee a Charter challenge from the defence lawyer of first service member charged overseas, on the basis of extra-territoriality. What if the host nation asserts jurisdiction and it is a place like Afghanistan? Then what?

I fail to see how this is going to work overseas, without some unintended consequences.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

SeaKingTacco said:


> I wonder how practical that will be on a two way range? Which police department? Pembroke OPP? SQ? RCMP?
> 
> I can also just about guarantee a Charter challenge from the defence lawyer of first service member charged overseas, on the basis of extra-territoriality. What if the host nation asserts jurisdiction and it is a place like Afghanistan? Then what?
> 
> I fail to see how this is going to work overseas, without some unintended consequences.


Forget Afghanistan, some of the countries we have a SoFA with are ones I wouldn't want investigating a traffic incident, let alone a SA. The fact one can make a speeding ticket disappear with 450 zloty while in Poland (a nation with terrible human rights infringements on LGBTQ2IA+ folk, women, and minorities) means I have very little confidence in their ability to investigate an SA impartially. 

Unless the RCMP is going to get a carte blanche to pop on out to whatever shit hole we hang out hat to investigate after the MPs collect evidence, I don't see it being practical or beneficial. What should have happened in that report is a recommendation to have the CAF PM report directly to the Justice Minister/Minister of Public Safety .  That would take away the inference that the MP Group is influenced/Manipulated by the CoC, because they are removed from it. 

Without changes to the NDA and the CCC, and having those means tested by the SCC, I don't foresee this recommendation working.


----------



## dapaterson

> Jurisdiction of Civil Courts​Marginal note:Offences committed outside Canada
> 
> *273* Where a person subject to the Code of Service Discipline does any act or omits to do anything while outside Canada which, if done or omitted in Canada by that person, would be an offence punishable by a civil court, that offence is within the competence of, and may be tried and punished by, a civil court having jurisdiction in respect of such an offence in the place in Canada where that person is found in the same manner as if the offence had been committed in that place, or by any other court to which jurisdiction has been lawfully transferred.
> 
> 
> R.S., c. N-4, s. 231


----------



## WLSC

rmc_wannabe said:


> Forget Afghanistan, some of the countries we have a SoFA with are ones I wouldn't want investigating a traffic incident, let alone a SA. The fact one can make a speeding ticket disappear with 450 zloty while in Poland (a nation with terrible human rights infringements on LGBTQ2IA+ folk, women, and minorities) means I have very little confidence in their ability to investigate an SA impartially.
> 
> Unless the RCMP is going to get a carte blanche to pop on out to whatever shit hole we hang out hat to investigate after the MPs collect evidence, I don't see it being practical or beneficial. What should have happened in that report is a recommendation to have the CAF PM report directly to the Justice Minister/Minister of Public Safety .  That would take away the inference that the MP Group is influenced/Manipulated by the CoC, because they are removed from it.
> 
> Without changes to the NDA and the CCC, and having those means tested by the SCC, I don't foresee this recommendation working.


I would have gone further.  Bring back the military prevoty for military task and bring the RCMP in for the rest.  That would solve all the CoC (perceptions of not) influence out.  If I remember well, it was similar to that during WW2.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Right- not arguing that part of the NDA, but alot of things can happen to taint an investigation overseas, without a dedicated, on scene investigative capability.


----------



## dapaterson

The paucity of reported OUTCAN / deployed incidents suggest this is a minor issue.  Not to downplay it, but fewer than one case a year


----------



## btrudy

More of the usual

Report calls on head of military police to apologize for how it handled investigation 


> The Military Police Complaints Commission has called on the head of the military police to apologize to a female _Royal Military College of Canada _cadet officer and to the family of a male cadet officer who harassed her while dealing with mental health issues.
> 
> The investigation looked into incidents in March 2019 when the female officer cadet accused the male cadet of harassing her.
> 
> She told military police in Kingston she believed the man was suffering from “obvious mental illness” and that she feared for her safety.
> 
> Two months later, the male cadet said he gave the female cadet money in return for a romantic relationship.
> 
> Police then told him he’d probably face criminal charges for trying to solicit a sexual service.
> 
> The cadet attempted suicide twice and survived. One of the times landed him on life support and he is still living with the effects.


----------



## daftandbarmy

dapaterson said:


> The paucity of reported OUTCAN / deployed incidents suggest this is a minor issue.  Not to downplay it, but fewer than one case a year



Probably more like trying to avoid international embarrassment by:


----------



## Quirky

btrudy said:


> More of the usual
> 
> Report calls on head of military police to apologize for how it handled investigation


Harassment isn't unique to RMC, this kind of crap happens in every college and university across Canada.


----------



## btrudy

Quirky said:


> Harassment isn't unique to RMC, this kind of crap happens in every college and university across Canada.



Well yeah, it's also not unique to RMC, this kind of crap happens in every CAF unit across Canada.

Hence the thread.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Quirky said:


> Harassment isn't unique to RMC, this kind of crap happens in every college and university across Canada.


It isn't unique to RMC, however, these folks aren't just braindead students who Mommy and Daddy paid to go to their Alma Mater; these are professional soldiers who are receiving an education, paid for by the Canadian taxpayer. 

One would expect people at a Military Academy to not be involved in "School of Hard Knockers" shenanigans, but history has shown otherwise.


----------



## Quirky

rmc_wannabe said:


> professional soldiers



That's a bold claim for college officer cadets. They are not yet professionals and not even close to being called a soldier. There is a marginal and insignificant difference between a RMC cadet and your average college student.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Quirky said:


> That's a bold claim for college officer cadets. They are not yet professionals and not even close to being called a soldier. There is a marginal and insignificant difference between a RMC cadet and your average college student.


If they're in receipt of pay and allowances, wear the uniform of the CAF, and are held to the same rules and regulations as the rest of us, they're professional soldiers. I think half the problems we have seen out of RMC have been because people aren't holding them to account because "they're just students..." 

I am working at another school here in Kingston. I can say with confidence that the "students" here will not get a pass on things because of that status. We have Administrative and Disciplinary measures for a reason. If RMC doesn't want to apply them because "student," you reap what you sow.


----------



## GK .Dundas

Part of the problem is the pressure applied by the Old Boys Network (TM.) Some of who are are on campus.
Ironically most of them probably wouldn't have behaved in such a fashion
 And if they had would have found themselves on bus trying to think of an explanation for their families.


----------



## Remius

RMC demographics are no where near the same demographics that civy U has. 

4th year students at Civy U have no authority over 1st year students at civy U 

There is more than just a marginal difference.


----------



## Good2Golf

GK .Dundas said:


> Part of the problem is the pressure applied by the Old Boys Network (TM.) Some of who are are on campus.
> Ironically most of them probably wouldn't have behaved in such a fashion
> And if they had would have found themselves on bus trying to think of an explanation for their families.



Interesting comments.

Do you happen to know who the current (and one of the most outspoken for the College to remain open) Presidents of the RMC Alumni Association is? 🤔


----------



## OldSolduer

I have very little knowledge on how RMC works but if I may offer the following advice:

For those of you that are still in please don't go off half cocked. By that I mean any incident needs a thorough investigation before charges are laid or whatever COA you take.

Careers and lives have been ruined over rumor, innuendo and false allegations.


----------



## daftandbarmy

OldSolduer said:


> I have very little knowledge on how RMC works but if I may offer the following advice:
> 
> For those of you that are still in please don't go off half cocked. By that I mean any incident needs a thorough investigation before charges are laid or whatever COA you take.
> 
> Careers and lives have been ruined over rumor, innuendo and false allegations.



Mark Norman knows.... 

Top Canadian military commander Mark Norman relieved of post​Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, the second-in-command of Canada’s military, has been relieved of his post.​








						Top Canadian military commander Mark Norman relieved of post
					

Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, the second-in-command of Canada’s military, has been relieved of his post.




					www.thestar.com


----------



## Lumber

Does anyone have any insight into recommendation 11? They don't want us reporting sexual misconduct, and in fact recommend that "Consideration should be given to abolishing the duty to report for all infractions under the Code of Service Discipline."? So is be allowed to see a sailor stealing/harassing/scarily assaulting and I wouldn't have a duty to report it?


----------



## GK .Dundas

Good2Golf said:


> Interesting comments.
> 
> Do you happen to know who the current (and one of the most outspoken for the College to remain open) Presidents of the RMC Alumni Association is? 🤔


I know about 3 or 4 graduates and a couple whomI have spoken to are livid about some of the stories.that have come out . One of whom thinks the death penalty doesn't go far enough.
Mind you he has a grand daughter who is talking about going to RMC.
And yes I know who she is and I don't want to see it close either . I just want it to clean up it's collective act.


----------



## btrudy

Lumber said:


> Does anyone have any insight into recommendation 11? They don't want us reporting sexual misconduct, and in fact recommend that "Consideration should be given to abolishing the duty to report for all infractions under the Code of Service Discipline."? So is be allowed to see a sailor stealing/harassing/scarily assaulting and I wouldn't have a duty to report it?



It should be a victim's choice of whether or not the incident be reported officially. Many many people feel like the investigation only serves to re-victimize them. Simply confiding in someone that you were assaulted shouldn't ever take the choice of whether or not the incident is reported out of their hands.


----------



## Lumber

btrudy said:


> It should be a victim's choice of whether or not the incident be reported officially. Many many people feel like the investigation only serves to re-victimize them. Simply confiding in someone that you were assaulted shouldn't ever take the choice of whether or not the incident is reported out of their hands.


Ok fine I can buy that in some minor cases where there is a victim to retraumatize, but:
1. If someone is violently raped, I need to report that to ensure that the rest of my unit is safe; and
2. How is this justified in cases where there is no victim?


----------



## Good2Golf

GK .Dundas said:


> I know about 3 or 4 graduates and a couple who I have spoken to are livid about some of the stories.that come out . One of whom thinks the death penalty doesn't go far enough.
> Mind you he has a grand daughter who is talking about going to RMC.


I don’t doubt it, my son also experienced poor conduct there, but not always internal, and definitely not all from the currently-trending white male cause. 

Proponency to keep RMC open, like my son’s experiences, does not always lead back to white males.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Remius said:


> RMC demographics are no where near the same demographics that civy U has.
> 
> 4th year students at Civy U have no authority over 1st year students at civy U
> 
> There is more than just a marginal difference.



And that is probably the reason for this recommendation in the Arbour report.

*Recommendation #28: *The Cadet Wing responsibility and authority command structure should be eliminated.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Blackadder1916 said:


> And that is probably the reason for this recommendation in the Arbour report.
> 
> *Recommendation #28: *The Cadet Wing responsibility and authority command structure should be eliminated.


Cadets have zero authority at RMC.  Anything a Cadet does, including sanctions, requires Staff Approval.  If staff screw up and don't do their job or use common sense, that's on them.


----------



## OldSolduer

Good2Golf said:


> I don’t doubt it, my son also experienced poor conduct there, but not always internal, and definitely not all from the currently-trending white male cause.
> 
> Proponency to keep RMC open, like my son’s experiences, does not always lead back to white males.


There is poor conduct examples at every school, unit etc. There are some people who are toxic but for whatever reason they are rarely reigned in.


----------



## Eaglelord17

Blackadder1916 said:


> And that is probably the reason for this recommendation in the Arbour report.
> 
> *Recommendation #28: *The Cadet Wing responsibility and authority command structure should be eliminated.


The question being when do we start placing people in positions of authority then?

It seems to me a lot of our issues stem from the fact we are failing to train and prepare people, defaulting to higher and higher ranks for things that were done at much lower levels in the past. This in turn increases how risk adverse we are and results in less and less prepared people. Look at the Russians right now to see where that gets us.


----------



## dapaterson

For those interested, the law firm Mme Arbour works for has posted a link to the complete report:



			https://www.blg.com/-/media/about-us/documents/20220526iecreviewdndcafe.pdf?la=en&hash=6FE42C2C337AFA44FE6D18F030E8B7EF


----------



## daftandbarmy

btrudy said:


> It should be a victim's choice of whether or not the incident be reported officially. Many many people feel like the investigation only serves to re-victimize them. Simply confiding in someone that you were assaulted shouldn't ever take the choice of whether or not the incident is reported out of their hands.



OK, so let me get this straight:

Soldier A punches Soldier B in the Mess in a drunken brawl. This must be reported.

Soldier A sexually assaults Soldier B in the Mess. This must not be reported unless the alleged victim wants it reported.
...

Just wondering...


----------



## Quirky

Don't go to messes.


----------



## Ostrozac

Quirky said:


> Don't go to messes.


There is case law that you can be ordered to go the mess, so that isn’t always an option. The future of messes is certainly one aspect of our culture that does need to be addressed; for an institution that was widely believed to have been in decline for decades, messes do seem to show up with frequency in court martial transcripts.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Ostrozac said:


> There is case law that you can be ordered to go the mess, so that isn’t always an option. The future of messes is certainly one aspect of our culture that does need to be addressed; for an institution that was widely believed to have been in decline for decades, messes do seem to show up with frequency in court martial transcripts.



'The Mess' certainly featured in the only fatality sustained by my old unit since WW2:

Army sergeant dead after fight​


			https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/army-sergeant-dead-after-fight-1.319191


----------



## rmc_wannabe

daftandbarmy said:


> OK, so let me get this straight:
> 
> Soldier A punches Soldier B in the Mess in a drunken brawl. This must be reported.
> 
> Soldier A sexually assaults Soldier B in the Mess. This must not be reported unless the alleged victim wants it reported.
> ...
> 
> Just wondering...


In one case, Soldier B will not be grilled, questioned, brought into their previous experiences with being punched, asked what they were wearing when they got punched, asked if they were maybe getting punched consensually, or if they maybe enjoyed getting punched, etc.  during cross examination.

Sexual assault is awful as it is. The process of getting a conviction for a perpetrator can be even worse for a survivor, and even that is not guaranteed. By enforcing the Duty to Report, you take away the option of the survivor to decide of that is an ordeal they want to go through; a lot of them k ow the statistics and going g to trial may not be what helps them heal and move forward after the event and can re traumatized them.

The Sexual Violence First Responder course that Survivor Perspectives ran for us went I to great detail about this and stated priority numero uno in SA situations is supporting the victim; it runs counter to everything we do in the military, where Duty to Report and wanting to right a wrong are core to our "Never Pass a Fault" mentality.

This recommendation I think will do a better job of letting survivors drive the bus in their own recovery, instead of us having to retraumatize someone in the pursuit of "justice"


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Duty to report being changed doesn’t mean you can’t report. 

It means if you don’t report you’re no longer committing an offence yourself.  It provides flexibility.


----------



## lenaitch

SeaKingTacco said:


> I wonder how practical that will be on a two way range? Which police department? Pembroke OPP? SQ? RCMP?
> 
> I can also just about guarantee a Charter challenge from the defence lawyer of first service member charged overseas, on the basis of extra-territoriality. What if the host nation asserts jurisdiction and it is a place like Afghanistan? Then what?
> 
> I fail to see how this is going to work overseas, without some unintended consequences.


If the numbers in a previous post are correct - about 30 per year - it would seem that those that might occur  out-of-country will be measured in the ones or twos; but the potential needs to be considered.  The time lapse between occurrence and the parachuting in of a civilian investigator might have a negative impact on the victim, particularly if the perpetrator is not in custody.  Depending on the nature of the offence, the evidence might include biological samples that one would hope CAF personnel would have the expertise to collect and preserve.

I'm not that familiar with the provisions of the NDA or extra-territorial application of the Criminal Code, but if a civilian investigator needs to obtain judicial authorization to obtain evidence (search warrant, production order, etc.) from whom would they obtain it?

Who is assigned?  RCMP federal policing?  Police service/detachment?  Which one?  If it is a non-RCMP police service, travel authorities (as well as who's paying) can take time to sort out.

Again, the numbers may not be large, but figuring it out beforehand will prevent a deer-in-the-headlights response.


----------



## daftandbarmy

rmc_wannabe said:


> In one case, Soldier B will not be grilled, questioned, brought into their previous experiences with being punched, asked what they were wearing when they got punched, asked if they were maybe getting punched consensually, or if they maybe enjoyed getting punched, etc.  during cross examination.
> 
> Sexual assault is awful as it is. The process of getting a conviction for a perpetrator can be even worse for a survivor, and even that is not guaranteed. By enforcing the Duty to Report, you take away the option of the survivor to decide of that is an ordeal they want to go through; a lot of them k ow the statistics and going g to trial may not be what helps them heal and move forward after the event and can re traumatized them.
> 
> The Sexual Violence First Responder course that Survivor Perspectives ran for us went I to great detail about this and stated priority numero uno in SA situations is supporting the victim; it runs counter to everything we do in the military, where Duty to Report and wanting to right a wrong are core to our "Never Pass a Fault" mentality.
> 
> This recommendation I think will do a better job of letting survivors drive the bus in their own recovery, instead of us having to retraumatize someone in the pursuit of "justice"



I get that.

It's just that, in my limited experience with the subject, sexual predators tend to terrorize their victims to ensure they don't report anything 'or else', you know, they'll kill them and their families (this was the situation with one particular incident as I recall).

In this case another soldier reported the sexual assault, the poor victim was released from Hell, and the perp charged and jailed. We would never have found out otherwise, I'm sure.

Again, I'm no expert, but it bears thinking about...


----------



## TCM621

Blackadder1916 said:


> And that is probably the reason for this recommendation in the Arbour report.
> 
> *Recommendation #28: *The Cadet Wing responsibility and authority command structure should be eliminated.


The whole point of going to a military college is to be put in positions of progressively more authority to develop your leadership skills before you lead troops. Maybe the problem is that there needs to be oversight and people who abuse their authority need to be dealt with harshly up to and including release, if warranted.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

TCM621 said:


> The whole point of going to a military college is to be put in positions of progressively more authority to develop your leadership skills before you lead troops. Maybe the problem is that there needs to be oversight and people who abuse their authority need to be dealt with harshly up to and including release, if warranted.


Crawl, Walk, Run. 

Being in charge of muster parades, attendance, Dress, Drill, Deportment.... 100 percent crawl tasks thar should be put onto Senior Cadets.

Having to initiate responses for SA, Harrassment, Mental Health issues, suicide, and any number of "oh shit" instances as a Senior Cadet? Fucking nope. Those are full on sprint scenarios that require experienced leadership and mentoring to step in. 

There is policing your own, and then there's this Lord of the Flies shit that has been going on at RMC for too long. It needs to stop.


----------



## Ping Monkey

This is like adding gasoline to the fire...

Not good. 



> Ottawa May 31, 2022 – In its Final Report into a Public Interest Investigation (PII) publicly released today, the Military Police Complaints Commission (MPCC) has called on the head of the Military Police to apologize to a female Officer Cadet and to the family of a male Officer Cadet for failures in its investigations into incidents involving criminal harassment and mental health issues which occurred at the Royal Military College of Canada (RMCC).
> 
> The PII was related to interactions between two Officer Cadets. In March 2019, a female Officer Cadet at RMCC alleged that a male counterpart was harassing her.  She told a member of the Military Police (MP) at the Kingston, Ontario, MP detachment that the male Officer Cadet had an obvious mental illness and that she feared for her safety.
> 
> Two months later, the male Officer Cadet alleged that he had given money to the female Officer Cadet, expecting a romantic relationship would develop, but that this had not happened. The MP member who interviewed him told him that he would “probably” face criminal charges for soliciting a sexual service. The male Officer Cadet subsequently attempted suicide. Following a second suicide attempt, he was put on life support.  While he has been discharged, he remains medically compromised.
> 
> *The Military Police did not lay any charges in connection with the incidents.*








						Registrar Public Interest Investigation (MPCC-2020-013) - Homepage
					

Homepage of the Registrar Public Interest Investigation (MPCC-2020-013) of the Military Police Complaints Commission of Canada




					www.mpcc-cppm.gc.ca


----------



## Navy_Pete

TCM621 said:


> The whole point of going to a military college is to be put in positions of progressively more authority to develop your leadership skills before you lead troops. Maybe the problem is that there needs to be oversight and people who abuse their authority need to be dealt with harshly up to and including release, if warranted.


And yet, ROTP and DEO recruits get none of that and manage. From what I could tell working alongside RMC grads, they had as much relevant and practical experience as we did (which is to say, very little to none). Everyone starts with the same small party tasking etc on basic up to the running the sections and recruit platoon, so that's more directly relevant and useful.

We give everyone annual performance reviews, so someone should be able to do a clear comparison of the performance over time to see if it actually makes a difference, but as far as I can tell working with people the performance has nothing to do with the stream they joined under and more to do with the individual.

You have folks joining up later that were entrepreneurs, managers etc that have a lot more life skills that directly transfer into the same kind of skills needed to lead troops much better than getting a team to build some crappy stand or set up some mod tents.

I think it's a lot of theoretical benefits and a bit of mythos around the tradition vice any real tangible benefits personally. High performers are going to be high performers regardless of where they went to school. 🤷‍♂️


----------



## daftandbarmy

Navy_Pete said:


> *And yet, ROTP and DEO recruits get none of that and manage.*🤷‍♂️



And RESO Officers, and Gold Star Cadets etc etc etc


----------



## rmc_wannabe

daftandbarmy said:


> And RESO Officers, and Gold Star Cadets etc etc etc


Makes me wonder if it's a matter of pedigree, vice ability/performance, that keeps the RMC "Ring Knocker" cliché alive.

I didn't see it as prevalent when I was working with the U.S. military, but it makes me wonder if this is just certain folks having a chip on their shoulder, as we draw our officer pool from many sources. A self imposed "us and them" that serves no real purpose.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

rmc_wannabe said:


> Makes me wonder if it's a matter of pedigree, vice ability/performance, that keeps the RMC "Ring Knocker" cliché alive.
> 
> I didn't see it as prevalent when I was working with the U.S. military, but it makes me wonder if this is just certain folks having a chip on their shoulder, as we draw our officer pool from many sources. A self imposed "us and them" that serves no real purpose.


Where I work, we have a mix of all possible streams- RMC, ROTP, DEO and even a few CEOTPs.

I don’t see a big difference in officership based on entry scheme. Near as I can tell, it comes down to the inherent traits that the Officer brought to the CAF.

I other words, if we select well, treat people well, lead and guide them properly, what the entry scheme is does not seem to be a differentiator- at least where I work.


----------



## FJAG

Navy_Pete said:


> And yet, ROTP and DEO recruits get none of that and manage.


I came through the OCTP stream and during what would now be the equivalent of Phase 4 arty training and our first year in the regiment, there wasn't a whiff of difference between us and our RMC counterparts in what we brought to the table as junior leaders and in technical competence.

My basic officer training, including BOTC and basic artillery training, was 11 months. If you can't teach a young man the fundamentals of leadership and their core classification competencies in all that time then you're just not doing it right. Four years spent siting in a classroom is a tremendous waste of a young persons most formative years that would be better spent in contact with their troops and practicing their profession. Six months leading a rifle platoon or a gun troop with a good NCO by your side is worth a decade of being a martinet in the halls of RMC.

$.02

🍻


----------



## dimsum

SeaKingTacco said:


> Where I work, we have a mix of all possible streams- RMC, ROTP, DEO and even a few CEOTPs.
> 
> I don’t see a big difference in officership based on entry scheme. Near as I can tell, it comes down to the inherent traits that the Officer brought to the CAF.
> 
> I other words, if we select well, treat people well, lead and guide them properly, what the entry scheme is does not seem to be a differentiator- at least where I work.


Agreed.

Some of the best people I've worked with/for were RMC grads.

Some of the worst people I've worked with/for were RMC grads.


----------



## Ostrozac

One of the best arguments that RMC had going for it over other commissioning plans was that it created bilingual officers early in their career, saving the traditional and expensive practice of pulling your best leaders out of units mid-career so that they learn enough language skill to promote. That premise was challenged directly on page 226 of the report, where Madame Arbour pointed out just how few people at RMC seemed willing or capable of functioning in French.


----------



## Navy_Pete

rmc_wannabe said:


> Makes me wonder if it's a matter of pedigree, vice ability/performance, that keeps the RMC "Ring Knocker" cliché alive.
> 
> I didn't see it as prevalent when I was working with the U.S. military, but it makes me wonder if this is just certain folks having a chip on their shoulder, as we draw our officer pool from many sources. A self imposed "us and them" that serves no real purpose.


I was in a meeting once where someone actually knocked their ring on the table to interject a point; I'm not sure if it was intentional but there was a few of us laughing at them fairly openly until we could get ourselves under control; I thought it was just an absurd stereotype but not something that would actually happen, especially when they weren't being ironic or something as a joke.

Probably a good example of the worse kind of RMC grad, but probably would have just been a bit insufferable in a different way if they had gone somewhere else (or might just have knocked a grad ring from whatever university they went to instead).

When we are so strapped for people, tying up a lot working as instructors, divOs etc to deliver an undergrad program doesn't make sense to me, when we have all kinds of excellent universities in Canada that do it better for cheaper. The infrastructure required to deliver a university program for a school with less students than my high school is a bit mind boggling. Our actual training establishments for trades training are usually strapped for people and resources, so I think we'd be better off using that and just focusing on the core military trades training. Along those lines, lots of relevant core technical trades that can be delivered in partnership with different colleges, which we've pulled away from.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

TSN turning point today:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1532093036683055109
The WOKE/SJW/#MeToo Movement might come crashing down sooner than we think.


----------



## dimsum

Humphrey Bogart said:


> TSN turning point today:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1532093036683055109
> The WOKE/SJW/#MeToo Movement might come crashing down sooner than we think.


I purposely avoided anything to do with this.  Aside from the "crapping the bed" memes that the world has seen, what's the Coles Notes on the saga?


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Humphrey Bogart said:


> TSN turning point today:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1532093036683055109
> The WOKE/SJW/#MeToo Movement might come crashing down sooner than we think.


I wouldn't say that. I would say it opens up the #MeToo doors to men. They have a pretty public and landmark case to say they can be victims of domestic violence or abusive partners too.


----------



## KevinB

rmc_wannabe said:


> I wouldn't say that. I would say it opens up the #MeToo doors to men. They have a pretty public and landmark case to say they can be victims of domestic violence or abusive partners too.


Or that two crazy people should not get together…


----------



## rmc_wannabe

KevinB said:


> Or that two crazy people should not get together…


That is always true. They bothbwere very toxic people to be clear. The only issue I saw was that Ms. Heard was by far the worse of the two of them. She also got a pass because, in her own words "no one is going to believe you" because ...well.... men don't get abused right?


----------



## daftandbarmy

rmc_wannabe said:


> I wouldn't say that. I would say it opens up the #MeToo doors to men. They have a pretty public and landmark case to say they can be victims of domestic violence or abusive partners too.



And beating up her husband didn't even stop Julie Payette from becoming Governor General. Now that's progress, right? 

2011 assault charge on Payette against ex-husband Flynn​The online political publication _iPolitics_ has reported that Governor General Designate Julie Payette was charged in 2011 with second-degree assault on her husband at the time, former RCAF colonel Billie Flynn. Payette told _iPolitics_ the charge was “unfounded” and has since been expunged. The Prime Minister’s Office is said to be refusing to confirm it had prior knowledge. The alleged offence took place on November 24, 2011 in Piney Point, Maryland, where Payette was living with Flynn. 









						2011 assault charge on Payette against ex-husband Flynn
					

The online political publication iPolitics has reported that Governor General Designate Julie Payette was charged in 2011 with second-degree assault on her husband at the time, former RCAF colonel …




					bayview-news.com


----------



## Jarnhamar

dimsum said:


> I purposely avoided anything to do with this.  Aside from the "crapping the bed" memes that the world has seen, what's the Coles Notes on the saga?



6 weeks of watching Amber Heard lie, commit perjury, act stupid and clueless, and be a psycho.


----------



## Good2Golf

Humphrey Bogart said:


> TSN turning point today:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1532093036683055109
> The WOKE/SJW/#MeToo Movement might come crashing down sooner than we think.




All it takes is one person to…you know…shit the bed.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Good2Golf said:


> All it takes is one person to…you know…shit the bed.


----------



## brihard

Heh, it's funny because poop.


----------



## lenaitch

Navy_Pete said:


> I was in a meeting once where someone actually knocked their ring on the table to interject a point; I'm not sure if it was intentional but there was a few of us laughing at them fairly openly until we could get ourselves under control; I thought it was just an absurd stereotype but not something that would actually happen, especially when they weren't being ironic or something as a joke.


Reminds me of bygone days in the Ontario public service and Mason rings.


----------



## OldSolduer

Jarnhamar said:


> 6 weeks of watching Amber Heard lie, commit perjury, act stupid and clueless, and be a psycho.


Ghislane Maxwell's trial was barely covered by comparison. Of course the victims of Epstein, Maxwell and Andrew - the victims were children - weren't Hollywood elites.


----------



## WLSC

Navy_Pete said:


> I was in a meeting once where someone actually knocked their ring on the table to interject a point; I'm not sure if it was intentional but there was a few of us laughing at them fairly openly until we could get ourselves under control; I thought it was just an absurd stereotype but not something that would actually happen, especially when they weren't being ironic or something as a joke.
> 
> Probably a good example of the worse kind of RMC grad, but probably would have just been a bit insufferable in a different way if they had gone somewhere else (or might just have knocked a grad ring from whatever university they went to instead).
> 
> When we are so strapped for people, tying up a lot working as instructors, divOs etc to deliver an undergrad program doesn't make sense to me, when we have all kinds of excellent universities in Canada that do it better for cheaper. The infrastructure required to deliver a university program for a school with less students than my high school is a bit mind boggling. Our actual training establishments for trades training are usually strapped for people and resources, so I think we'd be better off using that and just focusing on the core military trades training. Along those lines, lots of relevant core technical trades that can be delivered in partnership with different colleges, which we've pulled away from.


That system do one big deplorable thing.  It take a bunch of kid that manage to pervert everything we teach them into a « old boys club » in winch they spend the rest of there career protecting each other because they perceived that they are untouchable and have to protect le club above the service to Canada.  

After Somalia, this is strike 2 with 3 balls.


----------



## Halifax Tar

OldSolduer said:


> Ghislane Maxwell's trial was barely covered by comparison. Of course the victims of Epstein, Maxwell and Andrew - the victims were children - weren't Hollywood elites.



The only victims in the Deep V Heard trial are the sad folks who payed attention to it at length...


----------



## Jarnhamar

Halifax Tar said:


> The only victims in the Deep V Heard trial are the sad folks who payed attention to it at length...


Ha, guilty.
Her lawyer objecting to his own question was on point. 

In all seriousness the trial is a wicked example of someone fabricating an outlandish story, being believed, and the devastating aftermath of those lies. 

Additional good take aways for anyone in a position to question others in an interview/interrogation situation and also dealing with people who have mental health issues (specifically BPD).


----------



## Remius

Guilty as well.  Both these people are absolute train wrecks.


----------



## dimsum

Jarnhamar said:


> Her lawyer objecting to his own question was on point.


I need some context to that


----------



## QV

Jarnhamar said:


> In all seriousness the trial is a wicked example of someone fabricating an outlandish story, being believed, and the devastating aftermath of those lies.



The main point here is that Depp was sufficiently resourced to defend himself, otherwise her story would still stand.


----------



## Remius

QV said:


> The main point here is that Depp was sufficiently resourced to defend himself, otherwise her story would still stand.


He wasn’t defending himself technically.  He brought a defamation suit against Heard.  She counter sued for defamation as well. 

No one was on trial for assault, sexual abuse or what not even though those things were germaine to the defamation issues.


----------



## QV

FFS. He was defending his reputation from the smears.


----------



## Remius

QV said:


> FFS. He was defending his reputation from the smears.


Didn’t mean to upset you. 

Was just a point of clarification.  You weren’t wrong in your statement. 

Cheers.


----------



## GK .Dundas

I just hope they give the jury some the money awarded. God knows they deserve it having two put up with two of the worst human beings I've seen in some time.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

QV said:


> FFS. He was defending his reputation from the smears.


Literally said it was the only reason he did it.  



dimsum said:


> I need some context to that


Go on YouTube and watch some of the cross-examinations.  They are hilarious.

Amber Heard lied so many times.  The best lie was the "bruise kit" where her lawyer held up this makeup kit and said "this is what Amber used to conceal her abuse".... company who made kit came out in public and said "that's impossible, we only started making those kits two years after the alleged offences occurred"


----------



## QV

Remius said:


> Didn’t mean to upset you.
> 
> Was just a point of clarification.  You weren’t wrong in your statement.
> 
> Cheers.



I marvel at the unnecessary pedantic behavior. This characteristic is why DND can't get nice things.


----------



## Remius

QV said:


> I marvel at the unnecessary pedantic behavior. This characteristic is why DND can't get nice things.


Sorry you feel that way.   My apologies.  

Clearly you are taking this personally.  Wasn’t my intent.


----------



## Remius

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Literally said it was the only reason he did it.
> 
> 
> Go on YouTube and watch some of the cross-examinations.  They are hilarious.
> 
> Amber Heard lied so many times.  The best lie was the "bruise kit" where her lawyer held up this makeup kit and said "this is what Amber used to conceal her abuse".... company who made kit came out in public and said "that's impossible, we only started making those kits two years after the alleged offences occurred"


She was incredibly inconsistant in most of her statements.  The part about pledging and donating money was a face palm situation and I’m being charitable when I say that.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Remius said:


> She was incredibly inconsistant in most of her statements.  The part about pledging and donating money was a face palm situation and I’m being charitable when I say that.


The interesting bit about that is that she also said under oath in the UK that she had done that, but then the opposite under oath in the US. Seems like a bad idea to perjure yourself in such a public case, but doubt anything will come of it.

Ashamed I know that, and that was with trying to intentionally avoid this mess created by two people being awful to each other. They are like toddlers but with millions of dollars and access to booze/drugs.


----------



## Infanteer

QV said:


> I marvel at the unnecessary pedantic behavior. This characteristic is why DND can't get nice things.



Au contraire. Details are important.  Lack of attention to detail is why DND can't get nice things.


----------



## KevinB

Wait are they secretly CAF members? 
  No, oh I missed the utter derail of the last several pages.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

That must be like, the…4th or 5th thread derail on this forum.  Happens so rarely…


----------



## PuckChaser




----------



## Remius

KevinB said:


> Wait are they secretly CAF members?
> No, oh I missed the utter derail of the last several pages.


I think the issue is that whatever elements of each side supported whatever side of that mess might seem to think that it somehow translates to what the CAF is currently going through. And any other similar situation. 

Me too types call this a setback 

Supporters of the accused to get a fair trial see this as a vindication.

At the end of the day this case and any case for that matter should be looked at individually and not be some broad stroke that somehow sets back one side or another or vindicates one side or another.


----------



## TCM621

rmc_wannabe said:


> Crawl, Walk, Run.
> 
> Being in charge of muster parades, attendance, Dress, Drill, Deportment.... 100 percent crawl tasks thar should be put onto Senior Cadets.
> 
> Having to initiate responses for SA, Harrassment, Mental Health issues, suicide, and any number of "oh shit" instances as a Senior Cadet? Fucking nope. Those are full on sprint scenarios that require experienced leadership and mentoring to step in.
> 
> There is policing your own, and then there's this Lord of the Flies shit that has been going on at RMC for too long. It needs to stop.



I agree there has to be a line where it goes straight to staff. Staffing a leave pass? 100% with in the capabilities of a Cadet. Initiating a sexual harassment investigation? That needs to go to staff immediately. 



Navy_Pete said:


> And yet, ROTP and DEO recruits get none of that and manage. From what I could tell working alongside RMC grads, they had as much relevant and practical experience as we did (which is to say, very little to none). Everyone starts with the same small party tasking etc on basic up to the running the sections and recruit platoon, so that's more directly relevant and useful.
> 
> We give everyone annual performance reviews, so someone should be able to do a clear comparison of the performance over time to see if it actually makes a difference, but as far as I can tell working with people the performance has nothing to do with the stream they joined under and more to do with the individual.
> 
> You have folks joining up later that were entrepreneurs, managers etc that have a lot more life skills that directly transfer into the same kind of skills needed to lead troops much better than getting a team to build some crappy stand or set up some mod tents.
> 
> I think it's a lot of theoretical benefits and a bit of mythos around the tradition vice any real tangible benefits personally. High performers are going to be high performers regardless of where they went to school. 🤷‍♂️



I can't argue that RMC doesn't add anything but in theory it should.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Remius said:


> At the end of the day this case and any case for that matter should be looked at individually and not be some broad stroke that somehow sets back one side or another or vindicates one side or another.



This story has lots of good and relevant examples IMO. 

-what can happen to someone who is falsely accused
-power of an accusation, including non-direct
-you're always at risk of being recorded 
-your private messages and media aren't private
-doctors and experts can be boneheads
-the power of the court of public opinion
-the crowd wants to be entertained

IMO anyone calling this a setback is just dumb and being willfully blind.

But as you say, stories should be looked at individually.


----------



## KevinB

Jarnhamar said:


> This story has lots of good and relevant examples IMO.
> 
> -what can happen to someone who is falsely accused
> -power of an accusation, including non-direct
> -you're always at risk of being recorded
> -your private messages and media aren't private
> -doctors and experts can be boneheads
> -the power of the court of public opinion
> -the crowd wants to be entertained
> 
> IMO anyone calling this a setback is just dumb and being willfully blind.
> 
> But as you say, stories should be looked at individually.


Also like OJ, if you have enough money to get good lawyers you can re-resituate the narrative.  

Something most folks in the CAF don’t have is multimillion dollar bank accounts to hire a shark legal team.


----------



## daftandbarmy

KevinB said:


> Also like OJ, if you have enough money to get good lawyers you can re-resituate the narrative.
> 
> Something most folks in the CAF don’t have is multimillion dollar bank accounts to hire a shark legal team.



I know a guy who did that, but should have stayed with a JAG lawyer.

He got a 5F release.


----------



## Navy_Pete

KevinB said:


> Also like OJ, if you have enough money to get good lawyers you can re-resituate the narrative.
> 
> Something most folks in the CAF don’t have is multimillion dollar bank accounts to hire a shark legal team.


Not that the Admiral Norman case has any parallels in that he genuinely didn't do anything wrong, but a good example of how a good legal team can change things around. He probably had the best lawyers in Canada, and went from newslines where the PM said he is guilty, to the GOC paying his legal fees, and now having an Admiral Norman leadership award in the RCN as well as regular mentoring sessions.

Really a best case outcome, but not sure how the same scenario would have worked out for a less senior officer who couldn't afford someone like that.

At the end of the day  legal defences are really cost prohibitive, and costs to get through law school and get through the bar is a fairly significant bit of gatekeeping. You shouldn't need to have a lot of money to get justice, but that's the reality.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

daftandbarmy said:


> I know a guy who did that, but should have stayed with a JAG lawyer.
> 
> He got a 5F release.


Administrative versus Disciplinary consequence. Would have been a 1A/B or 2A/B if he was convicted. 
Admin process is a lot more about the "law of averages" vice the "beyond reasonable doubt" that the disciplinary side takes.


----------



## daftandbarmy

rmc_wannabe said:


> Administrative versus Disciplinary consequence. Would have been a 1A/B or 2A/B if he was convicted.
> Admin process is a lot more about the "law of averages" vice the "beyond reasonable doubt" that the disciplinary side takes.



His CO actually gave him really good advice to go with the JAG but he chose to 'lawyer up' - with a guy he knew from the business world - and bam: 5F


----------



## Blackadder1916

TCM621 said:


> I agree there has to be a line where it goes straight to staff. Staffing a leave pass? 100% with in the capabilities of a Cadet. Initiating a sexual harassment investigation? That needs to go to staff immediately.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't argue that RMC doesn't add anything but in theory it should.



I assume that this comment flows from a previous discussion concerning "RECOMMENDATION #28 The Cadet Wing responsibility and authority command structure should be eliminated".  I draw your attention to the section of Mme Arbour's report in which she discusses the issues leading to that recommendation.  (pages 221 - 226 of the report,  PDF pages 235-240)

Specifically 
Concerns about systemic issues
I believe there remain significant reasons for concern both with the operation of the military colleges as currently conceived, as well as with the environment in which young female cadets are expected to grow and excel. The unifying principle pulling together the four pillars (academic, military, fitness, bilingualism) is the development of leadership. This is done, in part, through the old model of “head boys” prevalent in English private schools for boys, where upper-year students are invested with responsibilities towards their junior peers. This has been described by some stakeholders as “children leading children”, the “untrained leading the untrained” and by others, particularly N/OCdts chosen to lead in that fashion as “responsibility without power”. This model of early leadership development needs to be critically re-examined.

Co-ed boarding in colleges and universities raises its own set of challenges, particularly for students who are leaving home for the first time. This is particularly serious at the RMC Saint-Jean where some Immaturity in the exercise of authority and power over others, real or perceived, is unlikely to contribute to the eradication of sexual misconduct that has taken root in the culture of these colleges.


_Immaturity in the exercise of authority and power over others, real or perceived, is unlikely to contribute to the eradication of sexual misconduct that has taken root in the culture of these colleges. Even trained officers struggle to know what is right when it comes to recognizing and addressing sexual misconduct. How can we expect young, novice cadets to know better?_

N/OCdts are as young as 17 years old. In a military environment, these challenges are even more intense as cadets surrender a large part of their independence, have very little personal free time, and develop a high level of deference to authority; this, mixed with a culture of “don’t get caught”, is clearly at odds with the colleges’ motto of “Truth, Duty, Valour”. My interviews have revealed a system where cadets spend four years learning how to circumvent rules as a result of the immense pressure to succeed in all four pillars, together with the stringent expectations and rules imposed on them.

This is starkly demonstrated in the area of sexual misconduct. Needless to say, the tension between the duty to report and the need to fit in with peers is not easily resolved by young people who learn early what is in their best interest. Described by a stakeholder as a culture of “don’t blame your bud”, this fundamentally conflicts with the requirement to follow certain ethical guidelines and to step in when “your bud” is behaving inappropriately.

This also raises questions about whether the leadership skills instilled at this early stage are fully aligned with the lofty ideals expressed, for instance, in Leadership in the Canadian Forces: Leading People, a foundation document applicable throughout the CAF. In my view, this
antiquated structure of the Cadet Wing command structure has outlived its usefulness and is now causing more harm than good. The time has come to put an end to it, and to instill modern leadership values in officer cadets through other means.


----------



## Eaglelord17

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/miltiary-sexual-offences-civilian-police-1.6474335
		


Trainwreck already starting with the civilian handovers


----------



## QV

🍿


----------



## OldSolduer

So if a military person is investigated for SA by civilian police what court does that person go before? Civilian? Could the military charge that individual as well with 129 or something else?


----------



## AKa

Blackadder,

Cadets at CMR can be as young as 16.  This is because the school aligns with Quebec's CEGEP system.  I arrived at CMR a month after my 17th birthday.  There were several cadets in just my flight alone younger than I.

Seems really crazy in retrospect...  Can't believe my parents signed the waiver.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

AKa said:


> Blackadder,
> 
> Cadets at CMR can be as young as 16.  This is because the school aligns with Quebec's CEGEP system.  I arrived at CMR a month after my 17th birthday.  There were several cadets in just my flight alone younger than I.
> 
> Seems really crazy in retrospect...  Can't believe my parents signed the waiver.


I was 17 at MilCol for at least a few months. One of my colleagues was 16.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> This has been described by some stakeholders as “children leading children”, the “untrained leading the untrained” and by others, particularly N/OCdts chosen to lead in that fashion as “responsibility without power”.



How old are the upper division students, again?  Adults or children?


----------



## Kat Stevens

KevinB said:


> Also like OJ, if you have enough money to get good lawyers you can re-resituate the narrative.
> 
> Something most folks in the CAF don’t have is multimillion dollar bank accounts to hire a shark legal team.


A funny now (not then) story. When I got done for a DWI many years ago, didn't feel slightly drunk but kismet is a kow, I looked around for a lawyer and was handed the name of a guy who had beat a lot of similar charges. 
Me on phone; Do you think you can get me out of this?
Lawyer dude; Why sure I can can!
Me on phone; That's awesome!
Lawyer dude; it's going to cost you $15K
Me on phone; !!!
  Fast forward three weeks:  
Judge; "How do you plead Mr Stevens?"
Me; " guilty due to insufficient bank balance, sir"
 Judge; "that's not funny Mr Stevens"
 Me; "(under my breath) you're telling me it's not"


----------



## Good2Golf

Brad Sallows said:


> How old are the upper division students, again?  Adults or children?


Usually 21-23, sometimes 20.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Brad Sallows said:


> How old are the upper division students, again?  Adults or children?


4th years can be anywhere from 21-24 years old. Maybe even older, given a lot of the old age restrictions have disappeared.

I think some perspective might be required, here. In the first place, these are not children. Whatever the faults of RMC, to say that we are dealing “children“ does everyone a disservice. They are young adults who have volunteered to serve their country in an Armed Force. Let us frame the issue correctly. It is a false equivalency to compare it to the English School system where 17 year olds are responsible for 12 year olds.

Casting our minds back to World War 2, it was not unusual to see, especially later in the war, 24-27 year old Commanding Officers of Battalions, ships, and Squadrons, with even younger Company grade officers and younger still 2Lts. Were these children leading children?

I get that times change and that we coddle young people later in life, but history shows that there is no intrinsic reason that humans cannot generally be given quite weighty leadership responsibilities at a young age.


----------



## Navy_Pete

SeaKingTacco said:


> 4th years can be anywhere from 21-24 years old. Maybe even older, given a lot of the old age restrictions have disappeared.
> 
> I think some perspective might be required, here. In the first place, these are not children. Whatever the faults of RMC, to say that we are dealing “children“ does everyone a disservice. They are young adults who have volunteered to serve their country in an Armed Force. Let us frame the issue correctly. It is a false equivalency to compare it to the English School system where 17 year olds are responsible for 12 year olds.
> 
> Casting our minds back to World War 2, it was not unusual to see, especially later in the war, 24-27 year old Commanding Officers of Battalions, ships, and Squadrons, with even younger Company grade officers and younger still 2Lts. Were these children leading children?
> 
> I get that times change and that we coddle young people later in life, but history shows that there is no intrinsic reason that humans cannot generally be given quite weighty leadership responsibilities at a young age.


Sure, but if their job is to be completing their university degree, does that not also conflict with the requirement? May work for some degrees with lower course loads, but is pretty unrealistic for some degrees to expect to properly take on that level of effort without impacting their schooling. On the engineering degrees, you probably spend most of the first 2-3 years learning the background, and 4th year is when it all comes together and you actually do things like design projects.

Maybe if we had more people we could justify this for 'tradition', but we don't, and if the other streams are all demonstrating they can develop competent leaders than what is the point of RMC? Personally think it makes much more sense to just go ROTP route, and then embed them in units during the summer to get hands on, real experience, with proper oversight and mentoring from people in their trade.

It would also be good to review the staff college requirement for JCSP; they seem to have cut a lot of value added items out of it (like visits to NATO and similar) and just left with theoretical academics. When a lot of people already have directly related PGs through the sponsored programs, really not clear what the value is of the education. If you compare that to the US equivalent, where the performance check is actually planning and running a battalion exercise as part of the command staff, ours is a waste of time.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

SeaKingTacco said:


> 4th years can be anywhere from 21-24 years old. Maybe even older, given a lot of the old age restrictions have disappeared.
> 
> I think some perspective might be required, here. In the first place, these are not children. Whatever the faults of RMC, to say that we are dealing “children“ does everyone a disservice. They are young adults who have volunteered to serve their country in an Armed Force. Let us frame the issue correctly. It is a false equivalency to compare it to the English School system where 17 year olds are responsible for 12 year olds.
> 
> Casting our minds back to World War 2, it was not unusual to see, especially later in the war, 24-27 year old Commanding Officers of Battalions, ships, and Squadrons, with even younger Company grade officers and younger still 2Lts. Were these children leading children?
> 
> I get that times change and that we coddle young people later in life, but history shows that there is no intrinsic reason that humans cannot generally be given quite weighty leadership responsibilities at a young age.


There is no standard age at RMC.  One of my classmates was a Veteran of Bosnia (Vandoo Corporal) and an 8 year Vet of the RCMP.  He wanted to be a CAF Officer and chose to attend RMC because:

A.  It had prestige. (warranted or not)
B.  It was considered hard.

The man was nearly 40.  He is out now.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Navy_Pete said:


> Sure, but if their job is to be completing their university degree, does that not also conflict with the requirement? May work for some degrees with lower course loads, but is pretty unrealistic for some degrees to expect to properly take on that level of effort without impacting their schooling. On the engineering degrees, you probably spend most of the first 2-3 years learning the background, and 4th year is when it all comes together and you actually do things like design projects.
> 
> Maybe if we had more people we could justify this for 'tradition', but we don't, and if the other streams are all demonstrating they can develop competent leaders than what is the point of RMC? Personally think it makes much more sense to just go ROTP route, and then embed them in units during the summer to get hands on, real experience, with proper oversight and mentoring from people in their trade.
> 
> It would also be good to review the staff college requirement for JCSP; they seem to have cut a lot of value added items out of it (like visits to NATO and similar) and just left with theoretical academics. When a lot of people already have directly related PGs through the sponsored programs, really not clear what the value is of the education. If you compare that to the US equivalent, where the performance check is actually planning and running a battalion exercise as part of the command staff, ours is a waste of time.


That's not their job


----------



## McG

Eaglelord17 said:


> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/miltiary-sexual-offences-civilian-police-1.6474335
> 
> 
> 
> Trainwreck already starting with the civilian handovers


**started. This article describes resistance that started last year.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Navy_Pete said:


> Sure, but if their job is to be completing their university degree, does that not also conflict with the requirement? May work for some degrees with lower course loads, but is pretty unrealistic for some degrees to expect to properly take on that level of effort without impacting their schooling. On the engineering degrees, you probably spend most of the first 2-3 years learning the background, and 4th year is when it all comes together and you actually do things like design projects.
> 
> Maybe if we had more people we could justify this for 'tradition', but we don't, and if the other streams are all demonstrating they can develop competent leaders than what is the point of RMC? Personally think it makes much more sense to just go ROTP route, and then embed them in units during the summer to get hands on, real experience, with proper oversight and mentoring from people in their trade.
> 
> It would also be good to review the staff college requirement for JCSP; they seem to have cut a lot of value added items out of it (like visits to NATO and similar) and just left with theoretical academics. When a lot of people already have directly related PGs through the sponsored programs, really not clear what the value is of the education. If you compare that to the US equivalent, where the performance check is actually planning and running a battalion exercise as part of the command staff, ours is a waste of time.


Whether or not the CAF should be in degree granting business is beside the point of the ”children leading children” comment, which I was attempting to address. Besides, as others pointed out down thread, it is a myth to describe the Cadet Wing at RMC as uniformly 17-22 year olds. Maybe it once was, that is not today’s reality.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Are we in the business of creating leaders at RMC or university grads who can march? 

If the answer is the latter, turn ROTP into ROTC a la the U.S. and be done with it. If the answer is the former, provide an environment where cadets are able to focus on developing and ,in most cases,  *maturing* into people who can lead and inspire their troops to do the business. 

If we aren't going to do either of those two things very well, burn it to the ground so I can invest in waterfront property on Point Frederick.


----------



## Good2Golf

Good thing there aren’t other places in the CAF where early-20s ‘children’ are instructing late-teen/early-20s ‘children’, like MCpls and Pte(U)….oh wait. ,


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Good2Golf said:


> Good thing there aren’t other places in the CAF where early-20s ‘children’ are instructing late-teen/early-20s ‘children’, like MCpls and Pte(U)….oh wait. ,


_CIC enters the chat_


----------



## SeaKingTacco

rmc_wannabe said:


> _CIC enters the chat_


Actually, any unit in the CAF enters the chat.

G2G raised the very good point of a 22 year old MCpl leading a section of 18 -19 year old privates.

children leading children?


----------



## Brad Sallows

The "children leading children" framing ought be buried, and anyone who advances it, ridiculed.

If identifying unsuitable people early is a worthwhile goal - as has been argued - then obviously it makes sense for those being trained to lead to practice leadership early.


----------



## kratz

> Good thing there aren’t other places in the CAF where early-20s ‘children’ are instructing late-teen/early-20s ‘children’, like MCpls and Pte(U)….oh wait. ,



There is no doubt some eager members who might offer to help burn the Mega, or one of the "school of excellence" to the ground.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Brad Sallows said:


> The "children leading children" framing ought be buried, and anyone who advances it, ridiculed.
> 
> If identifying unsuitable people early is a worthwhile goal - as has been argued - then obviously it makes sense for those being trained to lead to practice leadership early.


In my life in the CAF, I have seen 18 year olds display incredibly compassionate, thoughtful leadership qualities.

I have also seen 50 year old senior officers act like children.

And I have seen everything in between.

To write off RMC cadets as “children” is a red herring and, as Brad points out, diverts attention from where it needs to be- train people at all levels to be leaders and demand a high standard. Forget the age arguement.


----------



## kratz

> The "children leading children" framing ought be buried, and anyone who advances it, ridiculed.



With the accepted definition of youth shifted to anyone younger than 30 years old, it's been a hard sell for many to not treat them all as children. /s


----------



## SeaKingTacco

kratz said:


> With the accepted definition of youth shifted to anyone younger than 30 years old, it's been a hard sell for many to not treat them all as children. /s


We are training people for combat. If you are in the CAF, that is the reality. It does not get much more “adult” than that.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

SeaKingTacco said:


> We are training people for combat. If you are in the CAF, that is the reality. It does not get much more “adult” than that.


I happened to go to RMC during a period when we were at War.  

We knew it was a serious business as Cadets I served with at RMC ended up deploying right in to combat operations as soon as they graduated.  Some with as little as a few months out of school.

Some of those I attended School with have made tremendous sacrifices and suffered grave injuries:









						Simon Mailloux - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org
				




The Education "children" get at the College is paid for in Blood.

The Arch the Cadets march through when they graduate is full of the names of those that have passed away in service of their Country.

The Stalker 22 crash is the latest addition with 4 more names to be added to the Arch.  

People who talk out of their ass about people that went to RMC may as well spit on our fallen as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Again, we can have an logical debate about the merits of RMC existing as a University, but the students are not children and we do a disservice to ourselves to treat them as such.


----------



## OldSolduer

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I happened to go to RMC during a period when we were at War.
> 
> We knew it was a serious business as Cadets I served with at RMC ended up deploying right in to combat operations as soon as they graduated.  Some with as little as a few months out of school.
> 
> Some of those I attended School with have made tremendous sacrifices and suffered grave injuries:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simon Mailloux - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Education "children" get at the College is paid for in Blood.
> 
> The Arch the Cadets march through when they graduate is full of the names of those that have passed away in service of their Country.
> 
> The Stalker 22 crash is the latest addition with 4 more names to be added to the Arch.
> 
> People who talk out of their ass about people that went to RMC may as well spit on our fallen as far as I'm concerned.


Bingo. Well said.

I am no expert in RMC or any military college BUT RMC needs to transform. How that happens is going to be contentious for some.


----------



## Sprinting Thistle

Captain Jack Sparrow to become honorary Captain of the RCN.  Limited time offer of Mega Pint glasses being sold to commemorate the event.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

OldSolduer said:


> Bingo. Well said.
> 
> I am no expert in RMC or any military college BUT RMC needs to transform. How that happens is going to be contentious for some.


@Humphrey Bogart please don't misconstrue my comments on this as a disrespect of those who have attended RMC, especially those who have sacrificed in their service. They have upheld the highest traditions of service and upheld the values of Truth, Duty, Valor.

It is with that in mind that any approach to reforming RMC, especially in light of events that have transpired there in recent years, that I feel strongly that we need to ensure we create an environment that follows that lineage, while adapting to culture changes within Canadian society. 

To abolish the college would be to throw the baby out with the bath water. That said, my main critique is that we either create an environment where these Cadets are both trained and held to an extremely high standard, while being given the guidance needed to improve and develop; 

Or

Continuing down the road we're on and things don't improve... or worse... they get watered down to the pint we aren't generating leaders that can take our people the distance when SHTF. 

In all of it, I, like you, don't want to see any half assed attemps in this.


----------



## ModlrMike

I'm all for getting these cases out of the CF justice system, if for no reason other than the appearance of impartiality. My fear is that there will be cases where the Crown elects not to proceed, and victims who might have gotten satisfaction at Court Martial, may now be left out in the cold. There will need to be some mechanism to ensure that CSD offences (alternate and accopanying charges) that do not meet the threshold for sexual assault, are still dealt with in these cases.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

ModlrMike said:


> I'm all for getting these cases out of the CF justice system, if for no reason other than the appearance of impartiality. My fear is that there will be cases where the Crown elects not to proceed, and victims who might have gotten satisfaction at Court Martial, may now be left out in the cold. There will need to be some mechanism to ensure that CSD offences (alternate and accopanying charges) that do not meet the threshold for sexual assault, are still dealt with in these cases.


I think Arbour et al were looking for a panacea in pushing these cases out from perceived influence of the CoC. The problem is that, for as much as it's perceived interference in the military justice realm, it's actual indifference within the Civilian realm.

I think this is going cause more problems than it's going to fix. But like most things, it's going to take it failing before people go back to the drawing board.


----------



## brihard

Eaglelord17 said:


> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/miltiary-sexual-offences-civilian-police-1.6474335
> 
> 
> 
> Trainwreck already starting with the civilian handovers


Why would civilian police services take these cases if they don’t absolutely have to? Investigating a fresh file is one thing; taking handoff of another individual’s or organization’s investigation can be much harder, and I would be leery of SA investigations coming from the MPs who are basically losing authority over them for a reason. I’d be skittish about taking on an existing investigation that may have been done poorly- which you won’t even be able to assess from the outside looking in. “No, sorry, you took the file, it’s your problem” is an obvious answer.



OldSolduer said:


> So if a military person is investigated for SA by civilian police what court does that person go before? Civilian? Could the military charge that individual as well with 129 or something else?


If charged by civilian police it’ll be in civilian court. The military justice system would need to be very careful charging someone as well for CSD offences arising out of the same set of facts. There’s risk of crossing into double jeopardy there.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

rmc_wannabe said:


> Administrative versus Disciplinary consequence. Would have been a 1A/B or 2A/B if he was convicted.
> Admin process is a lot more about the "law of averages" vice the "beyond reasonable doubt" that the disciplinary side takes.



CAF Admin law = an elevated version of  balance of probabilities…


----------



## FJAG

brihard said:


> If charged by civilian police it’ll be in civilian court. The military justice system would need to be very careful charging someone as well for CSD offences arising out of the same set of facts. There’s risk of crossing into double jeopardy there.


Charging is not the problem - it would be a complication. Double Jeopardy only attaches when, after a trial a person is found guilty or not guilty of the offence or a substantially similar offence or has admitted to a similar offence during sentencing and has the admission taken into consideration in sentencing. See NDA ss 66, 71, and 194.



> _Autrefois acquit_ and _autrefois convict_
> 
> *66* (1) A person may not be tried or tried again in respect of an offence or any other substantially similar offence arising out of the facts that gave rise to the offence if, while subject to the Code of Service Discipline in respect of that offence, or if, while liable to be charged, dealt with and tried under the Code in respect of that offence, the person
> (a) has been found not guilty by a service tribunal, civil court or court of a foreign state on a charge of having committed that offence; or
> (b) has been found guilty by a service tribunal, civil court or court of a foreign state on a charge of having committed that offence and has been either punished in accordance with the sentence or discharged absolutely or on conditions.
> 
> Marginal note:Exception
> (2) Nothing in subsection (1) affects the validity of a new trial held pursuant to section 249.11 or 249.16 or a new trial directed by a court having jurisdiction to do so.
> Marginal note:Effect of other offences admitted at previous trial
> (3) A person who under section 194 has been sentenced in respect of a service offence admitted by that person may not be tried by a service tribunal or a civil court in respect of that offence.





> No interference with civil jurisdiction
> 
> *71* Subject to section 66, nothing in the Code of Service Discipline affects the jurisdiction of any civil court to try a person for any offence triable by that court.





> Similar offences may be considered in imposing sentence
> 
> *194* (1) A court martial may, on the request of a person who is found guilty and who admits to having committed service offences similar in character to an offence of which the person is found guilty, take those service offences into consideration for the purposes of the sentence as if the person had been charged with, tried for and found guilty of those service offences.



🍻


----------



## SupersonicMax

brihard said:


> Why would civilian police services take these cases if they don’t absolutely have to? Investigating a fresh file is one thing; taking handoff of another individual’s or organization’s investigation can be much harder, and I would be leery of SA investigations coming from the MPs who are basically losing authority over them for a reason. I’d be skittish about taking on an existing investigation that may have been done poorly- which you won’t even be able to assess from the outside looking in. “No, sorry, you took the file, it’s your problem” is an obvious answer.
> 
> 
> If charged by civilian police it’ll be in civilian court. The military justice system would need to be very careful charging someone as well for CSD offences arising out of the same set of facts. There’s risk of crossing into double jeopardy there.


The JAG that briefed me was clear that it is absolutely fine to charge someone under the CSD if a civilian law agency decides not to pursue charges, or if civilian prosecutor doesn’t lay charges. If the military prosecutor doesn’t want to charge then using the summary hearing process can also be used.  My question though is given the summary hearing is now an administrative procedure, could someone be charged and court martialed as well as seen by the summary hearing process?


----------



## Good2Golf

rmc_wannabe said:


> we need to ensure we create an environment that follows that lineage, while adapting to culture changes within Canadian society


@rmc_wannabe, this! 👆🏻


----------



## lenaitch

rmc_wannabe said:


> I think Arbour et al were looking for a panacea in pushing these cases out from perceived influence of the CoC. The problem is that, for as much as it's perceived interference in the military justice realm, it's actual indifference within the Civilian realm.
> 
> I think this is going cause more problems than it's going to fix. But like most things, it's going to take it failing before people go back to the drawing board.


What I didn't see in the linked article was an analysis of why some charges were rejected.  It seems that senior officials is some jurisdictions are not yet accepting any cases, period, until certain legal and procedural issues are addressed, which may, in part, be a cloak for some federal funding.  In saying that some cases have been returned or rejected, does that imply that investigators and/or Crowns have conducted an analysis and found the investigation or evidence tainted or compromised or there is no reasonable prospect of conviction?    No doubt, the federal government would love to have the civilian system take all of them, regardless of their ultimate outcome.  It is the civilian system that will wear the clearance rate and public fallout.

I fail to see how civilian police would need extra training in 'the military context', but the issue of obtaining evidence in the possession of the military might - I'm not sure.


----------



## Underway

lenaitch said:


> I fail to see how civilian police would need extra training in 'the military context', but the issue of obtaining evidence in the possession of the military might - I'm not sure.


Civi police can't just waltz onto a military establishment and wander around with their normal policing powers for example.  The MP's need to be involved.  But I'm pretty sure that civi cops in areas where there are bases already know this though.

I look at this as more of an RCMP/OPP/Regional Police relationship.  Where they have clear lines of jurisdiction and that they help each other out.  The MP's know how to contact individuals, have the policing powers over military members and thus can smooth any ruffles by essentially being the troubleshooting for civilian authorities where military matters cause problems.  MP's can also explain military culture (like rank structure and organization) to give context to investigations.  Like a beat cop would to a detective.

Where it gets weird is out-of-Canada situations.  You'll have MP's dealing with a situation in say Dubai. Are you grabbing an RCMP officer to fly to Dubai and start the investigation there?  And what about provinces that have provincial forces instead?


----------



## lenaitch

Underway said:


> Civi police can't just waltz onto a military establishment and wander around with their normal policing powers for example.  The MP's need to be involved.  But I'm pretty sure that civi cops in areas where there are bases already know this though.
> 
> I look at this as more of an RCMP/OPP/Regional Police relationship.  Where they have clear lines of jurisdiction and that they help each other out.  The MP's know how to contact individuals, have the policing powers over military members and thus can smooth any ruffles by essentially being the troubleshooting for civilian authorities where military matters cause problems.  MP's can also explain military culture (like rank structure and organization) to give context to investigations.  Like a beat cop would to a detective.
> 
> Where it gets weird is out-of-Canada situations.  You'll have MP's dealing with a situation in say Dubai. Are you grabbing an RCMP officer to fly to Dubai and start the investigation there?  And what about provinces that have provincial forces instead?


Within any province, whether the investigating police service is federal, provincial or municipal matters not - they're all equally empowered and (roughly) equally trained.  Cases such as this would no doubt be assigned to detectives/crime units, and many members of these units have taken sexual assault investigation training.

No doubt they would probably need the MPs as 'tour guides' (a tad demeaning), which I can appreciate.  I used to drive part time for an airport van service that was called to CFB Borden almost daily.  The layout and building numbering 'system' is beyond comprehension.  Beyond that, I think any involvement in the investigative process would run counter to the recommendation and DND direction and potentially impact the investigation in a way that the recommendation is trying to avoid.

Documentary and physical evidence has to be gathered in a way that satisfies the court; essentially either judicially authorized or with clear consent.  I can't immediately think of specific examples where problems might arise, but have to imagine marching onto a base with a search warrant - with or without an MP escort - for medical, HR, duty roster, etc. etc. records, might warrant a preestablished military-civilian protocol.  This includes education on the AG/judicial side.  I can well imagine a local JP being unsure whether they can sign a warrant for a military establishment.  This would be much new ground for them as well.

It seems that out-of-country investigations will be very small in number but, yes, the process needs to be sorted out beforehand.


----------



## McG

If we can apply the criminal code to astronauts in space, we can figure out how to do it for CAF members still on the planet.


----------



## brihard

FJAG said:


> Charging is not the problem - it would be a complication. Double Jeopardy only attaches when, after a trial a person is found guilty or not guilty of the offence or a substantially similar offence or has admitted to a similar offence during sentencing and has the admission taken into consideration in sentencing. See NDA ss 66, 71, and 194.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 🍻


You're much better on the particulars than I, of course- and yeah, _Autrefois_ is generally where my mind was turning with that. I more meant it in the sense that I'd be leery of any single matter/fact set proceeding criminally (or quasi-criminally in the case of a CM for a lesser CSD offence) in two different courts. I'm not sure how much that type of circumstance has been tested, and I could see bad case law coming form it. If the criminal prosecution in civilian courts suffices to deal with the offence, why try to double stack it with a CM on other related charges? Just make the administrative law based decision to release based on conduct.

I need to get my head wrapped around the new summary hearings system, and the extent to which CAF is actually separating minor conduct matters from judicial processes. It seems to me that summary trials had too little due process relative to their potential consequences, and the status of their matters as 'offences' under federal statute. As the pendulum has swung, the process used for minor matters got farther and farther away from how it was originally intended and used, and at the same time the 'arbitrary' ability of the chain of command to mete out certain punishments below the level of charging and convicting someone increasingly went away due to abuses. Does CAF need a ground up rewrite of its entire professional disciplinary system? Maybe something administrative law based along the lines of the RCMP's code of conduct system? (which I only pick as an example because it's also something prescribed by federal law and used by a uniformed federal organization for people other than public servants)


----------



## brihard

McG said:


> If we can apply the criminal code to astronauts in space, we can figure out how to do it for CAF members still on the planet.


I'll do you one better. This is 7 (4) Criminal Code:

Offences by Public Service employees

(4) Every one who, while employed as an employee within the meaning of the Public Service Employment Act in a place outside Canada, commits an act or omission in that place that is an offence under the laws of that place and that, if committed in Canada, would be an offence punishable by indictment shall be deemed to have committed that act or omission in Canada.

That basically reads as an OUTCAN provision for public servants: Do something while deployed OUTCAN that's a crime there and a crime here, and we can prosecute you criminally under our laws as if you did it here as if you did it here (say, an embassy official driving drunk?).


----------



## McG

So let’s get that amended to add CAF members.  Then we can further move what should be our professional disciplinary system away from home its current quasi-criminal system stats.


----------



## lenaitch

McG said:


> If we can apply the criminal code to astronauts in space, we can figure out how to do it for CAF members still on the planet.


No doubt (although I'm not sure they've had to exercise the sections), but space isn't in somebody else's jurisdiction, and I imagine if evidence is needed to be seized from the owners of Soyuz, the ISS, Falcon X or whoever to support the charge, similar complications may arise.  Sorting out the logistics beforehand is always a better idea.

Even internationally with public servants, if evidence is needed to, for example, obtain hospital records or police evidence from a foreign country in order to make that CC section stick, it might be problematic is some countries.


----------



## brihard

lenaitch said:


> No doubt (although I'm not sure they've had to exercise the sections), but space isn't in somebody else's jurisdiction, and I imagine if evidence is needed to be seized from the owners of Soyuz, the ISS, Falcon X or whoever to support the charge, similar complications may arise.  Sorting out the logistics beforehand is always a better idea.
> 
> Even internationally with public servants, if evidence is needed to, for example, obtain hospital records or police evidence from a foreign country in order to make that CC section stick, it might be problematic is some countries.



Some watch and shoot on this- the SCC just heard _MacGregor v. The Queen._ in May, and it's pending decision. It's a case where CAF NIS obtained a search warrant in US court to search the residence of a CAF member deployed OUTCAN, I think it was a child porn case. The lower legvel decision ruled that the Charter did not apply OUTCAN in these circumstances, which is being appealed. Th results may well have a significant impact on how the _Charter_ applies extraterritorially in cases where Canadian investigators cooperate with foreign officials in the investigation of Canadians alleged to have committed criminal offences overseas while within reach of Canadian law.









						Applying the Charter Outside of Canada - CCLA
					

We welcome the government’s decision to revoke the proclamation of emergency – it is overdue.From the outset, however, we have stated that the government did not meet the legal thresholds set out in the Emergencies Act.




					ccla.org


----------



## FJAG

brihard said:


> I more meant it in the sense that I'd be leery of any single matter/fact set proceeding criminally (or quasi-criminally in the case of a CM for a lesser CSD offence) in two different courts. I'm not sure how much that type of circumstance has been tested, and I could see bad case law coming form it. If the criminal prosecution in civilian courts suffices to deal with the offence, why try to double stack it with a CM on other related charges? Just make the administrative law based decision to release based on conduct.


This whole area of the law is one that changes with the season. If you go back far enough to British military law the military only had criminal legal power over its soldiers once articles of war had been published. Until then soldiers in garrison were only subject to civilian criminal law while the army did have some disciplinary powers.

In Canada, when I started in this business, we were barred from dealing with certain offences in the military including the homicides and sexual offences (which in those days were simply rape but have blossomed into a wide array of sexual assaults). There were also a varying system of cross-over points where either civil or military courts had jurisdiction (the "military connection" test for example).

Through all that though there has been a pretty decent level of cooperation and communication between civilian and military authorities, both police and prosecutors, as to who takes over the reins in any particular case. Usually that's in favour of the military who are frequently more interested in taking jurisdiction than the civilian system which feels its already overloaded and any case it can shed is a good one. If you've ever been to a civilian remand court where a hundred or more cases are dealt with in a morning every day of the week, you'll know what I mean. 

There will need to be some protocols worked out with several dozen police forces and prosecutors and we're in the early and rough stages of that, but it will settle down in due course. We're only talking several dozens of cases a year spread all over Canada that cross from sexual misconduct to a criminal code prosecutable sexual assault level which in the big picture is a very small caseload. 

I'm still wondering how we will deal with the more significant numbers of cases of Canadian Labour Code sexual harassment vis a vis the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Grievance system. Both are notoriously slow and ponderous processes. How we deal with those on the shop floor while the investigation grinds on is, IMHO, the real challenge.



SupersonicMax said:


> My question though is given the summary hearing is now an administrative procedure, could someone be charged and court martialed as well as seen by the summary hearing process?


I'm not sure that I have a proper answer for that as I've not looked through the amendments and regulations in depth, but my understanding is that there will be a clear line drawn as between service offences which are subject to the military justice system and service infractions which are subject to summary hearings. The new s 162.6 bars a summary hearing based upon the same facts which were the subject of a service offence trial but does allow a court proceeding of a service offence based upon the same facts which were the subject of a summary hearing. The rationale behind this would be that there are no penal consequences arising out of a summary hearing which is generally what attracts the _autrefois_ principles. Summary hearings are more in the nature of current administrative actions such as a counselling and probation which does not bar a trial.

🍻


----------



## Blackadder1916

brihard said:


> Some watch and shoot on this- the SCC just heard _MacGregor v. The Queen._ in May, and it's pending decision. It's a case where CAF NIS obtained a search warrant in US court to search the residence of a CAF member deployed OUTCAN, I think it was a *child porn case*.  . . .



Not to defend the man but there is a sliding scale of scumbaggery, and while he is (allegedly) well along to being a total scumbag, he was not accused (as far as I am aware) of that despicability.  My error, he did reach that despicability.






						Supreme Court of Canada - SCC Case Information - Summary - 39543
					






					www.scc-csc.ca
				





> . . . suspected he committed the *offences of interference and voyeurism* by surreptitiously placing audio recording devices in the residence of another Canadian Armed Forces member also posted to the United States . . .








						McGregor C.R. (Corporal), R. v. - Chief Military Judge
					

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




					decisia.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca
				




Edit

I stand corrected.


----------



## dapaterson

> [26] Secondly, Cpl. McGregor argues that the manner of the search was unreasonable. He submits that once *the investigators discovered evidence of child pornography* and sexual assault, not covered by the warrant, they were obliged to stop searching and obtain further judicial authorization to conduct the search.








						R. v. McGregor - Court Martial Appeal Court
					






					decisions.cmac-cacm.ca


----------



## lenaitch

FJAG said:


> There will need to be some protocols worked out with several dozen police forces and prosecutors and we're in the early and rough stages of that, but it will settle down in due course. We're only talking several dozens of cases a year spread all over Canada that cross from sexual misconduct to a criminal code prosecutable sexual assault level which in the big picture is a very small caseload.
> 
> I'm still wondering how we will deal with the more significant numbers of cases of Canadian Labour Code sexual harassment vis a vis the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Grievance system. Both are notoriously slow and ponderous processes. How we deal with those on the shop floor while the investigation grinds on is, IMHO, the real challenge.
> 
> 
> 🍻


No doubt the protocols will be worked out in due course.  The point I keep coming back to is,  even though the numbers may be comparative small, locally they are also potentially concentrated in a small number of locations, many of which are 'serviced' by relatively small rural RCMP/OPP/SQ detachments.  Larger municipal services in Halifax, Victoria and Ottawa may be better suited to absorb the additional load.

If the Canadian HR Tribunal is anything like its Ontario counterpart, 'ponderous' may be generous.  Their website already cautions that they are 'triaging' cases.  No doubt a request to TB for more money is in their future.

******




> [26] Secondly, Cpl. McGregor argues that the manner of the search was unreasonable. He submits that once *the investigators discovered evidence of child pornography* and sexual assault, not covered by the warrant, they were obliged to stop searching and obtain further judicial authorization to conduct the search.



I've been out for quite a while but last I looked, Criminal Code Sec. 489 allows for the seizure of thing not specified in the warrant.  There are some conditions that apply, such as not looking in a desk drawer when searching for an outboard motor.  There might be other elements to their argument; I'm only looking at the extract quoted.


----------



## brihard

lenaitch said:


> No doubt the protocols will be worked out in due course.  The point I keep coming back to is,  even though the numbers may be comparative small, locally they are also potentially concentrated in a small number of locations, many of which are 'serviced' by relatively small rural RCMP/OPP/SQ detachments.  Larger municipal services in Halifax, Victoria and Ottawa may be better suited to absorb the additional load.
> 
> If the Canadian HR Tribunal is anything like its Ontario counterpart, 'ponderous' may be generous.  Their website already cautions that they are 'triaging' cases.  No doubt a request to TB for more money is in their future.
> 
> ******
> 
> 
> 
> I've been out for quite a while but last I looked, Criminal Code Sec. 489 allows for the seizure of thing not specified in the warrant.  There are some conditions that apply, such as not looking in a desk drawer when searching for an outboard motor.  There might be other elements to their argument; I'm only looking at the extract quoted.


Digital data is still developing new case law. Rule of thumb, if you hit something in a warranted search that could change the suspect’s jeopardy, get a new warrant. But in McGregor, they did. After executing the search warrant granted by an American court and finding child porn in their triage of the device contents, they paused and got a new Canadian warrant (I believe the device was being examined back in Ontario).

The McGregor appeal will have to do with the applicability of the Charter outside of Canada. I can’t predict ramifications.


----------



## Haggis

lenaitch said:


> No doubt (although I'm not sure they've had to exercise the sections), but space isn't in somebody else's jurisdiction, and I imagine if evidence is needed to be seized from the owners of Soyuz, the ISS, Falcon X or whoever to support the charge, similar complications may arise.  Sorting out the logistics beforehand is always a better idea.
> 
> Even internationally with public servants, if evidence is needed to, for example, obtain hospital records or police evidence from a foreign country in order to make that CC section stick, it might be problematic is some countries.


The limits of "Outside of Canada" are not defined in legislation as being terrestrial.  If CCC charges can be laid for offences committed aboard aircraft in flight, then why not the ISS, or DS9?


----------



## lenaitch

brihard said:


> Digital data is still developing new case law. Rule of thumb, if you hit something in a warranted search that could change the suspect’s jeopardy, get a new warrant. But in McGregor, they did. After executing the search warrant granted by an American court and finding child porn in their triage of the device contents, they paused and got a new Canadian warrant (I believe the device was being examined back in Ontario).
> 
> The McGregor appeal will have to do with the applicability of the Charter outside of Canada. I can’t predict ramifications.


Ah, digital.  Makes sense in the context.  This old brain was thinking physical.  If they stopped at the single image they came across - which they wouldn't - it would likely be admissible.  Looking for further images would be a further search with grounds and items not addressed in the original warrant.


Haggis said:


> The limits of "Outside of Canada" are not defined in legislation as being terrestrial.  If CCC charges can be laid for offences committed aboard aircraft in flight, then why not the ISS, or DS9?


Actually, a lot of it is if you get into Sec 7 (ISS, off-shore drilling platforms, etc.).  My point was, while the law may enable an extra-territorial jurisdiction (which in most cases have not been tested by the courts), gathering some evidence in some situations might be problematic.


----------



## TCM621

SeaKingTacco said:


> Actually, any unit in the CAF enters the chat.
> 
> G2G raised the very good point of a 22 year old MCpl leading a section of 18 -19 year old privates.
> 
> children leading children?


The average age for a Sgt(E-5) in the US Army is 22 with 4.5 years in. They have roughly the same level of authority as a MCpl. If your system is robust, you can get away with it because they should be supported from above. The problem I see is a) our system is weak and getting weaker, b) our junior leaders (MCpl/Lts) are being properly supported, and c) we don't apply the same rules to everyone and the ones that get away with the most are often the same people picked to be succession planned.


----------



## TCM621

FJAG said:


> This whole area of the law is one that changes with the season. If you go back far enough to British military law the military only had criminal legal power over its soldiers once articles of war had been published. Until then soldiers in garrison were only subject to civilian criminal law while the army did have some disciplinary powers.......


You're the expert here but I think one of the issues is that military law does have exactly the same aim as civilian law. From my understanding, military law is supposed to punish people quickly and get them back in the fight as soon as possible. Civilian law is more about protecting the rights of the public and punishing people who violate those rights.


----------



## FJAG

TCM621 said:


> You're the expert here but I think one of the issues is that military law does have exactly the same aim as civilian law. From my understanding, military law is supposed to punish people quickly and get them back in the fight as soon as possible. Civilian law is more about protecting the rights of the public and punishing people who violate those rights.


The purpose of the Canadian Military Justice System is stated as:



> The military justice system is designed to promote the operational effectiveness of the Canadian Armed Forces by contributing to the maintenance of discipline, efficiency, and morale, while ensuring that justice is administered fairly and with respect to the rule of law.



I'm not so sure about getting offenders back into the fight. That sounds more like what the medical system is supposed to do for the wounded.  😉


----------



## Jarnhamar

Blackadder1916 said:


> My interviews have revealed a system where cadets spend four years learning how to circumvent rules as a result of the immense pressure to succeed in all four pillars, together with the stringent expectations and rules imposed on them.



Blackadder's quote from the report really hits the nail on the head for me.

This rules for thee but not for me starts as ocdts and finishes at the CDS level.

RMC produces some awesome leaders and awesome people. People who aren't just enjoyable to work for but inspiring. 

We're getting too much garbage with the graduating classes though.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Jarnhamar said:


> Blackadder's quote from the report really hits the nail on the head for me.
> 
> This rules for thee but not for me starts as ocdts and finishes at the CDS level.
> 
> * RMC produces some awesome leaders and awesome people. People who aren't just enjoyable to work for but inspiring.
> 
> We're getting too much garbage with the graduating classes though.*


The cream of the crop, rises to the top. The problem is that the crap floats just as well, and is often hidden in the curds. 

A lot of fantastic people I have worked with were RMC Grads. Unfortunately, the ones that stick out the most were the insufferable pricks that shouldn't be in charge of a lemonade stand, let alone holding a commission. 

When both are marching through the Arch at the end of 4 years without someone saying "I'm not sure about that one..." that's how OCdt McFuckFace becomes Capt/Maj/Col/Gen McFuckFace. 

Problem children that should be nipped in the bud turn into headlines in the Globe and Mail. The sooner the "No one is entitled to a job in the CAF" mentality the CFRG lives by is adopted by the rest of the CAF past enrollment, the better.


----------



## Kat Stevens

rmc_wannabe said:


> The cream of the crop, rises to the top. The problem is that the crap floats just as well, and is often hidden in the curds.
> 
> A lot of fantastic people I have worked with were RMC Grads. Unfortunately, the ones that stick out the most were the insufferable pricks that shouldn't be in charge of a lemonade stand, let alone holding a commission.
> 
> When both are marching through the Arch at the end of 4 years without someone saying "I'm not sure about that one..." that's how OCdt McFuckFace becomes Capt/Maj/Col/Gen McFuckFace.
> 
> Problem children that should be nipped in the bud turn into headlines in the Globe and Mail. The sooner the "No one is entitled to a job in the CAF" mentality the CFRG lives by is adopted by the rest of the CAF past enrollment, the better.


Yup. if you're "quarrelsome" as a pte/cpl, your career is just quietly brought to a grinding halt, for the most part. A few toenails still end up in the hamburger anyway. Officers are posted or promoted out of the way, until there are no more out of the way places to post them, and then they find themselves in a position to do real harm to a lot of people.


----------



## KevinB

Kat Stevens said:


> Yup. if you're "quarrelsome" as a pte/cpl, your career is just quietly brought to a grinding halt, for the most part. A few toenails still end up in the hamburger anyway. Officers are posted or promoted out of the way, until there are no more out of the way places to post them, and then they find themselves in a position to do real harm to a lot of people.


That generally occurs in any pyramid scheme too.   

Let’s face it, in 2022, there probably should be some changes from a pre Feudal rank system to adapt it to todays society.  

The Western World no longer has serfs and nobility (for the most part) - so why retain a system from that bygone era.  

Why not start everyone at Ground Zero - and stream people based on ability?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

KevinB said:


> The Western World no longer has serfs and nobility (for the most part) - so why retain a system from that bygone era.



There might be some folks in the House of Commons that don’t agree with or aren’t aware of that idea…



KevinB said:


> Why not start everyone at Ground Zero - and stream people based on ability?



The same people mentioned above might be disadvantaged by this idea.😁


----------



## dimsum

KevinB said:


> That generally occurs in any pyramid scheme too.
> 
> Let’s face it, in 2022, there probably should be some changes from a pre Feudal rank system to adapt it to todays society.
> 
> The Western World no longer has serfs and nobility (for the most part) - so why retain a system from that bygone era.
> 
> Why not start everyone at Ground Zero - and stream people based on ability?


I want to say that there was a documentary a couple of decades back about the PLA abolishing ranks due to the Cultural Revolution.  It worked so...um...well that ranks came back in the late 80s.

To confirm, is your proposal that everyone (soldier to doctor) start as a Pte/S3/Avr, or that everyone starts as an NCM job then becomes an officer job?  If the latter, what happens with specialists (like doctor/lawyer) - if they're direct entry, do they stop being doctor/lawyer and be [insert trade] NCM for a few years?

I find that this scheme _may_ work if the officer and NCM job is somewhat similar.  Not so much when there are officer jobs which have no NCM equivalent.

And yes, technically trades like Pilot don't need to be officers.  However, that really only works if we don't interact with other nations (or don't expect an equal say).  For example, in a CAOC, what would the authority between an RCAF Sgt Pilot and an USAF Capt Pilot look like?


----------



## Good2Golf

dimsum said:


> And yes, technically trades like Pilot don't need to be officers. However, that really only works if we don't interact with other nations (or don't expect an equal say). For example, in a CAOC, what would the authority between an RCAF Sgt Pilot and an USAF Capt Pilot look like?


Judging from examples like a US CW3 or CW4 aviator commanding a pivotal operational atask force that a lot of other joint forces depend on, the answer could be, the Cdn Sgt or WO had experience deep into an operational theatre that make her or him a very valuable SME who brings their experience, combined with the authority to represent from a contributing nation in the CAOC…


----------



## Brad Sallows

Starting everyone with common training and subsequently "streaming" is not inconsistent with also having ranks/appointments for those further downstream.


----------



## FSTO

dimsum said:


> I want to say that there was a documentary a couple of decades back about the PLA abolishing ranks due to the Cultural Revolution.  It worked so...um...well that ranks came back in the late 80s.
> 
> To confirm, is your proposal that everyone (soldier to doctor) start as a Pte/S3/Avr, or that everyone starts as an NCM job then becomes an officer job?  If the latter, what happens with specialists (like doctor/lawyer) - if they're direct entry, do they stop being doctor/lawyer and be [insert trade] NCM for a few years?
> 
> I find that this scheme _may_ work if the officer and NCM job is somewhat similar.  Not so much when there are officer jobs which have no NCM equivalent.
> 
> And yes, technically trades like Pilot don't need to be officers.  However, that really only works if we don't interact with other nations (or don't expect an equal say).  For example, in a CAOC, what would the authority between an RCAF Sgt Pilot and an USAF Capt Pilot look like?


I'd advocate for NWOs to start off as Boatswains or NCIOP/NAC OP/NESOP, MSE/CSE Officers start off a techs or stokers and Supply Officers start off as a supply clerk. Go to killick and pick the cream (and who want to become officers)


----------



## McG

KevinB said:


> The Western World no longer has serfs and nobility (for the most part) - so why retain a system from that bygone era.


The distinction between officers and non-commissioned members being one of social class is long outdated, but there are still relevant functional aspects of maintaining separate paths. If you look at industry in the western world there are few organizations with > 100k people that are trying to generate future executives from employees on the factory floor or in the mail room.  There are a lot with nostalgic stories of an early CEO who took that path and then grew the company from something small to something huge, but those are not the normal career progression anywhere. Via UTPNCM and CFR, the CAF already offers paths to these exceptions, and we could probably afford to give more access to these paths. But still as a non-standard route.

We need to remember the amount of time and effort required to develop a tradesperson.  Most (if not all) officer occupations are undeserving of being recognized as trades, while the plurality (if not the majority) of non-commissioned occupations are trades. It takes a lot of training, practice, and time to develop in a trade. There are already complaints of people moving through careers too quickly to learn their jobs as the CAF hurries to develop future senior leaders. The quality of our trades and of our sr NCO corps would be destroyed if we attempted to rush every private along the path to be future CDS.

The required aptitudes at different levels are also very different and the CAF is very bad at actually judging/predicting aptitude for higher levels. We assume those who excel at the tactical level will be the ones who excel at the strategic. Nano-tactical generals who revert to their tactical level comfort zone would be even more prolific having had less time to develop at operational and strategic levels. Institutional stewardship and the provision of military advice to political leadership would be two things that suffer greatly.  If you think the military mismanages major projects right now, know that it would get worse.

Most companies offer multiple paths for lateral entry. The CAF has only two levels where people can enter.  I have heard suggestions that we need flexibility for entry at more levels.  I don’t know what that would look like, and will defer judgment in the absence of a model to consider.  But I will suggest that we must not compress our two entry levels into only one.


----------



## KevinB

McG said:


> The distinction between officers and non-commissioned members being one of social class is long outdated, but there are still relevant functional aspects of maintaining separate paths. If you look at industry in the western world there are few organizations with > 100k people that are trying to generate future executives from employees on the factory floor or in the mail room.  There are a lot with nostalgic stories of an early CEO who took that path and then grew the company from something small to something huge, but those are not the normal career progression anywhere. Via UTPNCM and CFR, the CAF already offers paths to these exceptions, and we could probably afford to give more access to these paths. But still as a non-standard route.
> 
> We need to remember the amount of time and effort required to develop a tradesperson.  Most (if not all) officer occupations are undeserving of being recognized as trades, while the plurality (if not the majority) of non-commissioned occupations are trades. It takes a lot of training, practice, and time to develop in a trade. There are already complaints of people moving through careers too quickly to learn their jobs as the CAF hurries to develop future senior leaders. The quality of our trades and of our sr NCO corps would be destroyed if we attempted to rush every private along the path to be future CDS.
> 
> The required aptitudes at different levels are also very different and the CAF is very bad at actually judging/predicting aptitude for higher levels. We assume those who excel at the tactical level will be the ones who excel at the strategic. Nano-tactical generals who revert to their tactical level comfort zone would be even more prolific having had less time to develop at operational and strategic levels. Institutional stewardship and the provision of military advice to political leadership would be two things that suffer greatly.  If you think the military mismanages major projects right now, know that it would get worse.
> 
> Most companies offer multiple paths for lateral entry. The CAF has only two levels where people can enter.  I have heard suggestions that we need flexibility for entry at more levels.  I don’t know what that would look like, and will defer judgment in the absence of a model to consider.  But I will suggest that we must not compress our two entry levels into only one.


I'm  not suggesting that everyone do 12 years at the coal face and progress in a tedious liner manner -- what I am suggesting is that perhaps a Common Entry Course, and observance of how one does on numerous different tests during the process that one would then get offered certain positions based on that.   
  With the option to switch paths latter on depending on needs of the service and ability etc...

I agree that a good Warrant Officer isn't necessarily a good Colonel - but I think they needs to be a better way to sort technical abilities, and create a system that allows specialist trades to be recruited and paid at a decent rate - that doesn't necessarily require an inflated rank system to compensate them correctly.


----------



## dimsum

KevinB said:


> what I am suggesting is that perhaps a Common Entry Course, and observance of how one does on numerous different tests during the process that one would then get offered certain positions based on that.
> With the option to switch paths latter on depending on needs of the service and ability etc...


So, for example, everyone going through Basic Officer Training and while there, have everyone screened for Aircrew Selection?


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

One result I have observed after working with armies that only draw their officers from the ranks is the marginalization of their NCO corps. Those officers ruled with an iron fist, and the NCOs were those that did not "make it" to officer. I like how our recruits can choose either path as their aspirations and aptitudes take them. The result is experienced NCOs with junior officers. 

Our system works - entry level officer training for the Army certainly functions to remove those without the aptitude. It is not a guarantee of ethical behaviour, but neither would having everyone serve for a few years in the ranks first.


----------



## Brad Sallows

A common entry course throws candidates into a mix with people with whom they wouldn't ordinarily associate, let alone work closely with.  You'd probably figure out early on who thinks highly of themselves and isn't meant to be subject to the same limits as ordinary people, and then have to deal with that.


----------



## KevinB

dimsum said:


> I want to say that there was a documentary a couple of decades back about the PLA abolishing ranks due to the Cultural Revolution.  It worked so...um...well that ranks came back in the late 80s.


Ranks came back for them very shortly after actuality when Mao himself wasn't recognized giving commands...



dimsum said:


> To confirm, is your proposal that everyone (soldier to doctor) start as a Pte/S3/Avr, or that everyone starts as an NCM job then becomes an officer job?  If the latter, what happens with specialists (like doctor/lawyer) - if they're direct entry, do they stop being doctor/lawyer and be [insert trade] NCM for a few years?


 Why does a Doctor or Lawyer need to be an officer?   Why not have a specific technical specialist system for those "non command" trades.
   I don't think that everyone starts as #1 Rifleman works -- but a common entry course (mix of basic and recruit) 4 months or so should be good enough to a lot of folks to both self select - and peer review others.


dimsum said:


> I find that this scheme _may_ work if the officer and NCM job is somewhat similar.  Not so much when there are officer jobs which have no NCM equivalent.
> 
> And yes, technically trades like Pilot don't need to be officers.  However, that really only works if we don't interact with other nations (or don't expect an equal say).  For example, in a CAOC, what would the authority between an RCAF Sgt Pilot and an USAF Capt Pilot look like?


I was more thinking of Pilot Grade 1, through 11,  
   Flying Warrant Officers for those who just want to fly, and Commissioned Officers for those who want a Command and Admin Burden on top of that?



TangoTwoBravo said:


> One result I have observed after working with armies that only draw their officers from the ranks is the marginalization of their NCO corps. Those officers ruled with an iron fist, and the NCOs were those that did not "make it" to officer. I like how our recruits can choose either path as their aspirations and aptitudes take them. The result is experienced NCOs with junior officers.
> 
> Our system works - entry level officer training for the Army certainly functions to remove those without the aptitude. It is not a guarantee of ethical behaviour, but neither would having everyone serve for a few years in the ranks first.


I'm not suggesting 2-3 years as a Private then running OCS - though, I think that option should be more on the table than the CAF has currently.
   I'm thinking 4 months at Common Entry Course - during which those wanting certain trades can be examined in depth - better than a few recruiting interviews.


----------



## FJAG

TangoTwoBravo said:


> One result I have observed after working with armies that only draw their officers from the ranks is the marginalization of their NCO corps. Those officers ruled with an iron fist, and the NCOs were those that did not "make it" to officer. I like how our recruits can choose either path as their aspirations and aptitudes take them. The result is experienced NCOs with junior officers.


I was on a liaison visit to the Italian Army when it still had the draft. Their regiment had roughly 75 to 100 professional officers and senior NCOs and took in a draft of a thousand or so (9 batteries to the regiment) and put them through a screening. The top 50 or so were selected for officer training and were made 2nd Lts and the next 75 or so selected as Snr NCOs, sent on a course and made sergeants. The rest filled out all the other jobs.

In a recent interview of someone involved in training the ANA in 2005, he mentioned that he discussed with an Afghan general the problem that Afghans had delegating anything, especially to NCOs. In their system as well there is an intake of individuals followed by a selection process assigning individuals to officer, NCO and various trades streams. He was advised of two things. Firstly that delegating anything is considered a weakness in Afghan culture and secondly that the concept of NCO in their culture was equated as an "officer failure".

Our officer/OR structure may have its heritage in a very rigid class structure but seems to have matured into something practical. The three things I would like to see are: elimination of the university requirement for officers; a separate career stream for WOs (separating it from the Sgt/Sgt Major NCO stream so as to facilitate technical specialization); and attendance for ORs and officers on a common DP1 course (followed perhaps by six months in a unit in the ranks) before officers learn the leadership aspects of their jobs.



KevinB said:


> Why does a Doctor or Lawyer need to be an officer?


In some armies they don't. As a LegO my primary client was usually one or two ranks higher than me thus I had no power over them other than as an advisor and, since I belonged to the JAG CoC, they had no power over me in the performance of my legal duties (see QR&O 4.081)

While I don't usually want to wind @dapaterson up on the topic of lawyers, he might want to comment on the pleasure he's had working with CAF legal officers and the DoJ civilian lawyers.  😁 I doubt that you could get one out on an operation but maybe a WO type of specialty would do if the pay scales could be made to work.

🍻


----------



## daftandbarmy

FJAG said:


> I was on a liaison visit to the Italian Army when it still had the draft. Their regiment had roughly 75 to 100 professional officers and senior NCOs and took in a draft of a thousand or so (9 batteries to the regiment) and put them through a screening. The top 50 or so were selected for officer training and were made 2nd Lts and the next 75 or so selected as Snr NCOs, sent on a course and made sergeants. The rest filled out all the other jobs.



We could do the same with an annual SYEP-type program.

Hire thousands of kids for the summer and put them through basic training, and along the way identify good candidates for ongoing service in the CAF at whatever rank levels they seem suited for.

Some might choose to say goodbye to the military after the summer, others might choose to join the Regs or Reserves as Officers or NCMs...


----------



## rmc_wannabe

daftandbarmy said:


> We could do the same with an annual SYEP-type program.
> 
> Hire thousands of kids for the summer and put them through basic training, and along the way identify good candidates for ongoing service in the CAF at whatever rank levels they seem suited for.
> 
> Some might choose to say goodbye to the military after the summer, others might choose to join the Regs or Reserves as Officers or NCMs...


Better yet, allow for people with maturity and experience to progress past the Pte(R) to Pte(B)  stream and actively look for personnel that have worked as supervisors, managers, or tradespeople in their field and promote them accordingly. 

If a person is coming in at 27 having worked as an HR Supervisor for 9 years, why keep them at the bottom of the ladder? Their skills and qualities haven't changed, only the systems they are working on. We need to start looking at lateral recruitment as a way to fill out the middle, vice hoping we can recruit new entries as a way to dig ourselves out of a staffing shortage.


----------



## FJAG

daftandbarmy said:


> We could do the same with an annual SYEP-type program.
> 
> Hire thousands of kids for the summer and put them through basic training, and along the way identify good candidates for ongoing service in the CAF at whatever rank levels they seem suited for.
> 
> Some might choose to say goodbye to the military after the summer, others might choose to join the Regs or Reserves as Officers or NCMs...


We did exactly that in the early 70s. Folks then went through a recruit course under the SSEP (I was on one of those in the 60s in 7th Toronto). We'd mentored the good ones to stay in the units that recruited them and encouraged them to come back for the next year's NCO oriented program. It was called SSEP 5B at the time and at six weeks was better than the equivalent Militia Junior NCO course which ran to two weeks. 3 RCHA ran Prairie Area's SSEP 5B the summer of 71 in Wainwright. 

I'm a great believer of exploiting every minute of a student's summer holiday for cash and a reserve commitment.

🍻


----------



## Eye In The Sky

FJAG said:


> I was on a liaison visit to the Italian Army when it still had the draft. Their regiment had roughly 75 to 100 professional officers and senior NCOs and took in a draft of a thousand or so (9 batteries to the regiment) and put them through a screening. The top 50 or so were selected for officer training and were made 2nd Lts and the next 75 or so selected as Snr NCOs, sent on a course and made sergeants. The rest filled out all the other jobs.
> 
> In a recent interview of someone involved in training the ANA in 2005, he mentioned that he discussed with an Afghan general the problem that Afghans had delegating anything, especially to NCOs. In their system as well there is an intake of individuals followed by a selection process assigning individuals to officer, NCO and various trades streams. He was advised of two things. Firstly that delegating anything is considered a weakness in Afghan culture and secondly that the concept of NCO in their culture was equated as an "officer failure".
> 
> Our officer/OR structure may have its heritage in a very rigid class structure but seems to have matured into something practical. The three things I would like to see are: elimination of the university requirement for officers; a separate career stream for WOs (separating it from the Sgt/Sgt Major NCO stream so as to facilitate technical specialization); and attendance for ORs and officers on a common DP1 course (followed perhaps by six months in a unit in the ranks) before officers learn the leadership aspects of their jobs.



NCMs stop being NCOs at the WO/PO1 ranks. Why people, Officers in particular, struggle with or ignore that is beyond me.

Re: the career stream part, something similar to this was proposed for Aircrew trade WOs;  Airs Ops Supervisor.   I believe the rank was going to be MWO and can’t recall if it was to be via selection or COT, but there wasn’t much positive thought about it at the NCO ranks from what I can remember.

In the end, it didn’t progress and the SEMS/TEMS project came along a few years later.  I haven’t seen anything results from TEMS and am not convinced SEMS is truly what the CAF needs.  But we’re into it now anyways…

The Army has a Tech WO program and course, but I am not sure if there’s meaningful benefit to it.

I’m not aware of the RCN having anything similar at all.  



FJAG said:


> While I don't usually want to wind @dapaterson up on the topic of lawyers, he might want to comment on the pleasure he's had working with CAF legal officers and the DoJ civilian lawyers.  😁 I doubt that you could get one out on an operation but maybe a WO type of specialty would do if the pay scales could be made to work.
> 
> 🍻



With SAR Techs making the equivalent of GSO LCol and Cols, the concept that pay must be tied to rank should be a historical fact in the CAF…maybe that will the door that opens up discussions about the entire Warrant/Petty Officer Corps and a restructure more aligned with the US Army Warrant Officer model?


----------



## dapaterson

Unlikely, since most CAF WO / PO folks are not doing US military WO type work.

CAF members are remarkably agile at overstating the value of the work they perform.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

dapaterson said:


> Unlikely, since most CAF WO / PO folks are not doing US military WO type work.
> 
> CAF members are remarkably agile at overstating the value of the work they perform.



That intent would be to completely restructure and employ Warrant Officers across the CAF.  Specialists who will never move on to Command.

Why can’t PSOs have Warrant Officers, or Legal etc?


----------



## McG

What actual problem would US style WO ranks solve in Canada? What can we not do now that would be solved by legislating another layer of complexity to the rank structures?


----------



## Navy_Pete

FSTO said:


> I'd advocate for NWOs to start off as Boatswains or NCIOP/NAC OP/NESOP, MSE/CSE Officers start off a techs or stokers and Supply Officers start off as a supply clerk. Go to killick and pick the cream (and who want to become officers)


We already have that officer development stream though with both the CFR and the UTPNCM programs, but the throughput is in single digits per year.

The phase 6 for MSE actually mirrors the old stoker progression to an extent; been about a decade now but I was a qualified roundsman and had some console time, while the board was effectively the same as the cert 3. Similarly, the AHOD is the very similar question bank to the cert 4. The difference was the expectations for the answers, where the officers were expected to have a better understanding of the the theoretics of how things work, while the stokers were more on the practical side of things. With the reduced sea time expectations have dropped a fair bit, but means that you can get a pretty good idea of the practical day to day requirements of the trade (if you put in the effort to get stuck into the dirty jobs).

Nothing wrong with our system really, as we get a pretty good mix of experiences.


----------



## Ostrozac

Eye In The Sky said:


> That intent would be to completely restructure and employ Warrant Officers across the CAF.  Specialists who will never move on to Command.


We already have plenty of paths for people to stay at their current rank, whether through actively opting out of career progression or passively refusing to do the things required to succeed at promotion boards.

A direct copy of the US Warrant Officer or 1970’s-style Specialist rank system would give you a few highly experienced technicians that you could pay like Captains or MWOs while allowing them to opt out of management and leadership tasks. It would probably dilute the Senior NCO cadre, which is a major risk. It wouldn’t solve the problem that you might not be paying junior ranks enough for them to survive, or at least to survive in uniform long enough to think about career progression. I’d bump up pay at the Pte/Cpl level before planning for a technician with 30 years of service that can’t be used as a team lead.

In many cases, if we really need a deep specialist technician that doesn’t manage or lead, we should probably make that position a civil servant.


----------



## FJAG

Eye In The Sky said:


> NCMs stop being NCOs at the WO/PO1 ranks. Why people, Officers in particular, struggle with or ignore that is beyond me.


Point taken but in defence of what I said, neither the Italian Army nor the Afghan Army have warrant officers. The ANA, like the US Army uses NCOs all the way up the OR leadership ladder; For the US, WOs are a separate kettle of fish. The Italians classify their _sergentes_ and _maresciollos_ as sub-officers which are all considered senior NCOs (with the exception of the OR-9 rank of _Luogotenente_ where everything seems to go to hell in a handbasket.)



McG said:


> What actual problem would US style WO ranks solve in Canada? What can we not do now that would be solved by legislating another layer of complexity to the rank structures?


We had a lengthy and exhaustive debate about this a year or two ago in another thread whose name escapes me. @SupersonicMax might recall. I won't reopen it here as I expect others might threaten my life if I do.  😁

🍻


----------



## daftandbarmy

McG said:


> What actual problem would US style WO ranks solve in Canada? What can we not do now that would be solved by legislating another layer of complexity to the rank structures?



You mean, like Pipe Majors?


----------



## Navy_Pete

Ostrozac said:


> In many cases, if we really need a deep specialist technician that doesn’t manage or lead, we should probably make that position a civil servant.



Generally deep technical specialists (like GT-8s or ENG 7s or 8s) are much better paid as civil servants than military techs are.


----------



## Good2Golf

Eye In The Sky said:


> NCMs stop being NCOs at the WO/PO1 ranks. Why people, Officers in particular, struggle with or ignore that is beyond me.


Maybe they should be NCNWOs? (Non-commissioned, non-warranted officers) 🤔

And PTEs/S1s/AVRs would just be NOs (non-officers).


----------



## dimsum

Good2Golf said:


> Maybe they should be NCNWOs? (Non-commissioned, non-warranted officers) 🤔
> 
> And PTEs/S1s/AVRs would just be NOs (non-officers).


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Good2Golf said:


> Maybe they should be NCNWOs? (Non-commissioned, non-warranted officers) 🤔
> 
> And PTEs/S1s/AVRs would just be NOs (non-officers).


I didn’t create the rank structure, or the QR and O definitions of NCO.  I do take the time to respect the Commissioned ranks and which is Junior, Senior, etc.  it’s nice when that respect is reciprocated…


----------



## FSTO

Navy_Pete said:


> We already have that officer development stream though with both the CFR and the UTPNCM programs, but the throughput is in single digits per year.
> 
> The phase 6 for MSE actually mirrors the old stoker progression to an extent; been about a decade now but I was a qualified roundsman and had some console time, while the board was effectively the same as the cert 3. Similarly, the AHOD is the very similar question bank to the cert 4. The difference was the expectations for the answers, where the officers were expected to have a better understanding of the the theoretics of how things work, while the stokers were more on the practical side of things. With the reduced sea time expectations have dropped a fair bit, but means that you can get a pretty good idea of the practical day to day requirements of the trade (if you put in the effort to get stuck into the dirty jobs).
> 
> Nothing wrong with our system really, as we get a pretty good mix of experiences.


The old MARS II  when we had training squadron was an excellent intro to being an OOW. Being a OS Bosn and Nav Sig for a couple of months was great insight to the life in the lower decks.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

McG said:


> What actual problem would US style WO ranks solve in Canada? What can we not do now that would be solved by legislating another layer of complexity to the rank structures?



Maybe we could save some money on university degrees (over-sold on benefits to the CAF for the cost).  Second language training.  

There’s 2 quick examples of how the CAF could save money for a mbr who joined and selected Warrant Officer Pilot,  vice Pilot Officer.  They would join knowing they will never proceed to Sqn Comd or higher, but will always work in or very close to a cockpit or GCS.

Years spent on Masters and other MilCol coursing, at the average rank of Major…also avoided.

On top of that, the CAF gets a very experienced and skilled pilot for many years.

What other trades/classifications  could we separate this way?  There must be some…and people willing to select the Warrant side;  we call them CFLs…

Maybe that’s out in left field…


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Thread split?


----------



## McG

Eye In The Sky said:


> Maybe we could save some money on university degrees (over-sold on benefits to the CAF for the cost). Second language training.
> 
> There’s 2 quick examples of how the CAF could save money for a mbr who joined and selected Warrant Officer Pilot, vice Pilot Officer. They would join knowing they will never proceed to Sqn Comd or higher, but will always work in or very close to a cockpit or GCS.
> 
> Years spent on Masters and other MilCol coursing, at the average rank of Major…also avoided.
> 
> On top of that, the CAF gets a very experienced and skilled pilot for many years.


All of this can be achieved within existing rank structures and without requirement for legislative change. We have CEOTP and the time limit to achieve a degree is governed by regulation, so much easier to change than the law which authorizes the rank structure.


----------



## Good2Golf

Eye In The Sky said:


> I didn’t create the rank structure, or the QR and O definitions of NCO.  I do take the time to respect the Commissioned ranks and which is Junior, Senior, etc.  it’s nice when that respect is reciprocated…


EITS, I should have been clear with my post, which in no way was intended as a dig at you.  Rather, without making it clear enough, that there is a larger issue that the CAF can sometimes add a bit of complexity when not needed.  I apologize to you if you felt it was a response to you specifically, I’ll take greater care in the future where there is justifiably an element of seriousness and professionalism to one’s comment.

Now, that said, I always found it amusing when more senior NCMs, let’s say, higher ranks than NCOs, would do the wind-up “I’m not an officer! I work for a living!” on some unsuspecting subbie.  Ironically, they WERE officers, just warranted, not commissioned, so there’s that.

Interestingly, seeing a recent Canadian news piece about a court martial of a “Navy officer” for sexual assault, assault and uttering threats, I see that it was a PO1.  Yes, an officer, but I can’t help but wonder if the article just said ‘officer’ to keep some heat on the current state of concern to more senior officers of the CAF, or just an honest editorial foreshortening of Petty Officer to save space.  Additionally, does an RCN Petty Officer have a Warrant, like RCAF and CA WOs/MWOs/CWOs?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

McG said:


> All of this can be achieved within existing rank structures and without requirement for legislative change. We have CEOTP and the time limit to achieve a degree is governed by regulation, so much easier to change than the law which authorizes the rank structure.



I’m talking about eliminating degrees altogether.  They are justified for all Officers and the burden on the taxpayers isn’t one that should continue to be shouldered IMO.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Good2Golf said:


> EITS, I should have been clear with my post, which in no way was intended as a dig at you.  Rather, without making it clear enough, that there is a larger issue that the CAF can sometimes add a bit of complexity when not needed.  I apologize to you if you felt it was a response to you specifically, I’ll take greater care in the future where there is justifiably an element of seriousness and professionalism to one’s comment.
> 
> Now, that said, I always found it amusing when more senior NCMs, let’s say, higher ranks than NCOs, would do the wind-up “I’m not an officer! I work for a living!” on some unsuspecting subbie.  Ironically, they WERE officers, just warranted, not commissioned, so there’s that.
> 
> Interestingly, seeing a recent Canadian news piece about a court martial of a “Navy officer” for sexual assault, assault and uttering threats, I see that it was a PO1.  Yes, an officer, but I can’t help but wonder if the article just said ‘officer’ to keep some heat on the current state of concern to more senior officers of the CAF, or just an honest editorial foreshortening of Petty Officer to save space.  Additionally, does an RCN Petty Officer have a Warrant, like RCAF and CA WOs/MWOs/CWOs?



A day in the sun must have messed up my sense of humour.  My apologies!

And you’re right on the officer side.  Cpl rank is a Jnr…NCO. 😁


----------



## Jarnhamar

Eye In The Sky said:


> And you’re right on the officer side.  Cpl rank is a Jnr…NCO. 😁


And WOs are SNCOs 😐


----------



## McG

Eye In The Sky said:


> I’m talking about eliminating degrees altogether.  They are justified for all Officers and the burden on the taxpayers isn’t one that should continue to be shouldered IMO.


We don’t need US style WO ranks to do that. The CAF can change the CEOTP regulations to allow an indefinite amount of time to get a degree, and the hard requirement for a degree can remain for promotion to sr officer. Members and officers can already opt out of career advancement, so even someone with a degree would not be obligated to compete for higher rank.

What we would get from US style WO ranks would do more to feed some of the problems that this thread has discussed. People doing the same jobs with different compensation and advancement opportunities in s not good (especially if different demographics become disproportionately represented in one group or another). There will be extraneous administrative barriers to career options (if you are a pilot WO and do get a degree, you still can’t compete for higher jobs without an occupation transfer).


----------



## FJAG

Just for info, the thread where we discussed flying WOs and NCOs last year is here:

Non-Commissioned Pilots in the RCAF Discussion

🍻


----------



## TacticalTea

Jarnhamar said:


> And WOs are SNCOs 😐








						Army ranks - Canada.ca
					

Ranks in the Canadian Army mark a person's position in its hierarchical structure. Badges show a person's rank.




					www.canada.ca
				




Verse






						QR&O: Volume I – Chapter 1 – Introduction and Definitions - Canada.ca
					

Queen's Regulations and Orders - QR&O - Chapter 1 - Introduction and Definitions




					www.canada.ca
				




So Sergeant is the only SNCO and anything above is a WO? That doesn't seem like a very useful definition. Especially since the understanding of what falls under ''NCO'' differs greatly amongst even just our NORAD/NATO allies. Common meaning interpretation grants that an NCO is any Officer that is not commissioned, which is how, as an example, the RNZN defines it.

I would favour the conversion of non-commanding officer trades (yes, trades, specifically because those belong in the NCM category) into Specialists (for lateral entry above Private) and Warrants. And then you can use the Sergeant+suffix (or prefix, à la Staff Sergeant) category for NCM leadership roles.

Also while you're at it, correct the historical aberration that is the ''Acting Sub-lieutenant'' rank and replace that with Ensign.

On the question of a common Officer/NCM path, it is probably better for that career choice to be made before they put the combat boots on. The consequences of the Afghan model are foreseeable, and an NCO should never be perceived as a failed officer. Yet that does not preclude a common entry course.

I have long thought it would be interesting, and probably beneficial to have everyone (within a given element, see USN boot camp) go through the same BMQ. Two options follow from this: either those running it as officers are recognized as such and given more responsibilities during the course, or simply move on to a subsequent leadership course at the end of the common phase, such as a single-year program at RMC (See, UK's RMC Sandhurst).

Three birds one stone; you've cut education costs, resolved issues with RMC cadet leadership (by removing three years from the curriculum, cadets exercising leadership do so in a much more limited capacity, and not as institutional figures.), and improved the NCO/NCM/Officer relationship. Plus, thread is back on topic ;P


----------



## torg003

BTW, Ensign isn't a naval rank, it is an army rank (historically), just ask the guard units.


----------



## TacticalTea

torg003 said:


> BTW, Ensign isn't a naval rank, it is an army rank (historically), just ask the guard units.


It is in French  

I'd have gone with Midship*man *but I don't think that one's acceptable in 2020s Canada. Transition to Ensign follows the same logic of genderlessness and translinguistic standardization that gave us Sailor 1/2/3. (it's also another thing that I can point to the RNZN for)


----------



## Eye In The Sky

McG said:


> We don’t need US style WO ranks to do that. The CAF can change the CEOTP regulations to allow an indefinite amount of time to get a degree, and the hard requirement for a degree can remain for promotion to sr officer. Members and officers can already opt out of career advancement, so even someone with a degree would not be obligated to compete for higher rank.
> 
> What we would get from US style WO ranks would do more to feed some of the problems that this thread has discussed. People doing the same jobs with different compensation and advancement opportunities in s not good (especially if different demographics become disproportionately represented in one group or another). There will be extraneous administrative barriers to career options (if you are a pilot WO and do get a degree, you still can’t compete for higher jobs without an occupation transfer).



Not everyone who is a pilot is capable of advancing to being a CO, Wing Comd etc.   Some of them don’t want to advance, some would be happy to spend their entire career in a cockpit (we have 2 in our fleet that are close to if not over the 10,000hr mark, and Capt’s). 

If WO is not a solution, for aircrew trades the RCAF could adopt a system like the Professional Aircrew Spine the RAF has.  Mbrs can apply for PA, and if selected they will always work around a operational or training Sqn, and have rank caps. But they also go on a different pay scale so their pay and pension isn’t negatively effected solely because they don’t want to advance and shoot for Wing Comd/WCWO equivalent positions. 

The CAF could consider something similar for the operational units in all environments - I would have applied for PA and happily spent my life on an operational Sqn as a Crew Lead, STDs and Trg or similar.  But my pension and my wife’s QOL in retirement is a bigger factor in career decisions.

Opting out - that is an option but that doesn’t necessarily mean the operational world will retain that mbr and benefit from their experience.

I guess what I’m advocating for is a way to formalize and separate career technical and operational types from those with a desire to command.   To do so in a method which eliminates huge amounts of time and money on university education’s shouldered by tax payers with little to no benefit to said taxpayers.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Good2Golf said:


> Additionally, does an RCN Petty Officer have a Warrant, like RCAF and CA WOs/MWOs/CWOs?



Can you expand on "having a warrant" ?  Is this an official document/scroll in the RCAF/CA ? 

My understanding of the WO/PO1 -> MWO/CPO2 -> CWO/CPO1 ranks is that they are exactly the same just with different titles.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Jarnhamar said:


> And WOs are SNCOs 😐









😂


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Halifax Tar said:


> Can you expand on "having a warrant" ?  Is this an official document/scroll in the RCAF/CA ?
> 
> My understanding of the WO/PO1 -> MWO/CPO2 -> CWO/CPO1 ranks is that they are exactly the same just with different titles.



Yes, there is a Warrant.  Only CWO/CPO1s receive it.  I have a good document on the history of it in PDF I’ll post.  The short version of it is “it was thought if every Warrant/Petty Officer 1st Class and above received one it would dilute its value”.

My take on Warrant Officers is similar to NCOs; there are several ranks that are part of the group.   Actually, we do the same with Jnr/Snr/General-Flag Officers.






						Chapter 8 – Canadian Forces Commission Scripts and Scrolls - Canada.ca
					

Provides Forces personnel with the rules and regulations for wearing, replacing and recommending national honours and awards.




					www.canada.ca


----------



## OldSolduer

Halifax Tar said:


> Can you expand on "having a warrant" ?  Is this an official document/scroll in the RCAF/CA ?
> 
> My understanding of the WO/PO1 -> MWO/CPO2 -> CWO/CPO1 ranks is that they are exactly the same just with different titles.


You’ve nailed it.

I have a Warrant hanging on my wall. It’s only issued to CWO/CPO1 as far as I know.


----------



## Edward Campbell

It has been over a half century (since th mid 1960s) since the Canadian Forces looked, seriously, at its rank structure. I don't think it's unreasonable to look at the world today - the strategic situation, the state of society, technology, etc, etc - and ask ourselves if the current system meets our needs.


----------



## dapaterson

Sailor 1, 2 & 3 are not legal ranks.

The RCN half assed it and never bothered to make the legal change.


----------



## FSTO

dapaterson said:


> Sailor 1, 2 & 3 are not legal ranks.
> 
> The RCN half assed it and never bothered to make the legal change.


Of course. And if I walk around NDHQ Carling and started called the S1’s Leading Seamen I’d be drawn and quartered amongst the geese at the reflecting pool!


----------



## SeaKingTacco

FSTO said:


> Of course. And if I walk around NDHQ Carling and started called the S1’s Leading Seamen I’d be drawn and quartered amongst the geese at the reflecting pool!


I believe the more naval appropriate punishment would be flogging. Or stoppage of grog…


----------



## dapaterson

But it speaks to the unserious nature of CAF leadership; do it half assed, leave it incomplete, and carry on and ignore it.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Silly Supreme Court Justice.... she just doesn't get the CAF, does she? 

Military can't 'lock the doors' and try to fix sexual misconduct alone: Louise Arbour​*'Closed' military challenged by diversity*

Arbour said the drive for effective performance has been part of the military's problem. 

"Uniformity, homogeneity is very much part of the ease with which they feel they can deliver operationally," she said.

That means it's much easier to be effective "when everybody's the same," and trying to integrate women and underrepresented Canadians into military culture has been a challenge, she said. 

The answer is you have to open up, let some external oxygen into your system so that you keep more in pace with how Canadian society has evolved

As a result, "they have had more problems than other sectors of society in incorporating the ideals of diversity into their efficiency models."

The military is also a "closed" system, where recruits join at a young age and spend their careers steeped in tradition and established rhetoric. Senior leadership is also drawn from that pool, without the potential for external recruitment.

"The answer is you have to open up, let some external oxygen into your system so that you keep more in pace with how Canadian society has evolved," she said.



			https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-june-7-2022-1.6480021/military-can-t-lock-the-doors-and-try-to-fix-sexual-misconduct-alone-louise-arbour-1.6480059


----------



## FSTO

^^
The interview on CBC if you want to hear it.



			https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-june-7-2022-1.6480021/military-can-t-lock-the-doors-and-try-to-fix-sexual-misconduct-alone-louise-arbour-1.6480059
		


She made an interesting comment about Duty to Report. Did she mean for sexual harassment/assault only? It was rather ambiguous or maybe I misheard?


----------



## rmc_wannabe

daftandbarmy said:


> Silly Supreme Court Justice.... she just doesn't get the CAF, does she?
> 
> Military can't 'lock the doors' and try to fix sexual misconduct alone: Louise Arbour​*'Closed' military challenged by diversity*
> 
> Arbour said the drive for effective performance has been part of the military's problem.
> 
> "Uniformity, homogeneity is very much part of the ease with which they feel they can deliver operationally," she said.
> 
> That means it's much easier to be effective "when everybody's the same," and trying to integrate women and underrepresented Canadians into military culture has been a challenge, she said.
> 
> The answer is you have to open up, let some external oxygen into your system so that you keep more in pace with how Canadian society has evolved
> 
> As a result, "they have had more problems than other sectors of society in incorporating the ideals of diversity into their efficiency models."
> 
> The military is also a "closed" system, where recruits join at a young age and spend their careers steeped in tradition and established rhetoric. Senior leadership is also drawn from that pool, without the potential for external recruitment.
> 
> "The answer is you have to open up, let some external oxygen into your system so that you keep more in pace with how Canadian society has evolved," she said.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-june-7-2022-1.6480021/military-can-t-lock-the-doors-and-try-to-fix-sexual-misconduct-alone-louise-arbour-1.6480059


Everyone that has ever served in a military organization right now....


----------



## Infanteer

TacticalTea said:


> So Sergeant is the only SNCO and anything above is a WO? That doesn't seem like a very useful definition. Especially since the understanding of what falls under ''NCO'' differs greatly amongst even just our NORAD/NATO allies. Common meaning interpretation grants that an NCO is any Officer that is not commissioned, which is how, as an example, the RNZN defines it.



In our old system, we also had the Staff/Colour Sergeant rank, Corporals were leaders (Sgt equivalent), and Lance Corporal was the entry level leadership position.  So the system had logical distinctions when it looked like this:

Jr NCO - LCpl, Cpl
Sr NCO - Sgt, SSgt
WO - WO2, WO1


----------



## Navy_Pete

daftandbarmy said:


> Silly Supreme Court Justice.... she just doesn't get the CAF, does she?
> 
> Military can't 'lock the doors' and try to fix sexual misconduct alone: Louise Arbour​*'Closed' military challenged by diversity*
> 
> Arbour said the drive for effective performance has been part of the military's problem.
> 
> *"Uniformity, homogeneity is very much part of the ease with which they feel they can deliver operationally," she said.
> 
> That means it's much easier to be effective "when everybody's the same," and trying to integrate women and underrepresented Canadians into military culture has been a challenge, she said.*
> 
> The answer is you have to open up, let some external oxygen into your system so that you keep more in pace with how Canadian society has evolved
> 
> As a result, "they have had more problems than other sectors of society in incorporating the ideals of diversity into their efficiency models."
> 
> The military is also a "closed" system, where recruits join at a young age and spend their careers steeped in tradition and established rhetoric. Senior leadership is also drawn from that pool, without the potential for external recruitment.
> 
> "The answer is you have to open up, let some external oxygen into your system so that you keep more in pace with how Canadian society has evolved," she said.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-june-7-2022-1.6480021/military-can-t-lock-the-doors-and-try-to-fix-sexual-misconduct-alone-louise-arbour-1.6480059


From a personal perspective 'uniformity' is more that everyone is working on the same page as part of a big team, and if someone goes down, there are others that can step in to get the job done. From that perspective, the military is theoretically a big leveller, where your ability to get things done as part of the unit (vice past history) is more important. Similar approach to a team sport.

People being people, doesn't work like that across the board obviously, but really shouldn't matter what you look like, who you pray to etc. Can we do a better job at integrating people? Of course, and that might involve punting people that are more hung up on gender/religion whatever than getting the job done.

Is she suggesting we start getting civilians in the chain of command on operational units? We already have a lot of civilians in the support side, as well as a restrictive amount of civilian oversight to the point where it impedes progress. I'm not really sure why the report didn't recommend overhauling the existing ombudsman office, and have it independent from the MND and roll the sexual assault portion under there.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Navy_Pete said:


> From a personal perspective 'uniformity' is more that everyone is working on the same page as part of a big team, and if someone goes down, there are others that can step in to get the job done. From that perspective, the military is theoretically a big leveller, where your ability to get things done as part of the unit (vice past history) is more important. Similar approach to a team sport.


Agreed. This is what we need to retain and not let go of at all costs. We need people to be able to master their load station and know how to step up when C9 Gunner # 2 gets hit. There is no ambiguity there.



Navy_Pete said:


> People being people, doesn't work like that across the board obviously, but really shouldn't matter what you look like, who you pray to etc. Can we do a better job at integrating people? Of course, and that might involve punting people that are more hung up on gender/religion whatever than getting the job done.


Also agreed. I am all for inclusivity and adaptation to make it so that people feel they can be part of that team. That said a lot of the barriers I see in place are not systemic, per se, but I definitely feel as though its a "the World According to WO/Maj Bloggins" that has caused a lot the perceived "systemic" barriers brought up. It may not be that we have people in the CAF who are hostile towards minority groups within our society, its just a situation where acceptance is the standard, but tolerance is the only thing these folks are willing to give. Those kinds of people are toxic towards any form of culture change.



Navy_Pete said:


> Is she suggesting we start getting civilians in the chain of command on operational units? We already have a lot of civilians in the support side, as well as a restrictive amount of civilian oversight to the point where it impedes progress. I'm not really sure why the report didn't recommend overhauling the existing ombudsman office, and have it independent from the MND and roll the sexual assault portion under there.


I think this has to be a "DND/NCR"ism coming to light, as I have no idea how on earth you could employ forces on a tactical, operational, or strategic level under a civilian command structure. Furthermore, a lot of the civilian staff you have that would be considered for such a position would more than likely be "Sgt/Capt/Col/BGen (Ret'd)" up until assuming that position; so I'm not sure what you would be gaining from that exercise.

All of these issues stem from a lack of accountability and a lack of leadership from those in positions to correct it. Until we start treating it as such, shuffling the hand we have dealt ourselves isn't going to change the cards.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Infanteer said:


> In our old system ...


And our "old system" was pretty new.

The "modern" Canadian army was born of the Cardwell Reforms of the late 19th century.  The  Navy had a bit older and better system: even in the 8th century promotions, for officers, were based on examinations for competence, for example, while the, in the 19th century, the army still had commission by purchase.

But many of our "systems" were millennia old - we've understood since classical times that an element of about 10 soldiers is about the maximum that one person can control. Think the Roman decurion. 10 of those elements could be controlled by a well trained, seasoned leader: a century ≈ a company (nine sections) which has been a standard military unit for centuries.

We have some bench marks. A battery/company/squadron (75-150 soldiers) can be commanded by one middle ranked leader (an officer) assisted by numerous junior leaders. Several companies - less than 10 (the number of digits on our hands seems to equate, roughly, with the upper limit of anyone's reasonably manageable span of control) - form a fighting unit which needs a more seasoned leader and a number of battalions, etc, etc, etc: Corps - LGen; Div - MGen; Bde - BGen; Regt/Bn - LCol; Bty/Coy/Sqn - Maj;   Pl/Tp - Lt   ... as the Commonwealth armed have/had it 
Or:  Corps - LGen; Div - MGen; Bde - Col;    Regt/Bn - LCol; Bty/Coy/Sqn -Capt;  Pl/Tp - WO ...as some European armies have/had it.

What do we need below Pl/Tp?

What is the appropriate rank for a soldier who is young enough but also sufficiently experienced to be a tank or rifle section commander?

What is the right rank for the 1st level junior (apprentice) leader? How long, in a 21st century army, does it take to get a soldier from "trained" to junior leader?

What is the right rank/age (experience level) for a Tp/Pl 2IC?

What about specialist leaders in Artillery, Engineer and Signal units? Are Officers or Warrant Officers better suited for many tasks in those corps?

What about staff officers and NCOs in units and formations and national HQs? What is the role of staff schools and colleges - for NCOs and officers? Is there a really a "command" course? Should there be? Does the Navy have the right idea with Sea Command examinations?

How should we measure fitness for promotion and for certain kinds of employment, like command? Should enlisted ranks be tied to trade level? Does the RAF system of "technical" NCOs who are different from "leadership" NCOs have merit?

I think we might be due for a review.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> punting people that are more hung up on gender/religion



Two kinds of people should be punted.
Those hung up on someone else's gender/religion.
Those hung up on their own gender/religion.

The CAF is neither a place for discrimination nor a place for demanding contributions to self-realization from others.


----------



## Navy_Pete

@rmc_wannabe all good points; one thing about being in the NCR and working with other departments it was a bit eye opening at times, and had to adapt some behaviour and rephrase things because it was coming off as abrupt or aggressive when summarizing a meeting and verifying things like OPIs and deadlines. Meetings took longer, and frequently decisions were delayed/OBE so think some aspects of the military culture would benefit civilian side of things. 

Maybe that's more of a public service thing vice civilian workforce in general, but noticed some other large companies had similar 'cultures' leaning one way or the other.

Joked years ago about the optimal number of people in a collaborative working group to ensure nothing gets done is about 8; that basically guarantees you will have 5-6 people at the meeting which seems to be around where decisions stop getting made. I was mostly being a smart ass, and then someone came up with DPS. I regret not putting pen to paper earlier, but might still be an amusing satire on the zen of bureaucracy, even just to blow off some personal frustrations.


----------



## kev994

Navy_Pete said:


> @rmc_wannabe all good points; one thing about being in the NCR and working with other departments it was a bit eye opening at times, and had to adapt some behaviour and rephrase things because it was coming off as abrupt or aggressive when summarizing a meeting and verifying things like OPIs and deadlines. Meetings took longer, and frequently decisions were delayed/OBE so think some aspects of the military culture would benefit civilian side of things.
> 
> Maybe that's more of a public service thing vice civilian workforce in general, but noticed some other large companies had similar 'cultures' leaning one way or the other.
> 
> Joked years ago about the optimal number of people in a collaborative working group to ensure nothing gets done is about 8; that basically guarantees you will have 5-6 people at the meeting which seems to be around where decisions stop getting made. I was mostly being a smart ass, and then someone came up with DPS. I regret not putting pen to paper earlier, but might still be an amusing satire on the zen of bureaucracy, even just to blow off some personal frustrations.


My buddy worked in the NCR and was astounded by the number of people inviting themselves to meetings/ focus groups. Nobody wanted to do anything, they just wanted to make sure they had their finger in the pie.


----------



## dimsum

kev994 said:


> My buddy worked in the NCR and was astounded by the number of people inviting themselves to meetings/ focus groups. Nobody wanted to do anything, they just wanted to make sure they had their finger in the pie.


Yep.  It's always the secretary (sometimes the co-chairs) that do the work.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Navy_Pete said:


> Joked years ago about the optimal number of people in a collaborative working group to ensure nothing gets done is about 8; that basically guarantees you will have 5-6 people at the meeting which seems to be around where decisions stop getting made. I was mostly being a smart ass, and then someone came up with DPS. I regret not putting pen to paper earlier, but might still be an amusing satire on the zen of bureaucracy, even just to blow off some personal frustrations.



The Ringelmann effect enters the chat 

"Ringelmann’s famous study on pulling a rope — often called the Ringelmann effect — analyzed people alone and in groups as they pulled on a rope. Ringelmann then measured the pull force. As he added more and more people to the rope, Ringelmann discovered that the total force generated by the group rose, but the average force exerted by each group member declined, thereby discrediting the theory that a group team effort results in increased effort. Ringelmann attributed this to what was then called “social loafing” — a condition where a group or team tends to “hide” the lack of individual effort."









						Is Your Team Too Big? Too Small? What's the Right Number?
					

Is it true that larger teams simply break down, reflecting a tendency towards "social loafing" and loss of coordination? Or is it that the best number of people for a team is driven by the task at hand and by the roles each person plays? Research by Wharton faculty offers some insights.…Read More




					knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu


----------



## OldSolduer

kev994 said:


> My buddy worked in the NCR and was astounded by the number of people inviting themselves to meetings/ focus groups. Nobody wanted to do anything, they just wanted to make sure they had their finger in the pie.


And that’s a huge part of the problem.

No one is in command saying “sit down STFU orders begin”


----------



## Sprinting Thistle

Having worked in Ottawa in operational HQs, an environmental HQ, and the VCDS side of the house, I can say unequivocally, that it's leadership by consensus and command by committee.


----------



## OldSolduer

Sprinting Thistle said:


> Having worked in Ottawa in operational HQs, an environmental HQ, and the VCDS side of the house, I can say unequivocally, that it's *leadership by consensus* and *command by committee.*


SO no one individual can be held accountable for terrible decisions.....

Just my opinion.


----------



## FJAG

OldSolduer said:


> SO no one individual can be held accountable for terrible decisions.....
> 
> Just my opinion.


This is why, in my arrogance, I blame Hillier for all the bad stuff that happened after 2000. One can't find any other individuals to lay the blame off on and the buck has to stop somewhere.

😖


----------



## FSTO

FJAG said:


> This is why, in my arrogance, I blame Hillier for all the bad stuff that happened after 2000. One can't find any other individuals to lay the blame off on and the buck has to stop somewhere.
> 
> 😖


Never really heard much from the Big Cod during that roll-out of the vaccines in Ontario. Was it a success?


----------



## daftandbarmy

FSTO said:


> Never really heard much from the Big Cod during that roll-out of the vaccines in Ontario. Was it a success?



Yes, and no, and yes, and then no again... I think 

Retired general Rick Hillier leaving role as head of Ontario vaccine task force, Ford says​
Hillier, who previously served as the chief of defence staff of the Canadian Forces for three years, was appointed to lead the vaccine rollout in November.

Ford said at the time that the deployment of vaccines would require an expert in logistics, making Hillier’s appointment important.

A month later, Ontario was criticized for pausing its vaccine rollout over the Christmas holidays, a move Hillier was forced to defend. He conceded that “in hindsight, it was the wrong decision.”

The province has since been slammed for not launching its vaccine booking portal earlier, and for failing to provide clear and timely updates on its ever-changing vaccine rollout plan.









						Retired general Rick Hillier leaving role as head of Ontario vaccine task force, Ford says  | Globalnews.ca
					

Premier Doug Ford said Monday that retired general Rick Hillier will step away from the role when his contract expires on March 31 after turning down a request to stay on.




					globalnews.ca


----------



## FJAG

FSTO said:


> Never really heard much from the Big Cod during that roll-out of the vaccines in Ontario. Was it a success?


He was kind of gone when it really rolled out.

All in all, and considering Ontario is the most populated province and our statistics were average or better than average than the rest of the country, I can't complain. The clinics in my region were well run. We didn't have the same booking portal issues here because London-Middlesex runs its own. 

🍻


----------



## Blackadder1916

Another senior member who doesn't understand social media.









						‘Profoundly immature’: Senior officer sorry for post on military colleges after damning report - National | Globalnews.ca
					

A senior member of the Canadian Armed Forces is facing criticism for a post amid a grassroots social media campaign rallying support for Canada’s royal military colleges.




					globalnews.ca
				





> A senior member of the Canadian Armed Forces is facing criticism for a post amid a grassroots social media campaign rallying support for Canada’s royal military colleges less than a week after a scathing independent review raised serious concerns about the institutions.
> 
> Last weekend, Maj.-Gen. Simon Bernard — a senior member of the military in charge of personnel — was among a number of alumni of RMC Kingston and RMC Saint-Jean who changed their profile pictures on LinkedIn to their RMC graduation photos.
> 
> A number of the graduates explicitly identified that their reason for posting these photos was to support the military colleges and their alumni in the wake of strong condemnation of the culture within these colleges in Supreme Court Justice Louise Arbour’s report, which was released last week.
> 
> As part of her comprehensive review into sexual misconduct and harassment within the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), Arbour highlighted RMC Kingston and RMC Saint-Jean as institutions “from a different era” with a problematic leadership model in desperate need of a systemic overhaul.
> 
> Arbour went so far as to say the “discriminatory culture” and outdated mindset within these institutions is so persistent, she questioned whether they should even continue to exist in their present form and warned that a lack of major reform could hold back the CAF from truly adopting a necessary culture of change.
> 
> Grads of the colleges have since been posting messages of support on LinkedIn for RMC and the positive impact these institutions have had on their lives, including some who have taken issue with Arbour’s findings.
> 
> Global News has identified at least 21 different individual profiles on LinkedIn that have engaged in this activity.
> 
> On June 4, Bernard changed his profile photo to his RMC graduation portrait and commented “TDV” on a LinkedIn post written by another former graduate. TDV is an acronym for RMC’s motto: truth, duty, valour.
> 
> But this outward show of support didn’t stay online long.
> 
> After several women, who said they were victims of assault and harm at the schools, challenged him over this public show of support for the colleges, Bernard deleted his comment and removed his graduation photo.
> 
> In a statement to Global News, Bernard says he immediately removed these posts after he “realized the possible impact of this post on others.”
> 
> “Though there was no ill-intent in my post, I accept accountability for what, in hindsight, did not consider the impact on others and I sincerely apologize to anyone who has been affected.”
> 
> A day after his LinkedIn comments, Bernard posted a long message expressing support for Arbour’s recommendations as a “positive thing for the department and the CAF.”
> 
> In a statement to Global News, a defence department spokesperson said Bernard “immediately informed his chain of command of the LinkedIn post, and as soon as he realized the post could potentially harm others, he removed it.
> 
> “He has accepted accountability for his actions and recognized his post may have impacted survivors,” said Derek Abma, senior communications advisor with DND.
> . . .


(more at link)


----------



## KevinB

Blackadder1916 said:


> Another senior member who doesn't understand social media.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘Profoundly immature’: Senior officer sorry for post on military colleges after damning report - National | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> A senior member of the Canadian Armed Forces is facing criticism for a post amid a grassroots social media campaign rallying support for Canada’s royal military colleges.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (more at link)


It’s like critical thinking is missing in that one. 
   I’m sure no one cares about retired and/or  junior officers doing it - but serving GO/FO’s really should be thinking about the secondary and tertiary follow on effects.


----------



## Blackadder1916

KevinB said:


> It’s like critical thinking is missing in that one.
> I’m sure no one cares about retired and/or  junior officers doing it - but serving GO/FO’s really should be thinking about the secondary and tertiary follow on effects.



Seen.  One would have thought he learned a lesson about being in the spotlight after he was punted from the PHAC vaccine roll-out project last year.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

KevinB said:


> It’s like critical thinking is missing in that one.
> I’m sure no one cares about retired and/or  junior officers doing it - but serving GO/FO’s really should be thinking about the secondary and tertiary follow on effects.


The problem I see is that a lot of these people missed the mark entirely about what's being said and what is being asked of RMC. They are taking something personally, when it's definitely directed at the systemic. 

MGen Bernard did something foolish without realizing the follow on effects; but honestly, the greater problem is that enough RMC Grads, serving or otherwise, are getting their hackles up over the suggestion that RMC might need some tweaking. I dunno about these folks, but I would think improving the standing and calibre of people coming out of my Alma Mater would be something g to welcome, not get pissy about on LinkedIn for the whole world to see....


----------



## KevinB

rmc_wannabe said:


> The problem I see is that a lot of these people missed the mark entirely about what's being said and what is being asked of RMC. They are taking something personally, when it's definitely directed at the systemic.


They are a product of the system. Thus tend to take it personally.  


rmc_wannabe said:


> MGen Bernard did something foolish without realizing the follow on effects; but honestly, the greater problem is that enough RMC Grads, serving or otherwise, are getting their hackles up over the suggestion that RMC might need some tweaking. I dunno about these folks, but I would think improving the standing and calibre of people coming out of my Alma Mater would be something g to welcome, not get pissy about on LinkedIn for the whole world to see....


One would think…

However if Lt or Capt Bloggins posts it, it’s doesn’t have a lot of weight. Someone who is a MG probably should understand that their words/text are going to carry more weight, and being a GO/FO they are expected to understand that, and anticipate what their comments might do.  

   Frankly the CAF would be better suited to ensuring it’s officer corps doesn’t have a Linked In profile - and definitely not GOFO’s as they should not be be out fishing in the job market or trolling networks.


----------



## dapaterson

Remember, autocorrect will tell you to change "GOFO" to "Goof".


----------



## Brad Sallows

It's a manifestation of two common flaws.  One, people don't read/listen carefully.  Two, people launch into a defensive posture before there is a reason to be defensive.


----------



## brihard

rmc_wannabe said:


> The problem I see is that a lot of these people missed the mark entirely about what's being said and what is being asked of RMC. They are taking something personally, when it's definitely directed at the systemic.
> 
> MGen Bernard did something foolish without realizing the follow on effects; but honestly, the greater problem is that enough RMC Grads, serving or otherwise, are getting their hackles up over the suggestion that RMC might need some tweaking. I dunno about these folks, but I would think improving the standing and calibre of people coming out of my Alma Mater would be something g to welcome, not get pissy about on LinkedIn for the whole world to see....


I would expect RMC to get no less a vociferous and reflexive defence from those who came through it than the Canadian Airborne Regiment did. Absolutely a bunch of alums are going to dig in hard. It’s an identity thing.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Blackadder1916 said:


> Another senior member who doesn't understand social media.





rmc_wannabe said:


> MGen Bernard did something foolish without realizing the follow on effects;



OR, he knew exactly what he was doing throwing up the RMC colours waving the flag around then *exaggerated eye roll *took down his post because of snow flakes and their cancel culture _wink wink_.



These generals keep doing bone headed things they shouldn't, with this lame excuse that they didn't know better. Not knowing better doesn't fly for most ranks in the CAF but it seems to for our GOFO's, all good.

Speaking of which,



> I accept accountability



That's nice. Are we supposed to be humbled by these GOFOs accepting responsibility for their actions when we expect 18 year old privates to accept responsibility for theirnactions? Is there someone else who should be responsible for a GOFOs actions?


----------



## Good2Golf

Jarnhamar said:


> That's nice. Are we supposed to be humbled by these GOFOs accepting responsibility for their actions when we expect 18 year old privates to accept responsibility for theirnactions? Is there someone else who should be responsible for a GOFOs actions?



Would have been more sincere if he had cried…

#masterapologylesson


----------



## OceanBonfire

All of Bill C-77 comes into force on June 20:






						Victims’ Rights and the Summary Hearing Process will soon Come into Force - Canada.ca
					

An Act to Amend the National Defence Act and to Make Related Consequential Amendments to Other Acts (also known as Bill C-77), is federal legislation to modernize the Military Justice System (MJS).




					www.canada.ca


----------



## Halifax Tar

The hits keep coming



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trevor-cadieu-sexual-assault-armed-forces-1.6489854?fbclid=IwAR1P7XVlCopmQwbQ9-AZ3SVn6cngNZSKtr93xivDC1QZLV6XBz3MMG2O65E


----------



## kev994

Halifax Tar said:


> The hits keep coming
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trevor-cadieu-sexual-assault-armed-forces-1.6489854?fbclid=IwAR1P7XVlCopmQwbQ9-AZ3SVn6cngNZSKtr93xivDC1QZLV6XBz3MMG2O65E


And here I thought this had already happened. Apparently when they announce that someone is being investigated for X it’s hard to remember if they were investigated, charged, etc


----------



## Eye In The Sky

OceanBonfire said:


> All of Bill C-77 comes into force on June 20:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victims’ Rights and the Summary Hearing Process will soon Come into Force - Canada.ca
> 
> 
> An Act to Amend the National Defence Act and to Make Related Consequential Amendments to Other Acts (also known as Bill C-77), is federal legislation to modernize the Military Justice System (MJS).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.canada.ca



Just to add quickly;  I just completed MJUL today - recommend it for anyone who has done or will do UDI/CL trg with their DJAs.   There’s a fair amount of info covered - and recommend being distraction-free for the 8-10 hours it will take.   MJUL is only available on DLN 3.0.

Not sure about the whole country, but there’s some WO + level V-trg happening soon with our DJA CWO on “the new way”.  This is one to get ahead of the curve on IMO.


----------



## TacticalTea

Eye In The Sky said:


> Just to add quickly;  I just completed MJUL today - recommend it for anyone who has done or will do UDI/CL trg with their DJAs.   There’s a fair amount of info covered - and recommend being distraction-free for the 8-10 hours it will take.   MJUL is only available on DLN 3.0.


Getting a brief tomorrow on the reforms, but it seems to be more generalistic (and brief!) in nature (all ranks included), so I will absolutely get on that.


Eye In The Sky said:


> Not sure about the whole country, but there’s some WO + level V-trg happening soon with our DJA CWO on “the new way”.  This is one to get ahead of the curve on IMO.


I also almost called the local JAG office today to ask about that. Got carried away with other stuff.


----------



## dimsum

RCAF folks (not sure about other elements) also have a really short (8 min) video and short PPT deck from Comd 2 CAD that summarizes the changes.  I also just did MJUL and the video/PPT did a good job at highlighting the important parts.  

I also recommend that everyone who can spare the time, etc do MJUL.  It's actually a pretty decent course for DLN.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Is that RCAF vid/ppt available to all?  Easy to find on the 2 CAD site by any chance?


----------



## dapaterson

Eye In The Sky said:


> Is that RCAF vid/ppt available to all?  Easy to find on the 2 CAD site by any chance?


Easy to find and DWAN are antonyms.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Eye In The Sky said:


> Is that RCAF vid/ppt available to all?  Easy to find on the 2 CAD site by any chance?


It is.  If you DM me your DWAN address, I’l’ send you the link.


----------



## daftandbarmy

The Police are top of the charts today in Richmond 



Richmond RCMP officer denies flashing, masturbating near private schools​ 
Andrew James Seangio is on trial for three counts of exposing his genitals to people under 16 for a sexual purpose and seven allegations of committing an indecent act in public.

A Richmond RCMP officer is denying allegations he exposed his genitals to Vancouver private school students while driving through Vancouver’s tony Shaughnessy neighbourhood in early 2019.

Andrew James Seangio, 37, is on trial in B.C. Supreme Court, facing a 10-count indictment that includes three counts of exposing his genital organs to people under 16 for a sexual purpose. The remaining seven counts involve allegations of committing an indecent act in public.

Crown prosecutor Geoff Baragar told Glacier Media the allegations include two undercover officers dressed as schoolgirls.

As Baragar closed his case on July 4, defence lawyer Glen Orris began by putting Seangio on the stand.

“He has not been involved in any illegal act,” Orris told the jury before Seangio was sworn in, adding his client was not picked out of photo line-ups shown to complainants.

Almost immediately, Orris asked, “Have you ever exposed yourself or masturbated while in your car?”

“No, I have not,” Seangio said.

Seangio told Orris before Justice Catherine Wedge that he was employed with the Richmond RCMP detachment and worked for military police reserves out of Richmond’s Colonel Sherman Armoury.










						Richmond RCMP officer denies flashing, masturbating near private schools
					

Andrew James Seangio is on trial for three counts of exposing his genitals to people under 16 for a sexual purpose and seven allegations of committing an indecent act in public.




					www.richmond-news.com


----------



## KevinB

daftandbarmy said:


> The Police are top of the charts today in Richmond
> 
> 
> 
> Richmond RCMP officer denies flashing, masturbating near private schools​
> Andrew James Seangio is on trial for three counts of exposing his genitals to people under 16 for a sexual purpose and seven allegations of committing an indecent act in public.
> 
> A Richmond RCMP officer is denying allegations he exposed his genitals to Vancouver private school students while driving through Vancouver’s tony Shaughnessy neighbourhood in early 2019.
> 
> Andrew James Seangio, 37, is on trial in B.C. Supreme Court, facing a 10-count indictment that includes three counts of exposing his genital organs to people under 16 for a sexual purpose. The remaining seven counts involve allegations of committing an indecent act in public.
> 
> Crown prosecutor Geoff Baragar told Glacier Media the allegations include two undercover officers dressed as schoolgirls.
> 
> As Baragar closed his case on July 4, defence lawyer Glen Orris began by putting Seangio on the stand.
> 
> “He has not been involved in any illegal act,” Orris told the jury before Seangio was sworn in, adding his client was not picked out of photo line-ups shown to complainants.


Did they show his genitals in the line up? 



daftandbarmy said:


> Almost immediately, Orris asked, “Have you ever exposed yourself or masturbated while in your car?”
> 
> “No, I have not,” Seangio said.
> 
> Seangio told Orris before Justice Catherine Wedge that he was employed with the Richmond RCMP detachment and worked for military police reserves out of Richmond’s Colonel Sherman Armoury.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richmond RCMP officer denies flashing, masturbating near private schools
> 
> 
> Andrew James Seangio is on trial for three counts of exposing his genitals to people under 16 for a sexual purpose and seven allegations of committing an indecent act in public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.richmond-news.com


----------



## RangerRay

daftandbarmy said:


> The Police are top of the charts today in Richmond
> 
> 
> 
> Richmond RCMP officer denies flashing, masturbating near private schools​
> Andrew James Seangio is on trial for three counts of exposing his genitals to people under 16 for a sexual purpose and seven allegations of committing an indecent act in public.
> 
> A Richmond RCMP officer is denying allegations he exposed his genitals to Vancouver private school students while driving through Vancouver’s tony Shaughnessy neighbourhood in early 2019.
> 
> Andrew James Seangio, 37, is on trial in B.C. Supreme Court, facing a 10-count indictment that includes three counts of exposing his genital organs to people under 16 for a sexual purpose. The remaining seven counts involve allegations of committing an indecent act in public.
> 
> Crown prosecutor Geoff Baragar told Glacier Media the allegations include two undercover officers dressed as schoolgirls.
> 
> As Baragar closed his case on July 4, defence lawyer Glen Orris began by putting Seangio on the stand.
> 
> “He has not been involved in any illegal act,” Orris told the jury before Seangio was sworn in, adding his client was not picked out of photo line-ups shown to complainants.
> 
> Almost immediately, Orris asked, “Have you ever exposed yourself or masturbated while in your car?”
> 
> “No, I have not,” Seangio said.
> 
> Seangio told Orris before Justice Catherine Wedge that he was employed with the Richmond RCMP detachment and worked for military police reserves out of Richmond’s Colonel Sherman Armoury.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richmond RCMP officer denies flashing, masturbating near private schools
> 
> 
> Andrew James Seangio is on trial for three counts of exposing his genitals to people under 16 for a sexual purpose and seven allegations of committing an indecent act in public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.richmond-news.com


I didn’t see this in the article, but my question is: was he on duty in a marked police vehicle and in uniform at the time? 🤯


----------



## GR66

RangerRay said:


> I didn’t see this in the article, but my question is: was he on duty in a marked police vehicle and in uniform at the time? 🤯


Well clearly he couldn't have been FULLY in uniform....


----------



## Blackadder1916

daftandbarmy said:


> . . .  the allegations include two undercover officers dressed as schoolgirls.



As fetish or function?  👩‍🎓👮‍♀️


----------



## Booter

He’s a reservist! He’s yours.

I wish I was in media relations I’d be like “guys did you see he’s also in the reserves? Probably something here between their scandals and recruitment of marginalized people…just saying.”

So hot right now


----------



## daftandbarmy

Blackadder1916 said:


> As fetish or function?  👩‍🎓👮‍♀️



Why not both?


----------



## brihard

Oh man, I remember that one. I hadn’t realized trial was still pending. Gross.


----------



## lenaitch

RangerRay said:


> I didn’t see this in the article, but my question is: was he on duty in a marked police vehicle and in uniform at the time? 🤯


The way I read the article it sounds like not.  With u/c and surveillance involved, this was a targeted investigation, likely arising from ongoing complaints.  It's not like he just happened to be caught red-handed (so to speak).


----------



## The Bread Guy

The provinces are noticing ....








						Canadian Forces sex assault case transfer plans spark funding fight with provinces  | Globalnews.ca
					

A dispute between Ottawa and provinces over resources is slowing efforts to transfer military police investigations and prosecutions of alleged sexual crimes to local authorities.




					globalnews.ca


----------



## KevinB

The Bread Guy said:


> The provinces are noticing ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canadian Forces sex assault case transfer plans spark funding fight with provinces  | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> A dispute between Ottawa and provinces over resources is slowing efforts to transfer military police investigations and prosecutions of alleged sexual crimes to local authorities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> globalnews.ca


Noticing that they have been getting a free lunch for years?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

KevinB said:


> Noticing that they have been getting a free lunch for years?


Pretty much.

We are not talking about a huge amount of cases per year being transferred to the various Provinces. But, never underestimate the desire of a Province to put the screws to the Feds for more money…


----------



## KevinB

SeaKingTacco said:


> Pretty much.
> 
> We are not talking about a huge amount of cases per year being transferred to the various Provinces. But, never underestimate the desire of a Province to put the screws to the Feds for more money…


Oh, the money they already get from the base?

I fail to understand how the Provinces think they have a case.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

KevinB said:


> Oh, the money they already get from the base?
> 
> I fail to understand how the Provinces think they have a case.


Like I said, never under-estimate the desire of a Province to squeeze the Feds for money.

You were posted to Petawawa (just for example). Since the early 1900s, how much do you figure that Ontario has made in tax revenue on the people posted there, without also providing much in the way of services?


----------



## Remius

SeaKingTacco said:


> Like I said, never under-estimate the desire of a Province to squeeze the Feds for money.
> 
> You were posted to Petawawa (just for example). Since the early 1900s, how much do you figure that Ontario has made in tax revenue on the people posted there, without also providing much in the way of services?


Not to mention the secondary benefits to the local economies etc


----------



## KevinB

SeaKingTacco said:


> Like I said, never under-estimate the desire of a Province to squeeze the Feds for money.
> 
> You were posted to Petawawa (just for example). Since the early 1900s, how much do you figure that Ontario has made in tax revenue on the people posted there, without also providing much in the way of services?


Plus a lot of money via the OPP from speeding tickets (at least in my case).


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Provinces and municipalities have made plenty of coin of the backs of Pte. Bloggins. The issue is that they haven't received direct funding for this particular thing the Feds are trying to pass off to them.

This was a solution to a problem that didn't need to be addressed by local/provincial forces. All that needed to happen was removing CAF MP Gp from the VCDS group and have them report directly to the MND, or if you really wanted to get impartial, Public Saftey minister or AG.

But no. More flinch reactions that lead to us trying to build the train as it leaves the station.


----------



## KevinB

rmc_wannabe said:


> Provinces and municipalities have made plenty of coin of the backs of Pte. Bloggins. The issue is that they haven't received direct funding for this particular thing the Feds are trying to pass off to them.


Actually they do.   
    There is money paid by the bases to the regions, and the provinces by the members taxes. 
    What they want is more than any other taxpayer in Canada would provide.  




rmc_wannabe said:


> This was a solution to a problem that didn't need to be addressed by local/provincial forces. All that needed to happen was removing CAF MP Gp from the VCDS group and have them report directly to the MND, or if you really wanted to get impartial, Public Saftey minister or AG.
> 
> But no. More flinch reactions that lead to us trying to build the train as it leaves the station.


Given the # of annual cases, it makes a ton more sense to push it to CivPol.  
   It’s an insignificant number as far as any legitimate claim to be a burden to any location - and frankly it’s already been paid for.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

KevinB said:


> Actually they do.
> There is money paid by the bases to the regions, and the provinces by the members taxes.
> What they want is more than any other taxpayer in Canada would provide.
> Given the # of annual cases, it makes a ton more sense to push it to CivPol.
> It’s an insignificant number as far as any legitimate claim to be a burden to any location - and frankly it’s already been paid for.


I don't disagree, I'm just saying the execution of this was poorly done. We could have easily dealt with this within the parameters of Bill C-77 if the CAF MP Group became removed from the CoC. CFNIS could still investigate SA. D Mil Prosecution could still lay charges under S130. The difference is the optics of who's tail is wagging the dog. 

IMHO, the feds passing the buck without consulting the provinces will have a poorer outcome than maintaining the status quo.


----------



## KevinB

rmc_wannabe said:


> I don't disagree, I'm just saying the execution of this was poorly done. We could have easily dealt with this within the parameters of Bill C-77 if the CAF MP Group became removed from the CoC. CFNIS could still investigate SA. D Mil Prosecution could still lay charges under S130. The difference is the optics of who's tail is wagging the dog.
> 
> IMHO, the feds passing the buck without consulting the provinces will have a poorer outcome than maintaining the status quo.


It’s not like this was a shock to anyone. 

Given the history of the NIS WRT several cases, retaining it was a giant non starter.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

KevinB said:


> Actually they do.
> There is money paid by the bases to the regions, and the provinces by the members taxes.
> What they want is more than any other taxpayer in Canada would provide.
> 
> 
> 
> Given the # of annual cases, it makes a ton more sense to push it to CivPol.
> It’s an insignificant number as far as any legitimate claim to be a burden to any location - and frankly it’s already been paid for.


I wasn’t even talking about annual PiLT which is significant $ and goes directly to local municipalities for services they sometimes then “forget” to provide or only grudgingly provide, once you phone them a bunch (or a DoJ lawyer sends them a letter- hypothetically, of course)


----------



## SeaKingTacco

KevinB said:


> It’s not like this was a shock to anyone.
> 
> Given the history of the NIS WRT several cases, retaining it was a giant non starter.


We could have also brought in the RCMP to form an investigative division, reporting to the Commissioner of the RCMP.


----------



## Kilted

Allegedly, a Cpl Garrett Beal was recently found guilty on charges of sexual assault against an officer, but I have been unable to find the story at any legitimate news sources.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Kilted said:


> Allegedly, a Cpl Garrett Beal was recently found guilty on charges of sexual assault against an officer, but I have been unable to find the story at any legitimate news sources.











						Disgraced military man sentenced to prison for raping officer
					

Garrett Beal was a corporal in the 3rd Battalion of The Royal Canadian Regiment in CFB Petawawa at the time of the sexual assault




					ottawacitizen.com


----------



## Ostrozac

Kilted said:


> Allegedly, a Cpl Garrett Beal was recently found guilty on charges of sexual assault against an officer, but I have been unable to find the story at any legitimate news sources.


It was in the Ottawa Citizen — article dated 10 July, under a “local news” byline.


----------



## Kilted

Ostrozac said:


> It was in the Ottawa Citizen — article dated 10 July, under a “local news” byline.








Might have to watch halfway through to get the meaning.


----------



## dapaterson

MARPAC Formation CPO has been relieved for inappropriate comments that did not rise to the level of a disciplinary infraction.









						Statement on relief of Maritime Forces Pacific Formation Chief Petty Officer
					

“The Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) has been clear that any form of misconduct within its ranks is unacceptable. It harms our people, jeopardizes our




					www.miragenews.com


----------



## Jarnhamar

Beal was found guilty of violently raping someone. At least he's behind bars and not out on bail awaiting appeal...



dapaterson said:


> MARPAC Formation CPO has been relieved for inappropriate comments that did not rise to the level of a disciplinary infraction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statement on relief of Maritime Forces Pacific Formation Chief Petty Officer
> 
> 
> “The Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) has been clear that any form of misconduct within its ranks is unacceptable. It harms our people, jeopardizes our
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.miragenews.com




A senior leader who isn't allowed in a position where fostering trust with junior members is required. That's useful.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Jarnhamar said:


> Beal was found guilty of violently raping someone. At least he's behind bars and not out on bail awaiting appeal...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A senior leader who isn't allowed in a position where fostering trust with junior members is required. That's useful.



Sounds to me like he will be submitting his notice of intent to voluntarily release.  

I have no inside info, just what I read between the lines.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Jarnhamar said:


> A senior leader who isn't allowed in a position where fostering trust with junior members is required. That's useful.


Not enough free-agent CWO's about, I guess ...


----------



## daftandbarmy

dapaterson said:


> MARPAC Formation CPO has been relieved for inappropriate comments that did not rise to the level of a disciplinary infraction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statement on relief of Maritime Forces Pacific Formation Chief Petty Officer
> 
> 
> “The Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) has been clear that any form of misconduct within its ranks is unacceptable. It harms our people, jeopardizes our
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.miragenews.com



Mr. Blonde...


----------



## btrudy

I think posting the story in this thread might be premature; we haven't heard anything about the nature of the comments in question. And generally speaking I would say that A) the PAOs are usually pretty good about pointing out when action was taken on something that was sexual in nature, and B) if it had been sexual in nature, I don't think we'd be getting the "this wasn't bad enough to charge him with" comments from Topshee either.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Jarnhamar said:


> A senior leader who isn't allowed in a position where fostering trust with junior members is required. That's useful.



That's some bullshit, when you don't have any right to make a representation in the public sphere.

"We aren't going to give them any opportunity to defend themselves, but this way they will shut up if they want to keep their pension".

If no one knows why these folks keep getting relieved of Command and leadership positions, how in the hell are we supposed to know where the goal line is? Really hard to trust the RCN leadership with the half assed efforts with no real transparency; the person's privacy concerns are out the window as soon as they put out a public statement identifying them, just go full way and say why. If it's a good reason no requirement to beat around the bush.

Frankly they are in a credibility deficit, so they are banking in trust in their judgement that doesn't exist.

This is a bit like the BOIs, where they don't actually ever bothering to charge people, but they drag their careers out back the woodshed for a beating in secret. Then literally nothing is learned because it was all done behind closed doors.


----------



## McG

btrudy said:


> we haven't heard anything about the nature of the comments in question




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1546623694268764162


----------



## kev994

Navy_Pete said:


> If no one knows why these folks keep getting relieved of Command and leadership positions, how in the hell are we supposed to know where the goal line is?


Don’t comment on anyone’s physical appearance while at work or at a work function. Seems pretty straightforward.


----------



## Kilted

Navy_Pete said:


> That's some bullshit, when you don't have any right to make a representation in the public sphere.
> 
> "We aren't going to give them any opportunity to defend themselves, but this way they will shut up if they want to keep their pension".
> 
> If no one knows why these folks keep getting relieved of Command and leadership positions, how in the hell are we supposed to know where the goal line is? Really hard to trust the RCN leadership with the half assed efforts with no real transparency; the person's privacy concerns are out the window as soon as they put out a public statement identifying them, just go full way and say why. If it's a good reason no requirement to beat around the bush.
> 
> Frankly they are in a credibility deficit, so they are banking in trust in their judgement that doesn't exist.
> 
> This is a bit like the BOIs, where they don't actually ever bothering to charge people, but they drag their careers out back the woodshed for a beating in secret. Then literally nothing is learned because it was all done behind closed doors.


I think at this point we are better off never speaking again at all.  We should also try to avoid the appearance of ever looking at another person as well.


----------



## Kilted

kev994 said:


> Don’t comment on anyone’s physical appearance while at work or at a work function. Seems pretty straightforward.


I mean, in our line of work, where it is ingrained in some people's job descriptions to comment on other people's physical appearance, its not as clear cut as it would seem.


----------



## btrudy

Kilted said:


> I mean, in our line of work, where it is ingrained in some people's job descriptions to comment on other people's physical appearance, its not as clear cut as it would seem.



Eh. I rather doubt the Formation Chief was getting fired for politely informing someone they were violating the dress instructions.


----------



## Kilted

btrudy said:


> Eh. I rather doubt the Formation Chief was getting fired for politely informing someone they were violating the dress instructions.


I don't doubt that, I'm just saying that it's not as straightforward as was suggested.  I'm also suggesting that simple corrective comments could be taken the wrong way.

"Your command badge is too low on your breast pocket."

"Why was he looking there?"


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Kilted said:


> I don't doubt that, I'm just saying that it's not as straightforward as was suggested.  I'm also suggesting that simple corrective comments could be taken the wrong way.
> 
> "Your command badge is too low on your breast pocket."
> 
> "Why was he looking there?"



Flip side of the coin; we’ve seen senior Commisioned members who’ve been Teflon coated in the past start to be held accountable.

Is it really much of a stretch to believe the same “untouchable” mentality exists in the Warrant/Petty Officers ranks too (they do, I’ve known many over the years). And some of those mbrs will be outed like the GOFOs have been?


----------



## ballz

Navy_Pete said:


> That's some bullshit, when you don't have any right to make a representation in the public sphere.
> 
> "We aren't going to give them any opportunity to defend themselves, but this way they will shut up if they want to keep their pension".
> 
> If no one knows why these folks keep getting relieved of Command and leadership positions, how in the hell are we supposed to know where the goal line is? Really hard to trust the RCN leadership with the half assed efforts with no real transparency; the person's privacy concerns are out the window as soon as they put out a public statement identifying them, just go full way and say why. If it's a good reason no requirement to beat around the bush.
> 
> Frankly they are in a credibility deficit, so they are banking in trust in their judgement that doesn't exist.
> 
> This is a bit like the BOIs, where they don't actually ever bothering to charge people, but they drag their careers out back the woodshed for a beating in secret. Then literally nothing is learned because it was all done behind closed doors.



So you're on board then, that the CAF needs a _public _system for professional discipline (please don't confuse "professional discipline" with the military justice system), similar to what other self-regulated professions (lawyers, doctors, accountants, engineers, etc.) have?


----------



## lenaitch

ballz said:


> So you're on board then, that the CAF needs a _public _system for professional discipline (please don't confuse "professional discipline" with the military justice system), similar to what other self-regulated professions (lawyers, doctors, accountants, engineers, etc.) have?


I'm not convinced many of the self-regulated professions are as public as you might think.  Perhaps when they get to the 'hearing' stage but there are a lot of steps before that.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Eye In The Sky said:


> Flip side of the coin; we’ve seen senior Commisioned members who’ve been Teflon coated in the past start to be held accountable.
> 
> Is it really much of a stretch to believe the same “untouchable” mentality exists in the Warrant/Petty Officers ranks too (they do, I’ve known many over the years). And some of those mbrs will be outed like the GOFOs have been?


Think of it as the "Some People in Authority Teflon Coating", regardless of rank ...


----------



## Navy_Pete

ballz said:


> So you're on board then, that the CAF needs a _public _system for professional discipline (please don't confuse "professional discipline" with the military justice system), similar to what other self-regulated professions (lawyers, doctors, accountants, engineers, etc.) have?


I'm on board with us using the existing discipline systems properly, vice firing people publicly via a news release.

How a comment is sufficient to warrant removal from a an appointment like that and loss of faith in them to do any kind of senior leadership position but not warrant a 129 charge for 'conduct unbecoming' is something I can't wrap my head around. This seems to fit the textbook description.

The military justice system is set up to provide to include safeguards to make sure the member gets a fair shake. This is all the public punishment with no opportunity for representation. If no charges were warranted, there is also no need for a forces wide email and a public news release to replace someone.

I don't have any issue with removing people from positions if they have done something serious, but we can't do it half assed and arbitrarily. This seems like the appearance of justice without any of the fundamental underpinnings of fairness. We can have high standards, but they also need a fair process, and that's not what this is.

If they are going to make someone an example, use the system so that the punishment is done proportionally to the incident. If they are going to crucify this guy, at least include what he said that got him in trouble.


----------



## Haggis

Navy_Pete said:


> I'm on board with us using the existing discipline systems properly, vice firing people publicly via a news release.


The USN has been doing that a lot lately.  There have been around a dozen COs relived due to "a loss of confidence in their ability to command".  The USMC sacked an Infantry battalion command team recently as well.

I believe (hope?) that in all cases there was a robust investigation that preceded the firings.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Haggis said:


> The USN has been doing that a lot lately.


The ones that come to mind were for things like the ship burning to the waterline, ships near mutiny or generally serious allegations. They also tend to include details explaining why.

'Inappropriate comments' is a huge range, but again, if it's bad enough to get relieved of a position like that, it should be chargable under 129.

If it's bad enough to get fired, and basically made useless for CPO1 roles, seems like it fits the actual definition of 'conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline', no?

I don't wan't CPO1 Blonde charged/not charged, but the RCN is taking action like he did something serious enough to be charged with, without actually following through. Hard to tell if this is an appropriate reaction to the comment, an overreaction, or what.

I didn't like mess dinners before, but the hell will I go now. Social anxiety is bad enough without worrying if you'll get crucified for an off hand comment.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Navy_Pete said:


> The ones that come to mind were for things like the ship burning to the waterline, ships near mutiny or generally serious allegations. They also tend to include details explaining why.
> 
> 'Inappropriate comments' is a huge range, but again, if it's bad enough to get relieved of a position like that, it should be chargable under 129.
> 
> If it's bad enough to get fired, and basically made useless for CPO1 roles, seems like it fits the actual definition of 'conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline', no?
> 
> I don't wan't CPO1 Blonde charged/not charged, but the RCN is taking action like he did something serious enough to be charged with, without actually following through. Hard to tell if this is an appropriate reaction to the comment, an overreaction, or what.
> 
> I didn't like mess dinners before, but the hell will I go now. Social anxiety is bad enough without worrying if you'll get crucified for an off hand comment.



Excellent points, I never thought of it like that.  Thank you.


----------



## captloadie

He was the Formation CPO1. You can't just quietly remove him from his position and hope no one notices. Also, right or wrong, he is being made an example of. This is CRCN putting senior personnel on notice that they are being held to higher standard. 

As for disciplinary measures, that is a double edge sword. Maybe the inappropriate comments were not sexual at all. What if they were "Fucking stewards, about time we stopped wasting ships berths on officers servants, good riddance to them". Would a disciplinary charge hold up in that case? Probably not, but would you want that individual being the Senior non commissioned member on your coast responsible for you sailors well being?


----------



## Haggis

captloadie said:


> Maybe the inappropriate comments were not sexual at all. What if they were "Fucking stewards, about time we stopped wasting ships berths on officers servants, good riddance to them".


The comments were allegedly about a junior member's appearance.  Were they inappropriate due to the junior member's gender?  Deportment?  Fitness or lack thereof?  That's unspecified.


----------



## Halifax Tar

captloadie said:


> He was the Formation CPO1. You can't just quietly remove him from his position and hope no one notices. Also, right or wrong, he is being made an example of. This is CRCN putting senior personnel on notice that they are being held to higher standard.
> 
> As for disciplinary measures, that is a double edge sword. Maybe the inappropriate comments were not sexual at all. What if they were "Fucking stewards, about time we stopped wasting ships berths on officers servants, good riddance to them". Would a disciplinary charge hold up in that case? Probably not, but would you want that individual being the Senior non commissioned member on your coast responsible for you sailors well being?



Again, excellent points, I never thought of it like that. Thank you.


----------



## Navy_Pete

captloadie said:


> He was the Formation CPO1. You can't just quietly remove him from his position and hope no one notices. Also, right or wrong, he is being made an example of. This is CRCN putting senior personnel on notice that they are being held to higher standard.
> 
> As for disciplinary measures, that is a double edge sword. Maybe the inappropriate comments were not sexual at all. What if they were "Fucking stewards, about time we stopped wasting ships berths on officers servants, good riddance to them". Would a disciplinary charge hold up in that case? Probably not, but would you want that individual being the Senior non commissioned member on your coast responsible for you sailors well being?


Sure, but this is a 'semi transparent' attempt to be on the level. Either be fully public or don't have a press release at all.

I don't think this was a decision taken lightly, I just think it's a half pregnant approach to holding people accountable.

The reason you want just to be seen to be done is so that people know where the line is. I genuinely don't know where the line is anymore. What I would consider appropriate someone else might not, but there is zero feedback here.

First thing about a good standard is that it's clear what the expectations are.

Alternately, maybe this is a massive over-reaction and he's being hung out to dry; hard to tell with no actual facts. People will assume the worst, maybe charges aren't warranted because it was a bullshit complaint. 🤷‍♂️ Probably somewhere in the middle, but the RCN doesn't have any institutional credibility to just take them at their word.


----------



## dapaterson

Unfortunately there are obstacles to sharing information on administrative measures, which in many ways have more severe individual impacts than disciplinary actions.


----------



## Good2Golf

Navy_Pete said:


> I don't wan't CPO1 Blonde charged/not charged, but the RCN is taking action like he did something serious enough to be charged with, without actually following through. Hard to tell if this is an appropriate reaction to the comment, an overreaction, or what.


I don’t see the immediate equation of “Loss of Command Confidence” with “Charge him under NDA s.129” as you do.  CRCN is noting the former is sufficient for removal from a Key/Senior Appointment, and provided a (functionally redacted) justification for doing so.  I take his actions and deliberate messaging to mean he is also weighing CPO1 Blonde’s rights/expectations against one or (many?) more sailors affected by him, and choosing that what some might consider ‘unfair’ to CPO1 Blonde, is the most appropriate balance of actions given the situation(s).


----------



## KevinB

Perhaps this comment was simply the straw that broke the camels back.  While not egregious enough for a charge it may have completed a pattern of behavior.


----------



## Remius

KevinB said:


> Perhaps this comment was simply the straw that broke the camels back.  While not egregious enough for a charge it may have completed a pattern of behavior.


This.


----------



## McG

Navy_Pete said:


> I'm on board with us using the existing discipline systems properly, vice firing people publicly via a news release.


Unfortunately the process that we use to remove someone from their duties, including removal for misconduct, is an administrative process and not a disciplinary process:  QR&O: Volume I - Chapter 19 Conduct And Discipline - Canada.ca

Administrative processes are supposed to have procedural fairness, but they are always opaque to anyone not directly involved in the process. They are not a good substitute for a proper professional disciplinary system.


----------



## dapaterson

One other consideration: will this result in the individual reverting to the baseline CWO occupation, from the CWO Senior Appointment sub-occupation?  If so, that would result in a reduced pay level.


----------



## ballz

lenaitch said:


> I'm not convinced many of the self-regulated professions are as public as you might think.  Perhaps when they get to the 'hearing' stage but there are a lot of steps before that.



I can't speak with too much knowledge about the other professions, although their systems are all very similar given that they've proven fairly robust and reliable at _maintaining the confidence of their members and the public (which the CAF has clearly failed at), _but for the accounting profession in Canada I don't see how much more public it could be. If you put in a complaint, the provincial CPA body has to provide a response. They either need to tell you the complaint has grounds for a hearing and proceed down that route, or it doesn't and state the reasons _why. _Obviously in order to even get to option #2, there needs to be some level of info-gathering (which the complainant is free to submit whatever info they have, of course), which is not fully out in the open (although the info gathered is going to be disclosed in their decision if they find there are no grounds for a hearing).

If there are grounds for a hearing, then it goes to a hearing _which is the investigation, done in public_.

Literally the only way it could be more transparent is if they went to an immediate hearing without doing any info gathering.

Let's contrast that to the CAF, where you put in a complaint and never hear anything and sit there wondering if anybody has done anything or whether this is just sitting in some person's amnesty drawer, and then when you inquire you get to "we're still looking into it" until finally you are posted 12 months later and have just given up.

Are the self-regulated professions perfect? No. Are they lightyears better than the CAF? Absolutely.



Navy_Pete said:


> I'm on board with us using the existing discipline systems properly, vice firing people publicly via a news release.



The existing system was used properly. Removing someone from their position is an administrative action, administrative actions are all protected by the Privacy Act. I'm actually surprised they even disclosed that it was because of an "inappropriate comment" since that could likely breach the Privacy Act.



Navy_Pete said:


> How a comment is sufficient to warrant removal from a an appointment like that and loss of faith in them to do any kind of senior leadership position but not warrant a 129 charge for 'conduct unbecoming' is something I can't wrap my head around. This seems to fit the textbook description.



You think the threshold for removing from someone from a position (not even demoting them or firing them, just simply moving them from one chair to another) is finding them guilty of an NDA offence. You're wrong, and thank baby Jesus for that. A burger-flipper at McDonald's is held to a higher standard of accountability than that, and that's what you want for senior leadership in the profession of arms?

A "comment" that is not chargeable, could very well be egregious but the burden of proof for a conviction might not have been met but the burden of proof for administrative action may have been. You're making a ton of assumptions about what's gone on here because the process is not transparent, and look what that does? It leads to speculation and loss of confidence in the process.



Navy_Pete said:


> The *military justice system* is set up to provide to include safeguards to make sure the member gets a fair shake.



Like I said in my post, don't confuse the military justice system with professional discipline. The military justice system is set up in a manner consistent with the fact that punishments under the military justice system put a member's life and liberty at stake. Professional discipline (read: administrative action) does not.



Navy_Pete said:


> This is all the public punishment with no opportunity for representation.



How do you know there was no opportunity for representation? You have absolutely no idea, this is purely assumptions and speculation. For all you know they asked him and his representation was "yes, I said exactly what I am accused of saying."

Furthermore, regardless of the administrative investigation, he definitely does have the opportunity for representation because he can grieve the decision. More secrecy, hope you like it.



Navy_Pete said:


> If no charges were warranted, there is also no need for a forces wide email and a public news release to replace someone.



What in the actual fuck does charges have to do with it? Your perception is so skewed towards charges being the standard it's clear you're way too ingrained into the way the CAF has been operating that you can't even fathom what a proper system of accountability looks like, or what it means to hold someone accountable for performance/conduct issues if they _aren't _an actual legal offence which is bonkers. Again, you're advocating for a standard that's far less than what a burger-flipper at McDonald's is held to for a military's senior leadership. It's insane.



Navy_Pete said:


> I don't have any issue with removing people from positions if they have done something serious, but we can't do it half assed and arbitrarily.



Agreed. So let's put a proper system in place and use best practices from other self-regulated professions who have already figured this out and are not imploding like the CAF is.



Navy_Pete said:


> This seems like the appearance of justice without any of the fundamental underpinnings of fairness. We can have high standards, but they also need a fair process, and that's not what this is.



Okay, seriously, do you even know what administrative action is? There is very robust policy around this, the problem is that it's all behind the curtains. And if the CPO1 thinks he did not receive procedural fairness, part of that robust policy is the grievance system where he has 4 layers of appeal (grievance IA, grievance FA, judicial review, and SCC) should he wish to exercise them.

However, that you are convinced it was not fair but don't actually have any evidence to substantiate the claim is just further evidence for why we need a public system for professional discipline.



Navy_Pete said:


> If they are going to crucify this guy, *at least include what he said that got him in trouble.*



Make up your mind, do you want a publicly transparent system for professional discipline or not?


----------



## Navy_Pete

You are assuming all kinds of things as well. So far, the only thing public, is that he said something inappropriate and CRCN removed him from the position. If they had indicated that admin actions were taken, that would be reasonable, but they didn't. I think the privacy concerns were basically torpedoed anyway as soon as they put out the news release identifying him specifically.

I don't know if I want a publicly transparent administrative disciplinary system, but the RCN is all over the map in what gets reported or not, and this action was a lot more directly communicated than any court martial on the dockets. There is a widely distributed email sent over the DWAN as well with a similar statement.

Roger, they made an example out of him, and maybe it was deserving, but it's impossible to know, and this is going pretty massively hard over even compared to how other similar cases played out similarly. 

If the new norm is to now go far over on transgressions for folks in leadership positions, fine, but given that we can be actually court martialed for publically responding to a news release like this the balance of power is massively in favour of the institution, so should be a pretty heavily weighed item. Most people can't afford the Marie Heninens of the legal world if they want to fight back, and the grievance system is pretty broken.


----------



## OldSolduer

We had a Brigade RSM by the name of Ed Witt. He'd call you fat if you were and tell you to stay off the rations. 

That maybe all it took in this case.


----------



## Booter

They haven’t made an example
Of him because they haven’t explained the behaviour, so it’s just a bizarre story no one can learn from- and a man isn’t given an opportunity to defend himself.

It’s a scary idea that this would be normal or applauded. If you’re making an example- show your work. 

If the guy is just not of a design that he is useful anymore because of his colourful comments suggest to him he retire. If he doesn’t and the behaviour continues- discipline him…and show your
Work. 

This is someone getting to show they are tough on things without doing the work.


----------



## KevinB

Booter said:


> They haven’t made an example
> Of him because they haven’t explained the behaviour, so it’s just a bizarre story no one can learn from- and a man isn’t given an opportunity to defend himself.
> 
> It’s a scary idea that this would be normal or applauded. If you’re making an example- show your work.
> 
> If the guy is just not of a design that he is useful anymore because of his colourful comments suggest to him he retire. If he doesn’t and the behaviour continues- discipline him…and show your
> Work.
> 
> This is someone getting to show they are tough on things without doing the work.


They may have been placed on a RW or C&P - we don’t know, as administrative actions aren’t public.


----------



## Booter

KevinB said:


> They may have been placed on a RW or C&P - we don’t know, as administrative actions aren’t public.


I get that- but then neither should the comments about the accused person be.

How do we assess what the point of this is? Who benefits from this ambiguous stuff?


----------



## FJAG

OldSolduer said:


> We had a Brigade RSM by the name of Ed Witt. He'd call you fat if you were and tell you to stay off the rations.
> 
> That maybe all it took in this case.


Any relation to the gunner RSM Sam Witt in the late 60s? Sure sounds like a sprout.

😁


----------



## Grimey

KevinB said:


> Perhaps this comment was simply the straw that broke the camels back.  While not egregious enough for a charge it may have completed a pattern of behavior.


I can't see it.  Tim was Fleet Chief Atlantic a few years back (concurrent with the Formation Chief Atlantic also being a west coaster....a bit weird in both cases).  This was immediately before his current appointment and followed a Coxn tour.  If he'd been flagged for previous behavior, I can't see him being selected for Formation Chief.

No, I think this was a stand-alone incident which, in the current climate, was enough.

As mentioned by others, this is just another of Topshee's shot across the bows of RCN senior leadership.  He's had a buy first few months as CRCN.


----------



## OldSolduer

FJAG said:


> Any relation to the gunner RSM Sam Witt in the late 60s? Sure sounds like a sprout.
> 
> 😁


Was he German? Ed Witt was.


----------



## FJAG

OldSolduer said:


> Was he German? Ed Witt was.


I guess not. That actually made me look up Sam (who was a bit of a legend in the artillery and was RSM of the Home Station until he retired in 75). He was born in Winnipeg though and fought in WW2. He did have two sons: Jack and Steve. So no connection but definitely an old school RSM in the finest tradition.

🍻


----------



## ballz

Navy_Pete said:


> You are assuming all kinds of things as well. So far, the only thing public, is that he said something inappropriate and CRCN removed him from the position. If they had indicated that admin actions were taken, that would be reasonable, but they didn't.



Removing someone from their position _is _an administrative action.



Navy_Pete said:


> I think the privacy concerns were basically torpedoed anyway as soon as they put out the news release identifying him specifically.
> 
> I don't know if I want a publicly transparent administrative disciplinary system, but the RCN is all over the map in what gets reported or not, and this action was a lot more directly communicated than any court martial on the dockets. There is a widely distributed email sent over the DWAN as well with a similar statement.
> 
> Roger, they made an example out of him, and maybe it was deserving, but it's impossible to know, and this is going pretty massively hard over even compared to how other similar cases played out similarly.
> 
> If the new norm is to now go far over on transgressions for folks in leadership positions, fine, but given that we can be actually court martialed for publically responding to a news release like this the balance of power is massively in favour of the institution, so should be a pretty heavily weighed item. Most people can't afford the Marie Heninens of the legal world if they want to fight back, and the grievance system is pretty broken.



Everything in yellow that you're upset about in this case is a symptom of not having a system that is transparent and open, and can literally only be solved by more openness and transparency.

Everyone seems to forget that one of the primary reasons we have an "open justice" system it's to benefit the accused.



Booter said:


> They haven’t made an example
> Of him because they haven’t explained the behaviour, so it’s just a bizarre story no one can learn from- and a man isn’t given an opportunity to defend himself.
> 
> It’s a scary idea that this would be normal or applauded. If you’re making an example- show your work.
> 
> If the guy is just not of a design that he is useful anymore because of his colourful comments suggest to him he retire. If he doesn’t and the behaviour continues- discipline him…and show your
> Work.
> 
> This is someone getting to show they are tough on things without doing the work.





Booter said:


> I get that- but then neither should the comments about the accused person be.
> 
> How do we assess what the point of this is? Who benefits from this ambiguous stuff?



Same as I said above re: yellow comments.
Re: "Who benefits," there's only two people that benefit from a non-transparent system. A guilty person, and the person who is too weak to hold them accountable. The guilty guy gets off free, the non-guilty guy gets railroaded in secrecy, the leader who does the right thing gets people saying they are on a witch hunt, the weak leader who let's it slide doesn't face the scrutiny for doing so.



Grimey said:


> I can't see it.  Tim was Fleet Chief Atlantic a few years back (concurrent with the Formation Chief Atlantic also being a west coaster....a bit weird in both cases).  This was immediately before his current appointment and followed a Coxn tour.  *If he'd been flagged for previous behavior, I can't see him being selected for Formation Chief.*
> 
> No, I think this was a stand-alone incident which, in the current climate, was enough.
> 
> As mentioned by others, this is just another of Topshee's shot across the bows of RCN senior leadership.  He's had a buy first few months as CRCN.



I mean that assumes people have been getting "flagged" for their misdeeds in the CAF, and that it actually affects their career, which is a hell of an assumption given the CAF's track record.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Not reaching the bar for a 129 or 19.14 charge. Really curious about the context now.


----------



## ballz

Jarnhamar said:


> Not reaching the bar for a 129 or 19.14 charge. Really curious about the context now.



Did the offence itself not reach the bar, or was there not enough evidence to prove _beyond a reasonable doubt _but the evidence did meet the balance of probabilities?


----------



## PuckChaser

Can he not be charged as a service infraction by the Formation Commander? C-77 is now in force. Burden of proof would then just be balance of probabilities.


----------



## kev994

ballz said:


> Did the offence itself not reach the bar, or was there not enough evidence to prove _beyond a reasonable doubt _but the evidence did meet the balance of probabilities?


Reasonable doubt is only to find them… guilty having committed a service infraction (I think that’s the new terminology). To lay the charge you just need to have reasonable belief.
Edit: somewhat of a waste of effort though if you don’t think you’ll get a conviction I don’t know what word we’re using now.


----------



## Brad Sallows

We might as well be speaking German.  Eventually people are going to run out of breath in the middle of uttering a "noun".


----------



## Jarnhamar

ballz said:


> Did the offence itself not reach the bar, or was there not enough evidence to prove _beyond a reasonable doubt _but the evidence did meet the balance of probabilities?


I get the feeling it was mostly innocuous but they made an example out of him. Well tried to, Booter brought up a great point. Hard to make an example if we don't know what he said.

If he was removed from command he should at least get a RW for conduct. Or a C&P because of his rank.


----------



## McG

Jarnhamar said:


> If he was removed from command he should at least get a RW for conduct. Or a C&P because of his rank.


Maybe he did. That is administrative and we will never know.


----------



## Haggis

Grimey said:


> If he'd been flagged for previous behavior, I can't see him being selected for Formation Chief.


The former CAF MP Gp CWO was appointed to that position following a CM conviction for an Op HONOUR offence.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

kev994 said:


> Reasonable doubt is only to find them… guilty having committed a service infraction (I think that’s the new terminology). To lay the charge you just need to have reasonable belief.
> Edit: somewhat of a waste of effort though if you don’t think you’ll get a conviction I don’t know what word we’re using now.



Guilty finding? 

If the alleged incident happened before 20 Jun, IIRC that means it would be dealt with under the old system doesn’t it?  I don’t remember that topic covered in the Sqn Boss’s C-77 brief or in MJUL.  

Beyond a reasonable doubt if for Service Offences and CMs.  Balance of probabilities is for Service Infractions and Summart Hearings. In CAF admin law, the burden of proof isn’t just “balance of probabilities” in its minimalist form according to the CAF Mil Admin Law Manual so I was curious to see that term used in all the new SH briefs and trg.  🤷🏻‍♂️

Lots of things happen in the CAF that could result in an investigation and laying of charges.  Many times it is handled at a lower level.  Has been that way for decades…did the CAF lay charges on the dozen or so GOFOs that were relieved of their duties?


----------



## Furniture

McG said:


> Maybe he did. That is administrative and we will never know.


Which is why I think @ballz is onto something, at least at the Sgt and above level. 

I think it could be argued that for Pte/Avr/S3 Bloggins a full public/professional hearing might not be a requirement, but as soon as you're a Snr NCM or Officer it would make sense. 

@Jarnhamar makes a valid point, there is no "example" made if nobody knows exactly what was said, why it was in appropriate, and why it was deemed worthy of a very public removal from the job.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Furniture said:


> I think it could be argued that for Pte/Avr/S3 Bloggins a full public/professional hearing might not be a requirement, but as soon as you're a Snr NCM or Officer it would make sense.



I wound more likely agree if it was MWO/CP02 and up, and Snr Officers and up.

I chose MWO specifically because those are the folks who are on the N2 list and heading for the Chief Corps and Snr Apptments stuff.


----------



## dapaterson

PuckChaser said:


> Can he not be charged as a service infraction by the Formation Commander? C-77 is now in force. Burden of proof would then just be balance of probabilities.


If the infraction predates the coming into force date for C-77 it must be dealt with under the previous (summary trial) system.


----------



## McG

Furniture said:


> I think it could be argued that for Pte/Avr/S3 Bloggins a full public/professional hearing might not be a requirement, but as soon as you're a Snr NCM or Officer it would make sense.





Eye In The Sky said:


> I wound more likely agree if it was MWO/CP02 and up, and Snr Officers and up.
> 
> I chose MWO specifically because those are the folks who are on the N2 list and heading for the Chief Corps and Snr Apptments stuff.


Rank doesn’t matter.  If someone does something so egregious that it merits a firing or skipping levels of remedial measure, then it should be aired in the light of day.


----------



## Furniture

McG said:


> Rank doesn’t matter.  If someone does something so egregious that it merits a firing or skipping levels of remedial measure, then it should be aired in the light of day.


If you want to hold Pte/Avr/S3 to the same level of public accountability as accountants, Drs, etc., you need to pay them far more. 

If a McDonalds employee makes an inappropriate comment they get fired, they don't have a press release made, and a public hearing held.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

McG said:


> Rank doesn’t matter.  If someone does something so egregious that it merits a firing or skipping levels of remedial measure, then it should be aired in the light of day.



If it’s that egregious it should be a CM and will be aired.

I can’t imagine the time/money/effort required  to hold these hearing for any and all CAF mbrs for minor infractions that don’t warrant the laying or a charge or going straight to C & P or AR.

Am I the only one not seeing value to it worthy of the effort?  Even ST results were only published disseminated at the Basez/Wing level.


----------



## ballz

Let's not forget, we can have an open and transparent system without a hearing for absolutely everything.

The system as it currently exists... a NOI* following by the member's representations, following by a decision, with an appeals route (grievance system) is not terrible except that it lacks openness and transparency, that's what allows all weakness to actually come to fruition.

For IC, RW, and C&P, I would stick with this system (although I believe it should be changed so the NOI _must_ be in writing and disclose all evidence, as it currently stands that is only true for C&P and above). What I would add is a publicly searchable record that at _minimum _discloses the results in some manner, vague as it might have to be to protect any victims. 

So perhaps you would search Sgt Bloggins and see on page 1:

10 Mar 2002 - Ruling on Performance Issue. (hyperlinked to...(new page) with a write-up)
5 Oct 2014 - Ruling on Conduct Issue. (hyperlink to...)
20 Sep 2021 - Army Commander's Commendation. (hyperlinked to...)

(new page example)
_10 Mar 2002 - Ruling on Performance Issue_
MCpl Bloggins received an initial counselling for performance after failing to meet the minimum standard of the CAF FORCE test. MCpl Bloggins did not appeal the decision.



I believe that's enough information to show:
1) Other members, in particular his peers and subordinates, that he's been held accountable...... it's pretty pathetic when a Pte has to wonder if his WO who failed their PT test is actually being placed on remedial measures.
2) Other leaders in a decision-making role what is "fair" in terms of the performance issue (albeit PT tests are dictated by policy...... which is also another good reason it's public, no railroading, follow the book).
3) Show the public and all members of the profession of arms the CAF leadership is actually doing what they're paid to do, and allow proper scrutinity on those who don't, which helps maintains confidence that the profession of arms is regulating itself properly (which bviously isn't the case now).
4) Helps make sure the paper trail doesn't just disappear upon posting.
etc. etc. etc.

For something like being demoted, relieved of duty, etc. a hearing would be more appropriate. I also wonder if it would be less efficient.... how many sloths are sitting in DGMC doing back-and-forths for years, wasting their time, the CoC's time, the members time, etc. when this could all be wrapped up in a two-hour or even day-long hearing where the evidence is presented, representations are made, both sides make concluding arguments, and a decision is then rendered. Anything that goes to a hearing obviously gets a more thorough report written and posted.

Maybe with a hearing we wouldn't even need a damn General to make all these decisions since LCols or Cols could actually be scrutinized for their decisions.

I do tend to think that rank matters because the public has a lot less interest in a Private than leadership, and the crisis the CAF faces isn't because Private's aren't being held accountable.


----------



## btrudy

Eye In The Sky said:


> Guilty finding?
> 
> If the alleged incident happened before 20 Jun, IIRC that means it would be dealt with under the old system doesn’t it?  I don’t remember that topic covered in the Sqn Boss’s C-77 brief or in MJUL.



Whether or not you get a summary trial or a summary hearing is based upon when the charges are filed, not when the alleged infraction occurred.

For what it's worth, I really think the CAF as a whole needs to get away from the idea that administrative action isn't justified without charges. It's setting up a false dichotomy between "acceptable behaviour" and "literally illegal". We should be using administrative actions more and relying less on the kangaroo court we call a military justice system.

There's plenty of things that you can say or do that aren't illegal, but still reveal that you probably shouldn't be doing the job you're doing.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Is it that admin actions don’t happen, or is it that they aren’t public knowledge?  I know when someone has been charged on the Wing via Wing Wide Email; the same doesn’t happen for mbrs placed on RMs.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

btrudy said:


> Whether or not you get a summary trial or a summary hearing is based upon when the charges are filed, not when the alleged infraction occurred.
> 
> For what it's worth, I really think the CAF as a whole needs to get away from the idea that administrative action isn't justified without charges. It's setting up a false dichotomy between "acceptable behaviour" and "literally illegal". We should be using administrative actions more and relying less on the kangaroo court we call a military justice system.
> 
> There's plenty of things that you can say or do that aren't illegal, but still reveal that you probably shouldn't be doing the job you're doing.


Where did you get the idea that ”The CAF as a whole needs to get away from the idea that administrative action isn’t justified without charges”?

I can assure you that, where I work (and every other place that I have worked in the CAF), Admin measures are routinely handed out with charges.

Also, that you call the military justice system a “kangaroo court” tells me that you have little to no understand about how it functions. Have you completed POCT? Have you acted as a presiding officer or even an assisting officer at a Summary Trial or Summary Hearing? Have you even attended a Court Martial or a Summary Trial/Hearing as a witness? I have done all those things and have never seen anyone get railroaded.


----------



## Halifax Tar

SeaKingTacco said:


> Also, that you call the military justice system a “kangaroo court” tells me that you have little to no understand about how it functions. Have you completed POCT? Have you acted as a presiding officer or even an assisting officer at a Summary Trial or Summary Hearing? Have you even attended a Court Martial or a Summary Trial/Hearing as a witness? I have done all those things and have never seen anyone get railroaded.



I am not ready to call the military justice systems a "Kangaroo Court" but I have been to more than a few summary trials and been involved in more than a few UDIs; and I have seen specific examples of rank influencing leniency where a junior member wouldn't get the same lenient treatment.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Just noticed that above, I posted that I had seen admin measures with disciplinary measures. What I meant to say is that I have seen admin measure independent of disciplinary action.


----------



## kev994

dapaterson said:


> If the infraction predates the coming into force date for C-77 it must be dealt with under the previous (summary trial) system.


I was briefed that the system to be used is based on the date the charge is laid, regardless of when the incident occurred.


----------



## dapaterson

kev994 said:


> I was briefed that the system to be used is based on the date the charge is laid, regardless of when the incident occurred.



That may well be the direction, but it will be easily tossed if challenged.  Summary Infractions are a de novo creation.  There was no such thing as a summary infraction until June 20th, when the regulations came into force.

Procedural fairness would suggest that you cannot take action for conduct which occurred before the regulation came into force which made that conduct an infraction.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

dapaterson said:


> Procedural fairness would suggest that you cannot take action for conduct which occurred before the regulation came into force which made that conduct an infraction.


Every statue of Sir John A would probable disagree with that interpretation, as useful and full of common sense - indeed justice - as it may be....


----------



## ballz

SeaKingTacco said:


> I can assure you that, where I work (and every other place that I have worked in the CAF), Admin measures are routinely handed out with charges.



You and I have had two very experiences then. I fully agree with btrudy that many people can't separate the two, if you need evidence just read the last three pages of this thread where it's clear some people don't even understand the nomenclature being used, or literally every time administrative action is taken, it makes the news, and the usual suspects come out complaining and calling it the "night of long knives" or a "witch hunt," often citing that no trial has taken place yet.

But let's take anecdotes out of the picture. Before I got out I was in a Brigade HQ. About 2% of the formation was on some level of remedial measure, and of course, it was less than 1% of WOs and less than 1% of Officers. And those remedial measures that do exist are almost all tied to some sort of NDA or other legal infraction, there was almost none for performance.

Can anybody honestly say, hand-on-heart, that only 1 out of every 100 WOs or Officers they've come in contact with are performing below the minimum standard they expect _in all areas of performance and conduct (physical fitness, leadership, job knowledge and skills, initiative, communication skills, effectiveness, supervisory skills, teawork, etc.). _If that were true, the CAF would be an outstanding organization, I doubt even the best organizations are batting 99%. 95% would probably be a fantastic place to work, which the CAF is not.

But, as long as it's all done in secrecy, this type of scrutiny is muted, just the way the CAF likes it.


----------



## Navy_Pete

ballz said:


> You and I have had two very experiences then. I fully agree with btrudy that many people can't separate the two, if you need evidence just read the last three pages of this thread where it's clear some people don't even understand the nomenclature being used, or literally every time administrative action is taken, it makes the news, and the usual suspects come out complaining and calling it the "night of long knives" or a "witch hunt," often citing that no trial has taken place yet.
> 
> But let's take anecdotes out of the picture. Before I got out I was in a Brigade HQ. About 2% of the formation was on some level of remedial measure, and of course, it was less than 1% of WOs and less than 1% of Officers. And those remedial measures that do exist are almost all tied to some sort of NDA or other legal infraction, there was almost none for performance.
> 
> Can anybody honestly say, hand-on-heart, that only 1 out of every 100 WOs or Officers they've come in contact with are performing below the minimum standard they expect _in all areas of performance and conduct (physical fitness, leadership, job knowledge and skills, initiative, communication skills, effectiveness, supervisory skills, teawork, etc.). _If that were true, the CAF would be an outstanding organization, I doubt even the best organizations are batting 99%. 95% would probably be a fantastic place to work, which the CAF is not.
> 
> But, as long as it's all done in secrecy, this type of scrutiny is muted, just the way the CAF likes it.



So you think anyone that doesn't meet the standard in any area should be on a remedial measure? That threshold is a lot lower than what people expect, and why specific explanation was required on the PERs for low scores. After doing PERMON a number of times, I think I've seen somewhere around 1k PERs, and can only remember two that had low scores like that, and both were on remedial measures (and eventually released for being unsuitable). The majority of middle ground performers still met the performance standard though.

I still can't wrap my head around what kind of inappropriate comment from a CPO1 that got them removed from any leadership position doesn't meet the catchall for S.129, as something like that from a senior leader seems inherently to prejudice good order and discipline.

Questioning whether it was an appropriate decision is more of an indication that the RCN has lost institutional credibility for making good ones, not a lack of understanding of how administrative actions, remedial measures and the mil justice system are supposed to work.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Navy_Pete said:


> I still can't wrap my head around what kind of inappropriate comment from a CPO1 that got them removed from any leadership position doesn't meet the catchall for S.129, as something like that from a senior leader seems inherently to prejudice good order and discipline.


Probably just the straw that broke the camels back.........which game got Charlie Montoya fired* as the manager of the Blue Jays??

* removed since he is still going to get paid for another 18 months., just like this person.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Navy_Pete said:


> So you think anyone that doesn't meet the standard in any area should be on a remedial measure? That threshold is a lot lower than what people expect, and why specific explanation was required on the PERs for low scores. After doing PERMON a number of times, I think I've seen somewhere around 1k PERs, and can only remember two that had low scores like that, and both were on remedial measures (and eventually released for being unsuitable). The majority of middle ground performers still met the performance standard though.
> 
> I still can't wrap my head around what kind of inappropriate comment from a CPO1 that got them removed from any leadership position doesn't meet the catchall for S.129, as something like that from a senior leader seems inherently to prejudice good order and discipline.
> 
> Questioning whether it was an appropriate decision is more of an indication that the RCN has lost institutional credibility for making good ones, not a lack of understanding of how administrative actions, remedial measures and the mil justice system are supposed to work.



We need to realize even marginally off hand comments are not acceptable anymore.  Conversation should be work related, and if not work related then light and uncontroversial or non-provocative.

Especially if you are going to be Command CPO1. Your decorum needs to *be the standard*, at all times.  

If I was supposed to know what he said, someone would have told me.  But I can tell you having known Angus for 13 years, he's a good man, regardless of what misconceptions people have of him, and he wouldn't have made this decision willy nilly or as a jerk reaction.  I don't need to know the details and I trust his judgment.


----------



## Kilted

Halifax Tar said:


> We need to realize even marginally off hand comments are not acceptable anymore.  Conversation should be work related, and if not work related then light and uncontroversial or non-provocative.
> 
> Especially if you are going to be Command CPO1. Your decorum needs to *be the standard*, at all times.
> 
> If I was supposed to know what he said, someone would have told me.  But I can tell you having known Angus for 13 years, he's a good man, regardless of what misconceptions people have of him, and he wouldn't have made this decision willy nilly or as a jerk reaction.  I don't need to know the details and I trust his judgment.


If you're in a trench with the same person for two weeks, you run out of work-related things to talk about pretty fast.


----------



## OldSolduer

Halifax Tar said:


> *Especially if you are going to be Command CPO1. Your decorum needs to be the standard, at all times. *


This. If any of you are to aspire to the RSM and above level take note. Think before you speak.

Adding: I have not always followed my own advice.


----------



## Furniture

OldSolduer said:


> This. If any of you are to aspire to the RSM and above level take note. Think before you speak.


100%

Before you click on the box that says you want to be succession managed think about it. The standard for tolerable gets tighter and tighter the higher you go. 

A PO 2 might not even get noticed for an off-hand comment, but when you're a Lvl 2 CWO/CPO 1, nothing goes unnoticed.


----------



## ballz

Navy_Pete said:


> So you think anyone that doesn't meet the standard in any area should be on a remedial measure?



That is literally the reason they exist, to inform people of their shortcomings and course correct them. While the nuts and bolts of that system can be improved (it's insane that an "IC" requires a "monitoring period" for example... an IC should essentially be a written note saying "you are not meeting x standard, here's how you've failed, do this to rectify it and it's all gravy" - that's it, no monitoring period or overblown silly remedial training plans).

Instead the CAF culture treats an IC like inflicting a sucking chest wound, and because the leadership can't be grown ups about it they've creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. People fuck up from time to time, people who aren't held to a standard start to fall to the standard they are held to. No big deal, here's an IC, get back in line and it's no issue.



Navy_Pete said:


> That threshold is a lot lower than what people expect,



No shit. "Culture of zero accountability" has entered the room. What do you think got the CAF here?

It's clear to me you're not able to come to grips with the fact that the system _as you're accustomed to seeing it _is the direct cause



Navy_Pete said:


> and why specific explanation was required on the PERs for low scores.



What do PERs have to do with this?



Navy_Pete said:


> After doing PERMON a number of times, I think I've seen somewhere around 1k PERs, and can only remember two that had low scores *like that, *



Like _what?_



Navy_Pete said:


> Questioning whether it was an appropriate decision is more of an indication that the RCN has lost institutional credibility for making good ones,



Right... which is caused by the lack of transparency around the decision-making and will not be solved until there is.



Navy_Pete said:


> not a lack of understanding of how administrative actions, remedial measures and the mil justice system are supposed to work.



I'm less concerned about your understanding of those things, and more concerned about the institutions ability to create a functioning and harmonious system that enables those things to be executed in a manner that achieves the needs of the CAF..... but most people obviously can't fathom what that might look like because they've been living in the soup sandwich for far too long.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Kilted said:


> If you're in a trench with the same person for two weeks, you run out of work-related things to talk about pretty fast.



Let me know Ypres Part Deux happens again.  If you're going counter a reasonable institutional expectation for decorum and behavior at least try to be relevant. 

Having said that, it may be Trans member beside you at Ypres Part Deux, try and not make your FTP hate you.


----------



## Kilted

Halifax Tar said:


> Let me know Ypres Part Deux happens again.  If you're going counter a reasonable institutional expectation for decorum and behavior at least try to be relevant.
> 
> Having said that, it may be Trans member beside you at Ypres Part Deux, try and not make your FTP hate you.


I've been in a trench for two weeks before. It happens in training, it reasonable to expect that it could happen on operation. I wasn't implying that someone had to start saying things that were hateful, I was simply implying that conversation would not be contained to work related things.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Kilted said:


> I've been in a trench for two weeks before. It happens in training, it reasonable to expect that it could happen on operation. I wasn't implying that someone had to start saying things that were hateful, I was simply implying that conversation would not be contained to work related things.



Hoe your own row mon ami.  Best of luck.


----------



## Navy_Pete

ballz said:


> That is literally the reason they exist, to inform people of their shortcomings and course correct them. While the nuts and bolts of that system can be improved (it's insane that an "IC" requires a "monitoring period" for example... an IC should essentially be a written note saying "you are not meeting x standard, here's how you've failed, do this to rectify it and it's all gravy" - that's it, no monitoring period or overblown silly remedial training plans).
> 
> Instead the CAF culture treats an IC like inflicting a sucking chest wound, and because the leadership can't be grown ups about it they've creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. People fuck up from time to time, people who aren't held to a standard start to fall to the standard they are held to. No big deal, here's an IC, get back in line and it's no issue.
> 
> 
> 
> No shit. "Culture of zero accountability" has entered the room. What do you think got the CAF here?
> 
> It's clear to me you're not able to come to grips with the fact that the system _as you're accustomed to seeing it _is the direct cause
> 
> 
> 
> What do PERs have to do with this?
> 
> 
> 
> Like _what?_
> 
> 
> 
> Right... which is caused by the lack of transparency around the decision-making and will not be solved until there is.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm less concerned about your understanding of those things, and more concerned about the institutions ability to create a functioning and harmonious system that enables those things to be executed in a manner that achieves the needs of the CAF..... but most people obviously can't fathom what that might look like because they've been living in the soup sandwich for far too long.


Because the divisional system exists to give people feedback on where they can do better without requiring a specific remedial measure every time? If someone has a PER score of 'Needs Improvement' or 'Unacceptable' by the end of the year, but there hasn't been divisional support or a remedial measure questions start getting asked for the supervisor not doing their job (possibly remedial measures for the supervisor.

Doing a job up to the standard seems low if everyone else is exceeding it, but shouldn't result in an IC or whatever. If folks want the bare minimum to be higher, raise the standard.

Remedial measures have consequences, and are flags for things like OMM reviews, so shouldn't be the go to starting point if someone just needs a bit of guidance.


----------



## McG

I don't think anyone has said said a remedial measure was required for every incident necessitating corrective feedback, but that we too often shy away from using remedial measures for instances where they appropriate.

"Unacceptable" sounds like it should be an IC and (if it is related to conduct) a penalty through the disciplinary system.

"Needs Improvement" sounds like a feedback session (or the old PDR pt 5) the first time, but progressing to an IC if there is not improvement.

There was also "Developing" in the PER system for those meeting the standard with difficulty, and these individuals also need guidance despite meeting the standard ... this could be the lowest level of performance that never earns a remedial measure, but the member often was given "Skilled" on the PER so everyone could feel good about themselves.



Navy_Pete said:


> Doing a job up to the standard seems low if everyone else is exceeding it, but shouldn't result in an IC or whatever.


This was why PERs needed to die.  There is a great big spectrum of performance and conduct between Needs Improvement and Exceeds Standard, but too many chains of command preferred to be popular than to be honest ... unless you did something to anger said chain of command.  The result was that most people were unduly right justified and a small number were unduly left justified. When everyone's score is inflated to approaching perfect, then there is no differentiation based on performance and promotions start getting decided more based on the check in the box SCRIT items.


----------



## daftandbarmy

McG said:


> This was why PERs needed to die.  There is a great big spectrum of performance and conduct between Needs Improvement and Exceeds Standard, but too many chains of command preferred to be popular than to be honest ... unless you did something to anger said chain of command.  The result was that most people were unduly right justified and a small number were unduly left justified. When everyone's score is inflated to approaching perfect, then there is no differentiation based on performance and promotions start getting decided more based on the check in the box SCRIT items.



But wouldn't that hamstring the Old Boys'/ring knocker 'you scratch my back' approach to career progression that is the cornerstone of CAF succession management?


----------



## TacticalTea

Eye In The Sky said:


> Guilty finding?
> 
> If the alleged incident happened before 20 Jun, IIRC that means it would be dealt with under the old system doesn’t it?  I don’t remember that topic covered in the Sqn Boss’s C-77 brief or in MJUL.
> 
> Beyond a reasonable doubt if for Service Offences and CMs.  Balance of probabilities is for Service Infractions and Summart Hearings. In CAF admin law, the burden of proof isn’t just “balance of probabilities” in its minimalist form according to the CAF Mil Admin Law Manual so I was curious to see that term used in all the new SH briefs and trg.  🤷🏻‍♂️
> 
> Lots of things happen in the CAF that could result in an investigation and laying of charges.  Many times it is handled at a lower level.  Has been that way for decades…did the CAF lay charges on the dozen or so GOFOs that were relieved of their duties?


52. Those CF personnel who have completed the Presiding Officer Certification Training (POCT) course have been exposed to the concept of applying a ‘standard of proof’ when making a decision with significant consequences to the subject of the decision. As emphasized in that course, an individual cannot be convicted of a criminal or service offence unless the presiding officer is convinced “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the accused committed the offence.
In civil cases, the standard is somewhat lower (i.e., the decision-maker(s) must be satisfied on a ‘balance of probabilities’ that an incident occurred). An equivalent phrase that is used is ‘based on the preponderance of evidence.’ Generally, this is the standard that is to be applied in most administrative decisions

53. *There is an intermediate standard of proof*, falling between the criminal standard and the civil standard, that applies to decisions that are administrative in nature but, nevertheless, have serious implications for the individual: The standard of proof required in cases such as this is high. *It is not the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But it is something more than a bare balance of probabilities.* The authorities establish that the case against a professional person on a disciplinary hearing must be proved by a *fair and reasonable preponderance of credible evidence*. The evidence must be sufficiently cogent to make it safe to uphold the findings, with all of the consequences for the professional person’s career and status in the community [having been taken into account].

*Certain types of CF administrative decisions with serious adverse consequences to a CF member, such as release for involvement with drugs, must be based on clear and convincing evidence*.





			https://military-justice.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/A-LG-007-000-AF-010-Military-Administrative-Law-Manual.pdf


----------



## Eye In The Sky

That’s it.  So I was curious to see Balance of Probability used in awareness briefing and MJUL coursing.


----------



## ballz

I had written up a response to all of this, and then I realized you're not reading anything I'm writing and just countering arguments I've never made such as this:



Navy_Pete said:


> If someone has a PER score of 'Needs Improvement' or 'Unacceptable' by the end of the year, but there hasn't been divisional support or a remedial measure questions start getting asked for the supervisor not doing their job (possibly remedial measures for the supervisor.



That'd be a fine rebuttal if I had said supervisors should be able to give someone a Needs Improvement or Unacceptable without being put on a remedial measure, but I didn't.

Or this...



Navy_Pete said:


> Doing a job up to the standard seems low if everyone else is exceeding it, but shouldn't result in an IC or whatever. If folks want the bare minimum to be higher, raise the standard.



That'd be a fine rebuttal if I said people who aren't "average" should be put on remedial measures, but I didn't. I said if they can't meet the_ standard _and I certainly didn't say remedial measures were a mechanism to raise the standard.

So since you're not interested in reading I've written, I won't waste my time.


----------



## Navy_Pete

I did read your post, but the scores above NI means folks haven't met the standard. So anyone with a score below the standard should be on remedial measures, and everyone else has 'met the standard'.

Not something that happens overnight though, so there are usually some basic steps to do before going to an IC, (unless it's something that is significant, or something like a security infraction that requires an RW under the associated DAOD).

Sure, PERs are inflated at the high end, and some people are squeaking through on PERs that aren't up to expectations, but won't be any different with PARs. The basic PARs starts filled out with all scores at 'standard met'.

None of this would be impacted by having public administrative reports, and I think you are overestimating how public the professional societies are. The P.Eng will have hearings and publish the results, but that's at the gross negligence side of things and usually something has gone seriously wrong, with significant damages or people being killed. Those are also complaint driven, vice our remedial measure system which is part of our internal divisional system to supervise mentor people. That's totally different than an independent oversight. The AR process is probably a better parallel, as it's at least done outside the chain of command.

I don't think we need to make the current remedial measures themselves public, as it's supposed to be a tool to help someone correct a deficiency, but there should be some discretion to say someone is on a remedial measure without going into details (maybe tied into rank?) If the intent is really to rehabilitate someone, you can do that without embarrassing them.

In that line, there was no reason here where they couldn't have taken the same MRL where they said they relieved the person in a specific position, which is what they did for the CO on REG. Coming close on the heels of that it seemed unfair to identify the chief by name, even when the info is easily found. With zero info on either, difficult to judge the comparative severity, but if they are going to relieve a LCdr of Command for some kind of inappropriate behaviour that doesn't result in a charge without including their name, seems a bit two faced to turn around and relieve a CPO1 of a Senior appointment with a press release and RCN wide email identifying them specifically by name.


----------



## ballz

Navy_Pete said:


> I did read your post



No, you definitely didn't.



Navy_Pete said:


> but the scores above NI means folks haven't met the standard. So anyone with a score below the standard should be on remedial measures, and everyone else has 'met the standard'.



Everyone below the standard should be on remedial measure, yes. Everyone else has either met the standard, exceeded the standard, or mastered that particular skillset for their rank level. By golly, it's almost like the word "standard" means something and it's almost like the Canadian Forces Personnel Appraisal System could have worked if leadership used it as designed. I wonder why they didn't? Oh right, because it takes some fortitude and since it's all protected information it was easier to just sweep it under the rug. And now the CAF is in crisis over their collective failure.



Navy_Pete said:


> Not something that happens overnight though,



What doesn't happen overnight? Putting someone remedial measures can take like 48 hours. Put together the paperwork, issue the NOI, give them 24 hours to make representations, and deliver a result.



Navy_Pete said:


> so there are usually some basic steps to do before going to an IC, (unless it's something that is significant, or something like a security infraction that requires an RW under the associated DAOD).



Again, that's your experience in a broken, dysfunctional CAF. You are clearly incapable of stepping outside your experience and looking at things through a different lens.



Navy_Pete said:


> Sure, PERs are inflated at the high end, and some people are squeaking through on PERs that aren't up to expectations, but won't be any different with PARs.



Good thing I'm not advocating for PARS then isn't it?



Navy_Pete said:


> None of this would be impacted by having public administrative reports,



Bullshit. If people actually have to be accountable for their decisions / transgressions of leadership, it changes things. Being able to hide behind the Privacy Act is what allows them to continually fail to do their job free of scrutiny.



Navy_Pete said:


> and I think you are overestimating how public the professional societies are. The P.Eng will have hearings and publish the results, but that's at the gross negligence side of things and usually something has gone seriously wrong, with significant damages or people being killed.



Now you're just talking out of your ass. All hearings scheduled are posted public and are open to the public, with the usual caveats and protections where sometimes you might have to attend in person and a _pseudonym_ might be used in the published report to protect someone's identity.... not unlike our judicial system. It took 3 seconds on Google to find that.

Would you like to read some disciplinary hearing results for CPAs for things that are not "gross negligence" and something has not "gone seriously wrong." Of course you wouldn't, you aren't even willing to read the posts you're arguing.



Navy_Pete said:


> Those are also complaint driven, vice our remedial measure system which is part of our internal divisional system to supervise mentor people.



Not necessarily complaint driven, which is an irrelevant distinction without a difference. You're just arguing for argument's sake now. You didn't like what happened, you complained about what a travesty it is, I provided you a solution, and now you're just arguing and you're not even sure what you're arguing about. "There's two things I hate: 1) the way things are, and 2) change."



Navy_Pete said:


> That's totally different than an independent oversight. The AR process is probably a better parallel, as it's at least done outside the chain of command.



You're continually talking about ways things currently are, and not what I'm proposing.



Navy_Pete said:


> I don't think we need to make the current remedial measures themselves public, as it's supposed to be a tool to help someone correct a deficiency,



And without transparency, there's zero accountability to ensure that's being done. Moreover, when it comes to leadership ranks in the CAF, the public has an interest in ensuring the CAF is regulating itself appropriately and it's in the CAF's _best interests_ to ensure they maintain the confidence of their members and the public.



Navy_Pete said:


> but there should be some discretion to say someone is on a remedial measure without going into details (maybe tied into rank?) If the intent is really to rehabilitate someone, you can do that without embarrassing them.



Now go back and read my post where I said _exactly that_ and even gave an example, and then go back and read where I said "you're not even reading my post."

That said, if a member is _embarrassed _by their actions, that's not the CAF's fault. There's an easy solution to avoid that, don't do stupid things.



Navy_Pete said:


> In that line, there was no reason here where they couldn't have taken the same MRL where they said they relieved the person in a specific position, which is what they did for the CO on REG. Coming close on the heels of that it seemed unfair to identify the chief by name, even when the info is easily found. With zero info on either, difficult to judge the comparative severity, but if they are going to relieve a LCdr of Command for some kind of inappropriate behaviour that doesn't result in a charge without including their name, seems a bit two faced to turn around and relieve a CPO1 of a Senior appointment with a press release and RCN wide email identifying them specifically by name.



Sure, what does that have to do with tea in China? You're arguing about mistakes they made in specific cases and potential unfairness in the way they did things, and I'm talking about how to help ensure that doesn't happen.... which you also don't like.


----------



## SupersonicMax

It’s easy to throw stones.  It is much more difficult to enact meaningful changes. It is a shame you’re leaving without having an opportunity to push for the changes you are proposing.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

SupersonicMax said:


> It’s easy to throw stones.  It is much more difficult to enact meaningful changes. It is a shame you’re leaving  have left without having an opportunity to push for the changes you are proposing.


TFTFY 😉


----------



## brihard

ballz said:


> No, you definitely didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone below the standard should be on remedial measure, yes. Everyone else has either met the standard, exceeded the standard, or mastered that particular skillset for their rank level. By golly, it's almost like the word "standard" means something and it's almost like the Canadian Forces Personnel Appraisal System could have worked if leadership used it as designed. I wonder why they didn't? Oh right, because it takes some fortitude and since it's all protected information it was easier to just sweep it under the rug. And now the CAF is in crisis over their collective failure.
> 
> 
> 
> What doesn't happen overnight? Putting someone remedial measures can take like 48 hours. Put together the paperwork, issue the NOI, give them 24 hours to make representations, and deliver a result.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, that's your experience in a broken, dysfunctional CAF. You are clearly incapable of stepping outside your experience and looking at things through a different lens.
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing I'm not advocating for PARS then isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. If people actually have to be accountable for their decisions / transgressions of leadership, it changes things. Being able to hide behind the Privacy Act is what allows them to continually fail to do their job free of scrutiny.
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're just talking out of your ass. All hearings scheduled are posted public and are open to the public, with the usual caveats and protections where sometimes you might have to attend in person and a _pseudonym_ might be used in the published report to protect someone's identity.... not unlike our judicial system. It took 3 seconds on Google to find that.
> 
> Would you like to read some disciplinary hearing results for CPAs for things that are not "gross negligence" and something has not "gone seriously wrong." Of course you wouldn't, you aren't even willing to read the posts you're arguing.
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily complaint driven, which is an irrelevant distinction without a difference. You're just arguing for argument's sake now. You didn't like what happened, you complained about what a travesty it is, I provided you a solution, and now you're just arguing and you're not even sure what you're arguing about. "There's two things I hate: 1) the way things are, and 2) change."
> 
> 
> 
> You're continually talking about ways things currently are, and not what I'm proposing.
> 
> 
> 
> And without transparency, there's zero accountability to ensure that's being done. Moreover, when it comes to leadership ranks in the CAF, the public has an interest in ensuring the CAF is regulating itself appropriately and it's in the CAF's _best interests_ to ensure they maintain the confidence of their members and the public.
> 
> 
> 
> Now go back and read my post where I said _exactly that_ and even gave an example, and then go back and read where I said "you're not even reading my post."
> 
> That said, if a member is _embarrassed _by their actions, that's not the CAF's fault. There's an easy solution to avoid that, don't do stupid things.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, what does that have to do with tea in China? You're arguing about mistakes they made in specific cases and potential unfairness in the way they did things, and I'm talking about how to help ensure that doesn't happen.... which you also don't like.



What I’m not seeing in this is a clear understanding of the gap between _discipline_ and _performance_ measures. Yes, in proper professions and near-professions, _disciplinary_ matters are often public and/or publicly reported upon. _Performance_ issues - simply having deficiencies in how well you do your job - are not, unless they cross that discipline/misconduct threshold.

Looking at CAF comparable to other federal organizations with both performance and disciplinary/conduct systems, I can absolutely see a continued publication of certain _conduct_ measures. CAF has historically taken a _judicial_ approach to all properly executed conduct processes- CMs and summary trials. My understanding is that the summary hearings process takes some of the lower end stuff and renders it non-judicial.  This makes perfect sense. It would be permissible to still allow a public aspect to it; publication in routine orders etc. 

But, distinct from that, the _administrative measures _system for _performance_ deficiencies is absolutely properly protected by the Privacy Act. Anyone who expects or hopes for something different is high. IC, RW, C&P are a private matter between the individual and the employer, designed to identify deficiencies and guide rectification in a legally defensivble way that respects employee privacy and equips the employer to terminate employment if someone can’t pull up their socks. CAF is not so special or distinct from other employers that this needs to vary, and it won’t.

The threshold for what is a conduct matter, and what should be public in order to protect the public confidence in the institution is, IMHO, about the same. Someone simply sucking at their job is not the generally public’s business. Someone engaging in _miscinduct_ where there is _punishment_, not just performance management and improvement, is worth shining some public light on.

The problem is not so much the tools not being available, but rather whether or not they’re used.

Finally, in rare cases, where appropriate, the Privacy Act is not absolute. S. 8(2)(m)(i) allows for disclosure, “(m) for any purpose where, in the opinion of the head of the institution, (i) the public interest in disclosure clearly outweighs any invasion of privacy that could result from the disclosure”.

So in a rare instance where someone a matter doesn’t hit the disciplinary threshold (and that can be a product of a foul up in investigation or obtaining evidence that makes a matter not prosecutable), but there’s still a compelling public interest in the institution disclosing otherwise private information, it can be done. That could allow for a disclosure such as the turfing of the Chief a few weeks back.


----------



## ballz

SupersonicMax said:


> It’s easy to throw stones.  It is much more difficult to enact meaningful changes. It is a shame you’re leaving without having an opportunity to push for the changes you are proposing.



10 years post-OFP was long enough to not fall victim that train of thought any longer. Eventually I learned the meaning behind the phrase "cast not pearls before swine" and stopped devaluing my own self worth by staying in the CAF. My new employer and our clients seem to appreciate my time and efforts a lot more, and I'm much happier.


----------



## ballz

brihard said:


> What I’m not seeing in this is a clear understanding of the gap between _discipline_ and _performance_ measures. Yes, in proper professions and near-professions, _disciplinary_ matters are often public and/or publicly reported upon. _Performance_ issues - simply having deficiencies in how well you do your job - are not, unless they cross that discipline/misconduct threshold.



I understand the difference. The nomenclature in civilian professions is different. In civilian professions, the term "discipline" includes performance issues. The things the CAF considers "discipline" i.e. legal offences, are referred to civilian courts.

Military nomenclature. Legal = Discipline, Administrative = Performance/conduct.

Civilian professions. Legal = no nomenclature as it's referred to civilian authorities, Discipline = Performance/conduct.

If you are a qualified CPA and screw up someone's tax filings, that's a performance/competence issue (not conduct), and it's dealt with as a matter of professional discipline, and yes, the proceedings will be _public_ so the public doesn't lose confidence in the CPA profession.



brihard said:


> But, distinct from that, the _administrative measures _system for _performance_ deficiencies is absolutely properly protected by the Privacy Act. Anyone who expects or hopes for something different is high. IC, RW, C&P are a private matter between the individual and the employer, designed to identify deficiencies and guide rectification in a legally defensivble way that respects employee privacy and equips the employer to terminate employment if someone can’t pull up their socks. CAF is not so special or distinct from other employers that this needs to vary, and it won’t.



Nope, that's exactly why it's failing.
I lost confidence in the CAF's leadership and ability to regulate itself, so don't fool yourself into thinking I expect any changes.
The CAF is a self-regulated profession, and I'm comparing it to what other self-regulated professions do..... self-regulated professions that have not failed to maintain confidence amongst their membership or the public. I'm not treating the CAF to be "special," I'm treating it with the same expectations of accountability as, at minimum, an accountant. I think the public has a vested interest in the CAF at least as much as the accounting profession.



brihard said:


> The threshold for what is a conduct matter, and what should be public in order to protect the public confidence in the institution is, IMHO, about the same. Someone simply sucking at their job is not the generally public’s business. Someone engaging in _miscinduct_ where there is _punishment_, not just performance management and improvement, is worth shining some public light on.



It is if that person's the Commander of the Canadian Army.



brihard said:


> The problem is not so much the tools not being available, but rather whether or not they’re used.



Agreed, and you can't just simply say "the system is designed well" and ignore _outcomes, _that's what ideologues do and why they are so divorced from reality.

The outcomes of the system in place are poor, any responsible profession would take this seriously. As I said, other self-regulated professions have already figured this out and have a functioning system. The CAF is not so special that it can't learn from someone else.



brihard said:


> Finally, in rare cases, where appropriate, the Privacy Act is not absolute. S. 8(2)(m)(i) allows for disclosure, “(m) for any purpose where, in the opinion of the head of the institution, (i) the public interest in disclosure clearly outweighs any invasion of privacy that could result from the disclosure”.
> 
> So in a rare instance where someone a matter doesn’t hit the disciplinary threshold (and that can be a product of a foul up in investigation or obtaining evidence that makes a matter not prosecutable), but there’s still a compelling public interest in the institution disclosing otherwise private information, it can be done. That could allow for a disclosure such as the turfing of the Chief a few weeks back.



Sure, and going back to outcomes, making it a matter of "only in limited special circumstances" is not getting a very good outcome.


----------



## SupersonicMax

ballz said:


> The CAF is not so special that it can't learn from someone else.


Not saying the CAF can’t learn from others but it is not the same.  Not everyone in the CAF has the same level of public trust. The impact of a private/aviator/sailor screwing UP is not of the same magnitude as the CDS or CAFCWO screwing up and nor should it be dealt in the same way.  The issue is that our system is a one-size-fits-all. 

I would be okay with administrative measures for anyone holding positions that are announced through a CANFORGEN (COs, senior appointments, Col/GOFO) being made public but I don’t think making all administrative measures public for all CAF members is in the CAF’s or the public’s interest.


----------



## OldSolduer

Change is slow. Change is difficult. Be patient. The CAF I joined is totally different from the one I joined in 1974. It is much much better and yes it still needs work. 

Be patient.

Rome was not built in a day.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

OldSolduer said:


> Change is slow. Change is difficult. Be patient. The CAF I joined is totally different from the one I joined in 1974. It is much much better and yes it still needs work.
> 
> Be patient.
> 
> Rome was not built in a day.


It was, however, sacked and burned in a day.

Just sayin…


----------



## OldSolduer

SeaKingTacco said:


> It was, however, sacked and burned in a day.
> 
> Just sayin…


Yes it was.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

OldSolduer said:


> Yes it was.


The Visgoths were a fun crew….


----------



## FJAG

brihard said:


> The threshold for what is a conduct matter, and what should be public in order to protect the public confidence in the institution is, IMHO, about the same. Someone simply sucking at their job is not the generally public’s business. Someone engaging in _miscinduct_ where there is _punishment_, not just performance management and improvement, is worth shining some public light on.





SupersonicMax said:


> Not saying the CAF can’t learn from others but it is not the same.


I'm coming into this discussion tangentially and in all honesty, having read this thread twice now I'm still not so sure what the actual point of the debate is. I just thought I'd throw in my $.02 on the issue of similarities between the military and professional standards bodies. I think @SupersonicMax's point that it's not the same is the key. We are in fact talking apples and oranges here.

Professional bodies such as lawyers and doctors serve the public directly - i.e there is a one to one relationship between the professional and the member of the public. Governments give them self-governance for three key reasons: 1) as professionals they understand the intricacies of their profession better than laymen and as such are better able to judge failures in performance; 2) its cheaper for the government if the industry manages itself; and 3) the profession will be directly effected by such professional failures (through insurance or reimbursement costs and public confidence and thereby clientage) and therefore have a vested interest in doing it right. (I appreciate some folks will argue all three points - but there they are). Lawyers and doctors as groups pay heavily for the mistakes and misconduct of their colleagues. 

I can speak as a lawyer having been a bencher for eight years and having sat on complaints investigation, discipline and practice committees. The names vary as between law societies but in Manitoba complaints investigation was the prosecutorial arm of the society. It received complaints about a member from the public, from other lawyers, from judges and from within the societies staff such as its practice auditors. After an investigation numerous actions could be taken including laying a charge of misconduct if the Code of Professional Practice had been broken or referring it to the practice committee. Where a charge is laid it would go to the Discipline Committee for a public hearing and the outcome is published. Criminal conduct makes its way to the civilian police and judicial system.

Practice committees on the other hand do not concern themselves with the Code of Professional Conduct but the standards of practice; in other words is the lawyers manner of operating his business in accordance with the accepted standard of the profession? The committee's role is remedial and lawyers could even refer themselves for advice and guidance. Its a confidential process designed to raise the standard of practice of those who fell below it. It is not unusual that sometimes there is a fine line or a crossover as between practice and discipline issues.

The problem with trying to establish a parallel as between professional organizations and the military is that the two do not function in the same way principally because professional organizations function in a direct relationship with the public while the military does not. In the same way, there is a distinction as between the military and the various police services in that police services are in daily contact, sometimes confrontational contact, with the public and do need their direct support and confidence. The military, on the other hand, is an arm of the executive branch of government and is responsible to it and is serving the public in only a very general way. The military does not engage with the individual members of the public on a regular basis and does not need the public's confidence in order to do its job; it needs the government's confidence. The public will believe whatever it wants to based on whatever information comes its way but it has no direct interest in whether a given soldier or officer is competent or behaving criminally or whatever. 

I'm not being naïve. Of course the public's opinion of the military matters, but that's more in the nature of a public affairs issue rather than a private connection as between a given member of the military and that of a given member of the public to the extent that the public at large needs intimate information on every wrongdoing or performance failure by the military's membership. The military's responsibility for its self-governance is to the government through the Minister who has the power to fix things when they go awry and to fire those who do not take the necessary steps to implement her corrective programs.

The military has in place many - oh, so many - policies and programs to manage discipline and performance failures. Do they work? Mostly, yes. But there have been some spectacular failures which have drawn negative attention. Some of those are just bad actors acting badly which happens anytime you have humans in the system. Some, however, are systemic failings that need to be cured. My word of caution is simply be careful of unwanted secondary and tertiary effects when modifying the system to try to obtain favourable public opinion (or the confidence of the public). The public thrives on being contrary, arbitrary and never satisfied regardless of what one does for them.

🍻


----------



## TacticalTea

SupersonicMax said:


> Not saying the CAF can’t learn from others but it is not the same.  Not everyone in the CAF has the same level of public trust. The impact of a private/aviator/sailor screwing UP is not of the same magnitude as the CDS or CAFCWO screwing up and nor should it be dealt in the same way.  The issue is that our system is a one-size-fits-all.
> 
> I would be okay with administrative measures for anyone holding positions that are announced through a CANFORGEN (COs, senior appointments, Col/GOFO) being made public but I don’t think making all administrative measures public for all CAF members is in the CAF’s or the public’s interest.


Here's a problem.

Often times, sailors are rightfully dissatisfied with a peer or superior's performance or conduct, relay that much to their chain of command, yet don't SEE any action taken precisely because administrative measures and PERs are so secretive (for valid reasons, certainly). On top of that, Summary trials/hearings are at all time lows, so there is veritably no public demonstration of what is unacceptable.

This can have devastating effects on troop morale and trust in command. How could we, as an organization - not as individual OCs/COs - address this?

Edit: @FJAG damn you and your comments as essays! I've had to stop reading the eFP Latvia thread since 29 June because of one those, shoving the tab in the corner of my Edge window, thinking ''bah, I'll read that at some point when I have time!''. I jest, of course. Contribution appreciated


----------



## OldSolduer

SeaKingTacco said:


> The Visgoths were a fun crew….


I can only imagine…. 

The Gauls and Celts as well…


----------



## The Bread Guy

dapaterson said:


> LGen Whelan. CMP, suspended.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Senior military officer placed on leave months after sexual-misconduct investigation against him started
> 
> 
> Lieutenant-General Steven Whelan was appointed head of Canadian Forces personnel in May, he now joins list of military officers being investigated
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theglobeandmail.com


Next step, 278 days later ....





						Statement from the Office of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal - Canada.ca
					

On July 20, 2022, the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS) laid the following charges against Lieutenant-General Steven Whelan.




					www.canada.ca


----------



## dapaterson




----------



## brihard

The Bread Guy said:


> Next step, 278 days later ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statement from the Office of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal - Canada.ca
> 
> 
> On July 20, 2022, the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS) laid the following charges against Lieutenant-General Steven Whelan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.canada.ca


Interesting to see an explicitly CSD charge laid against a LGen. I'm curious how the prosecution will proceed.


----------



## Weinie

dapaterson said:


>


I have known Steve for 30 years. He did not have a malicious or vindictive bone in his body. I have no insight into the allegations against him, but in all my dealings with him, he was a good man.


----------



## QV

No crime. So he broke two rules. Speculation: He probably had a consensual relationship with someone that didn’t work out, and didn’t follow the stipulations of personal relationships in the CAF such as informing a superior or whatever the DAOD stated at the time.

Service couples beware.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Molehill =/= Mountain

He broke two rules that folks break on the regular, both unwittingly and with full knowledge. This wouldn't make the Routine Orders if this were pers of lesser rank.

The reason he is getting the Globe and Mail treatment is the fact he is the CMP, meaning he is charged with setting and enforcing HR policies for the CAF. 

He didn't follow the rules, got called out on it, now the consequences are coming to roost. That is the culture change that we are trying to implement. 

Our leaders need to be held to account and seen to be held to account. If Cpl Bloggins is being hauled in front of the CO for the same infraction, our generals should be told the same "Take the Beret off, Sir. Left, Right, Left. Mark Time."


----------



## Kilted

QV said:


> No crime. So he broke two rules. Speculation: He probably had a consensual relationship with someone that didn’t work out, and didn’t follow the stipulations of personal relationships in the CAF such as informing a superior or whatever the DAOD stated at the time.
> 
> Service couples beware.



With everything that has happened, I've surprised that we haven't seen new regulations governing service couples.


----------



## Furniture

Kilted said:


> With everything that has happened, I've surprised that we haven't seen new regulations governing service couples.


Too much restriction wouldn't survive a challenge.


----------



## Kilted

Furniture said:


> Too much restriction wouldn't survive a challenge.


I'm not saying that we completely get rid of service couples, but surely a restriction against any type of relationship (sexual or otherwise) between NCM's and Officers (with an exception for CIC Officers) would not be that unreasonable.  I mean, sometimes we aren't even allowed to eat or drink; or even to billet in the same room, surely this can't be that unreasonable.


----------



## OldSolduer

Kilted said:


> I'm not saying that we completely get rid of service couples, but surely a restriction against any type of relationship (sexual or otherwise) between NCM's and Officers (with an exception for CIC Officers) would not be that unreasonable.


I am not a lawyer but I think that would not survive in court. Just my two cents. 

I have two good friends that are a service couple. One was a CWO the other a Major. Both very professional.


----------



## kev994

Kilted said:


> I'm not saying that we completely get rid of service couples, but surely a restriction against any type of relationship (sexual or otherwise) between NCM's and Officers (with an exception for CIC Officers) would not be that unreasonable.  I mean, sometimes we aren't even allowed to eat or drink; or even to billet in the same room, surely this can't be that unreasonable.


America has this policy. Apparently it’s not uncommon for a marriage to occur the day after one of them releases.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Kilted said:


> I'm not saying that we completely get rid of service couples, but surely a restriction against any type of relationship (sexual or otherwise) between NCM's and Officers (with an exception for CIC Officers) would not be that unreasonable.  I mean, sometimes we aren't even allowed to eat or drink; or even to billet in the same room, surely this can't be that unreasonable.


It is in fact completely unreasonable.  That way lies madness.  How about the CAF treats its people like adults...

And why an exception for CIC officers ?

On what moral, legal, constitutional, or even commonsensical principles are you basing your suggestion?


----------



## PPCLI Guy

kev994 said:


> America has this policy. Apparently it’s not uncommon for a marriage to occur the day after one of them releases.


They also had a completely morally reprehensible policy of "Don't ask Don't Tell".

Not exactly a moral compass


----------



## Fishbone Jones

SeaKingTacco said:


> Where did you get the idea that ”The CAF as a whole needs to get away from the idea that administrative action isn’t justified without charges”?
> 
> I can assure you that, where I work (and every other place that I have worked in the CAF), Admin measures are routinely handed out with charges.
> 
> Also, that you call the military justice system a “kangaroo court” tells me that you have little to no understand about how it functions. Have you completed POCT? Have you acted as a presiding officer or even an assisting officer at a Summary Trial or Summary Hearing? Have you even attended a Court Martial or a Summary Trial/Hearing as a witness? I have done all those things and have never seen anyone get railroaded.



I was charged so many times in my career, that I've lost count. There wasn't a bogus deal in the lot.


----------



## ModlrMike

The Americans have a rule like this. It's not working out that well for them.


----------



## Kilted

PPCLI Guy said:


> It is in fact completely unreasonable.  That way lies madness.  How about the CAF treats its people like adults...
> 
> And why an exception for CIC officers ?
> 
> On what moral, legal, constitutional, or even commonsensical principles are you basing your suggestion?


General principals of the rank structure and the different levels of responsibility and the potential for one to inappropriately influence the other.  There has always been a significant divide between the officer's corps and the ranks.  Why should we allow personal relationships to break down professional barriers?  CIC Officers generally operate in a world of their own and very rarely exercise control over NCM's, perhaps beside from summer taskings, but those are generally temporary in nature.  For example, if a Sgt is in a relationship with a Capt from the local Cadet Corps, their professional lives won't intertwine. Now that Capt is in the same unit as the Sgt, that's where there are going to be conflicts of interest.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

So one of my closest friends was an MWO.  He and I and a Sgt spent many an evening together while I was a senior officer.  Any issues there?


----------



## OldSolduer

Kilted said:


> Gen. Now that Capt is in the same unit as the Sgt, that's where there are going to be conflicts of interest.


Not necessarily. You seem to doubt the professionalism of both - and remember IF the RSM and CSMs are  on the ball they will  advise the CO to ensure the two are not in the same chain of command. 
You can serve in the same unit as your spouse, son, daughter etc as long as you're not in the same sub unit.


----------



## Kilted

OldSolduer said:


> Not necessarily. You seem to doubt the professionalism of both - and remember IF the RSM and CSMs are  on the ball they will  advise the CO to ensure the two are not in the same chain of command.
> You can serve in the same unit as your spouse, son, daughter etc as long as you're not in the same sub unit.


I'm sure that there may be many people who are professional. but from what we have seen over the past few years, I think that it is more than reasonable to doubt the professionalism of some.  Is there any regulation that says that you can't be in the same sub-unit as your parent/child, because in many cases in the Reserve world it's not very realistic to move people into different sub-units based on geographical locations?


----------



## OldSolduer

Kilted said:


> I'm sure that there may be many people who are professional. but from what we have seen over the past few years, I think that it is more than reasonable to doubt the professionalism of some.  Is there any regulation that says that you can't be in the same sub-unit as your parent/child, because in many cases in the Reserve world it's not very realistic to move people into different sub-units based on geographical locations?


I did it. My son and I were in the same Pres unit - I told all who would listen he could not be in my platoon. The leadership listened.


----------



## Remius

Kilted said:


> I'm sure that there may be many people who are professional. but from what we have seen over the past few years, I think that it is more than reasonable to doubt the professionalism of some.  Is there any regulation that says that you can't be in the same sub-unit as your parent/child, because in many cases in the Reserve world it's not very realistic to move people into different sub-units based on geographical locations?


Keep it professional both ways.  If we expect our people to be professional about it then the organisation should offer the same courtesy.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Kilted said:


> I'm not saying that we completely get rid of service couples, but surely a restriction against any type of relationship (sexual or otherwise) between NCM's and Officers (with an exception for CIC Officers) would not be that unreasonable.  I mean, sometimes we aren't even allowed to eat or drink; or even to billet in the same room, surely this can't be that unreasonable.



I know a few married service couples that are Officer / NCM.  

Guess the military should order them to get divorced…


----------



## FSTO

Eye In The Sky said:


> I know a few married service couples that are Officer / NCM.
> 
> Guess the military should order them to get divorced…


Back in 89 our CTO had a chat with our platoon (shout out to Calvin Platoon) about dating NCM's. He advised it was not a good idea. I understand that for female members of the CAF, the dating pool of civilian men who are open to being married to the CAF is very limited.🤷‍♀️


----------



## KevinB

PPCLI Guy said:


> They also had a completely morally reprehensible policy of "Don't ask Don't Tell".
> 
> Not exactly a moral compass


So effectively did the CAF…

I would argue that it depends on the relationship.  In my experience no one really cares about service spouses.  Issues occur when certain rules are ignored especially on deployments for some ranks.  
   If ‘hypothetically’ an Infantry OC takes up a relationship with a NCM and flaunts it in front of his company, and then a Platoon Commander in the same unit does the same, and they both have the gall to lecture their troops about ethical behaviors and relationships, it’s really corrosive to that unit. It’s even more reprehensible when those personnel are ‘geographically single’ but actually married.


----------



## Quirky

KevinB said:


> I would argue that it depends on the relationship.  In my experience no one really cares about service spouses.



More people care than you think, they just aren't always open about it. I've heard it all.
"Should those two be working together (both Cpls same trade)."
"Must be nice to go on X exercise or deployment with your spouse."
Well if you are jealous about service couples going on work trips together, yet being completely professional about it, then maybe your husband/wife should join too? What they do on their off time together is none of your business. Would you be so bothered by it if the couple was the same sex? People like to worry about things that has nothing to do with them, just complain for the sake of it.


----------



## Blackadder1916

FSTO said:


> Back in 89 our CTO had a chat with our platoon (shout out to Calvin Platoon) about dating NCM's. He advised it was not a good idea. I understand that for female members of the CAF, the *dating pool *of civilian men who are open to being married to the CAF is very limited.🤷‍♀️



It's probably also somewhat shallow with regard to quality (of both potential civilian or military partners) . . . I have a few exes who likely hold that opinion.



Kilted said:


> I'm not saying that we completely get rid of service couples, but surely a restriction against any type of relationship (sexual or otherwise) between NCM's and Officers (with an exception for CIC Officers) would not be that unreasonable.  I mean, sometimes we aren't even allowed to eat or drink; or even to billet in the same room, surely this can't be that unreasonable.



Back in the 80s when I was going through the application process for commissioning, I was married to another NCO.  During the interview with the PSO he raised the issue about "social differences" between officers and other ranks (the term in use at the time for us peasantry).  His viewpoint (which I thought, then and now, to be antiquated) was that I would have to sever almost all personal relationship ties with friends still serving in the ranks.  He was also very insistent on knowing whether my then spouse and I had discussed the benefits of her releasing.  Let's just say that the interview became very heated and I was surprised that some of our exchange hadn't upset my opportunity (I may have called him an asshole at one point).  By coincidence, we were both on the same Staff School course a couple of years later (me, a junior Lt; he, a Capt . . . and still an asshole).

There are many things to be considered in officer/NCM relationships, personal history being chief among them.  Granted I served most of my career in a branch (and in MOCs) that had a greater mix of male/female members than most and had the largest group of female officers.  Back in the day, the primary source of officers for my last MOC was from the ranks, so it was not surprising that there was great familiarity among officers and SNCOs/WOs (however familiarity does not always mean friendship, sometimes it breeds contempt).  Beside the occasional awkward situation of having former . . . err, . . . ahh . . . shall we call them "friends with benefits" turning up in the same unit, in a few instances friends from my OR days ended up as direct subordinates.  But as professionals, we accepted the situation and worked within the parameters of professionalism.


----------



## Furniture

Quirky said:


> More people care than you think, they just aren't always open about it. I've heard it all.
> "Should those two be working together (both Cpls same trade)."
> "Must be nice to go on X exercise or deployment with your spouse."
> Well if you are jealous about service couples going on work trips together, yet being completely professional about it, then maybe your husband/wife should join too? What they do on their off time together is none of your business. Would you be so bothered by it if the couple was the same sex? People like to worry about things that has nothing to do with them, just complain for the sake of it.


Most issues I have seen with service couples come from outside the couple.

Sgt X is friends with WO A, WO A decides to "help" their friend's spouse Cpl Y... Cpl Y get's preferential treatment, not because Sgt X is pushing for it, but because WO A is trying to be "helpful".

The other instance I've seen service couples become an issue is when Cpl X and Cpl Y get preferential treatment for posting because the CAF doesn't want to separate service couples, so Cpl A and Cpl B (unrelated in any way to each other) get the crap postings.

Neither of those situations are fixed by a policy that prevents officers and NCMs from being in a relationship.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Eye In The Sky said:


> I know a few married service couples that are Officer / NCM.
> 
> Guess the military should order them to get divorced…



No orders required. Just give it time.... 

Research on Military/Veteran Families 

It was found that after adjusting for age and sex differences, Regular Force Veterans had a significantly higher rate of divorce than other Canadians (*11% vs.* *7%)*, while Reserve Force Veterans were similar to other Canadians in this respect.



			https://cimvhr.ca/vac-reports/data/reports/MacLean%202015_Research%20on%20Military_Veteran%20Families.pdf


----------



## Haggis

KevinB said:


> It’s even more reprehensible when those personnel are ‘*geographically single*’ but actually married.


TD = "Temporary Divorce" in the eyes of some.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Haggis said:


> TD = "Temporary Divorce" in the eyes of some.


“So, are you married?”
“Not here I’m not”


----------



## McG

Canadian's don't think their military can get better on this file.









						Canadians skeptical military will address sexual misconduct scandal: internal poll - National | Globalnews.ca
					

Nearly 40 per cent of respondents in a poll commissioned by National Defence weren’t confident the Canadian Armed Forces will deal with sexual misconduct appropriately.




					globalnews.ca


----------



## rmc_wannabe

McG said:


> Canadian's don't think their military can get better on this file.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canadians skeptical military will address sexual misconduct scandal: internal poll - National | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> Nearly 40 per cent of respondents in a poll commissioned by National Defence weren’t confident the Canadian Armed Forces will deal with sexual misconduct appropriately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> globalnews.ca


Part of the problem is we have been dealing with this for 40, 45 God damn years with minimal effort and even smaller gains.

The culture shift over the past 5 years has been galactic comparatively. 

Are there still issues and incidents? Hell yes. But the way we have taken action now vice in 2010, 2005, or later is to be commended.


----------



## daftandbarmy

rmc_wannabe said:


> Part of the problem is we have been dealing with this for 40, 45 God damn years with minimal effort and even smaller gains.
> 
> The culture shift over the past 5 years has been galactic comparatively.
> 
> *Are there still issues and incidents? Hell yes. But the way we have taken action now vice in 2010, 2005, or later is to be commended.*



If by 'action' you mean 'awful leadership at the highest levels sparking the worst crisis in confidence of a nation's military' then yes, I guess we've taken some action, e.g., (from May 2022):

"The cascade of sexual abuse scandals has shaken confidence in the military in Canada, where on Monday the government released an independent review by a former Supreme Court justice aimed at addressing what critics say is a pervasive and systemic problem that has persisted despite past promises of reform."









						Canada’s Military, Where Sexual Misconduct Went to the Top, Looks for a New Path
					

A report by a former Supreme Court justice released Monday offers recommendations to turn around pervasive sexual assault and harassment.




					www.nytimes.com


----------



## brihard

daftandbarmy said:


> If by 'action' you mean 'awful leadership at the highest levels sparking the worst crisis in confidence of a nation's military' then yes, I guess we've taken some action, e.g., (from May 2022):
> 
> "The cascade of sexual abuse scandals has shaken confidence in the military in Canada, where on Monday the government released an independent review by a former Supreme Court justice aimed at addressing what critics say is a pervasive and systemic problem that has persisted despite past promises of reform."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canada’s Military, Where Sexual Misconduct Went to the Top, Looks for a New Path
> 
> 
> A report by a former Supreme Court justice released Monday offers recommendations to turn around pervasive sexual assault and harassment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com


Ok, sure, but the new part isn’t the sexual abuse, it’s just the scandals. The scandals are the fever that’s finally forcing attention to be paid.

“You cannot change what you fail to acknowledge, and what you fail to acknowledge will only get worse until you do.”


----------



## rmc_wannabe

brihard said:


> Ok, sure, but the new part isn’t the sexual abuse, it’s just the scandals. The scandals are the fever that’s finally forcing attention to be paid.
> 
> “You cannot change what you fail to acknowledge, and what you fail to acknowledge will only get worse until you do.”


This is where I was going with my comments, you put it so much better than I did.

These scandals, removals, charges, all are happening at the highest levels and are kicking the rotten log over. No more is it under the rug. 

Accountability is mess at first. Owning up to issues and addressing them, vice concealing them, builds that accountability and credibility as an organization. 

The privilege of leading troops in the CAF is finally starting to be assessed on servitude and character, vice strictly on credentials and accomplishment. This trend needs to continue and we also need to steel ourselves to the reality that there will be more of this coming out in the next few years; change is a marathon, not a sprint.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Well, we better start squirrelling away the cash, if Hockey Canada can get it's funding yanked, is the military far behind?


----------



## Good2Golf

McG said:


> Canadian's don't think their military can get better on this file.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canadians skeptical military will address sexual misconduct scandal: internal poll - National | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> Nearly 40 per cent of respondents in a poll commissioned by National Defence weren’t confident the Canadian Armed Forces will deal with sexual misconduct appropriately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> globalnews.ca


“So then I told them, I don’t care about your ‘Whataboutism’….this is about all of you, not about me!”


----------



## btrudy

rmc_wannabe said:


> This is where I was going with my comments, you put it so much better than I did.
> 
> These scandals, removals, charges, all are happening at the highest levels and are kicking the rotten log over. No more is it under the rug.
> 
> Accountability is mess at first. Owning up to issues and addressing them, vice concealing them, builds that accountability and credibility as an organization.
> 
> The privilege of leading troops in the CAF is finally starting to be assessed on servitude and character, vice strictly on credentials and accomplishment. This trend needs to continue and we also need to steel ourselves to the reality that there will be more of this coming out in the next few years; change is a marathon, not a sprint.



I still think we have some major accountability issues, since any time this comes up, there's almost always someone who was involved in trying to shield their buddy from the consequences of their actions. Old boys club in action.

And those people do it with impunity. 

We need to start demoting and/or firing people who abuse their authority to try and protect sexual abusers.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

btrudy said:


> I still think we have some major accountability issues, since any time this comes up, there's almost always someone who was involved in trying to shield their buddy from the consequences of their actions. Old boys club in action.


Those folks are starting to be held accountable. 15 years ago, Peter Dawe's actions wouldn't even have been seen as a hiccough to the next rank level. Baby steps are still steps forward.



btrudy said:


> And those people do it with impunity.


Again, no denying there are bad people doing bad things who aren't being hung, drawn, and quartered; either in a disciplinary or administrative manner. They are noticing the way the wind is blowing and will either leave shortly or change their ways. One can hope. 



btrudy said:


> We need to start demoting and/or firing people who abuse their authority to try and protect sexual abusers.


We have and have had all the mechanisms in place to send these kinds of people packing. Like I stated above, credentialism and accomplishment were the only lense we were looking at with what made a leader competent and credible. 

My hope is in the next 5 years you see character and integrity being placed higher on the SCRIT than an MBA or a tour in rank. Conversely, I hope they start holding pers above the rank of LCol accountable for poor performance the same way we do for a Cpl or Sgt.


----------



## Good2Golf

btrudy said:


> I still think we have some major accountability issues, since any time this comes up, there's almost always someone who was involved in trying to shield their buddy from the consequences of their actions. *Old boys* club in action.


@btrudy, do you mean to deliberately limit the critique to males only, or do you mean “old boys” as in a network of established long-time relationships between two people where one is taking certain actions with questionable motivations (and appropriateness for their position) potentially to influence a victim of alleged sexual assault at the hands of the long-time good friend of that person? 

Perhaps as an example, say, a very senior public service leader inappropriately contacting an alleged rape victim of a very senior military leader criminally charged with ‘sexual assault and committing indecent acts’ against said alleged victim?  Oh, and let’s add that in this situation, the very senior public service leader is a woman. 🤔


----------



## btrudy

Good2Golf said:


> @btrudy, do you mean to deliberately limit the critique to males only, or do you mean “old boys” as in a network of established long-time relationships between two people where one is taking certain actions with questionable motivations (and appropriateness for their position) potentially to influence a victim of alleged sexual assault at the hands of the long-time good friend of that person?
> 
> Perhaps as an example, say, a very senior public service leader inappropriately contacting an alleged rape victim of a very senior military leader criminally charged with ‘sexual assault and committing indecent acts’ against said alleged victim?  Oh, and let’s add that in this situation, the very senior public service leader is a woman. 🤔








						Old boy network - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Good2Golf

btrudy said:


> Old boy network - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org


Nice dodge. 


We’ll see how 8 August 2023 goes then…


----------



## daftandbarmy

rmc_wannabe said:


> Those folks are starting to be held accountable. 15 years ago, Peter Dawe's actions wouldn't even have been seen as a hiccough to the next rank level. Baby steps are still steps forward.
> 
> 
> Again, no denying there are bad people doing bad things who aren't being hung, drawn, and quartered; either in a disciplinary or administrative manner. They are noticing the way the wind is blowing and will either leave shortly or change their ways. One can hope.
> 
> 
> We have and have had all the mechanisms in place to send these kinds of people packing. Like I stated above, credentialism and accomplishment were the only lense we were looking at with what made a leader competent and credible.
> 
> My hope is in the next 5 years you see character and integrity being placed higher on the SCRIT than an MBA or a tour in rank. Conversely, I hope they start holding pers above the rank of LCol accountable for poor performance the same way we do for a Cpl or Sgt.



Well, as we know, 'hope' is not a COA. For example, the below report was produced in 2015 and contained a sort of action plan, which looked pretty good. 

Except, at the time, *'such behaviour'* was certainly tolerated and ignored. Outside of the sexual assault context, at the time, I regularly watched senior leaders 'get away with murder' in a variety of ways without ever being taken to task, or held accountable, even when complaints were lodged.

I'd like to see how things will be different this time around, with some proof of progress beyond the usual superficialities such as mandatory online tests etc. I'm guessing most other serving members, and Canadians, might feel the same.

Canadian Armed Forces Action Plan on Inappropriate Sexual Behaviour​
The existence of inappropriate sexual behaviour within the CAF threatens the essential principles on which the Canadian military culture stands. *Such behaviour will not be tolerated within the CAF – all levels of leadership and all men and women of the CAF will be held accountable for upholding and embodying the military ethos and adhering to the highest standards of behaviour that the profession demands.* The CAF has launched a series of activities that will enhance operational readiness by eliminating incidents and the resultant negative impacts of inappropriate sexual behaviour to the extent possible. The way ahead will be challenging and the level of effort significant. Nevertheless, a CAF that upholds a culture of dignity and respect with the highest standards of conduct justifies the level of effort.






						Canadian Armed Forces Action Plan on Inappropriate Sexual Behaviour - Canada.ca
					

Canadian Armed Forces Action Plan on Inappropriate Sexual Behaviour - Addressing the External Review Authority Report’s Recommendations




					www.canada.ca


----------



## Booter

btrudy said:


> Old boy network - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org


Which school under the Canadian section do you think our military problem comes from? Like thanks for the link and all but you were asked a question- no one here is unfamiliar with the usual meaning of the expression.


----------



## brihard

btrudy said:


> Old boy network - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org


From the Wikipedia article: “an informal system in which wealthy *men*”…

So, cool, you can copy and paste a link. What is _your_ opinion? Can the power structures that perpetuate the problem includes malfeasance and abuse by women who might, in the rare case, have reached lofty enough roles in institutions?

It seems we’re talking about the corrupting role _power_ can play. While power is still distributed quite unevenly on a gender basis, we’re certainly past it being held _monolithically_ by men.


----------



## Furniture

I love that the CAF prides itself on leadership training/experience, yet fails so miserably at this tasking.

Look at the official messaging coming out regarding sexual misconduct... It is invariably, "The CAF is great place to work, but we have a long way to go to fix ourselves".

Would we lead a S3/S1 that way? "You're pretty good at your job, but stop sucking at everything."

Would it be so hard to adjust the messaging, maybe end on the positive changes that have happened? The CAF culture today isn't the same as the CAF culture I joined in 2001, and most of the change has been for the better.


----------



## Brad Sallows

"Old boys network" is a term of art which stopped being exclusively useful for "old boys" long ago.  Any informal network of which the members engage in mutually protective behaviour will do.  The ties that bind don't have to be shared gender - could be based on professional/occupational status, club membership, ethnicity, school alumni, etc.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Seems like we should retire that gendered term.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Jarnhamar said:


> Seems like we should retire that gendered term.


At least disipline any serving member, who would show such of utter lack of the kind of inclusiveness we strive for, whom would use such a gender insensitive term.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Jarnhamar said:


> Seems like we should retire that gendered term.


I think something like "swamp" would do, no?


----------



## Edward Campbell

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> At least disipline any serving member, who would show such of utter lack of the kind of inclusiveness we strive for, whom would use such a gender insensitive term.


My sense, from nothing but social contacts these days, is that our "leadership" problems are, too often, based on favouritism and even nepotism - cap badge and connections matter more than race or sex or ability. We're - I mean you're doing a lot better in the 2020s at accepting women and minorities and _L__G__B__T_etc people than we were 25+ years when I retired. But the CAF still practices favouritism in too many forms, ability too often takes second or third place behind connections and so on. It's not an "old boys club" anymore, but the "old school tie" still matters too much.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Edward Campbell said:


> My sense, from nothing but social contacts these days, is that our "leadership" problems are, too often, based on favouritism and even nepotism - cap badge and connections matter more than race or sex or ability. We're - I mean you're doing a lot better in the 2020s at accepting women and minorities and _L__G__B__T_etc people than we were 25+ years when I retired. But the CAF still practices favouritism in too many forms, ability too often takes second or third place behind connections and so on. It's not an "old boys club" anymore, but the "old school tie" still matters too much.



Cue a recent chat I had with a guy where the conversation went something like this:

"Oh, he's (white male) going to be CO first, then I'm (white male) going to be next, and then this guy (white male) will be after me...."

This was all mentioned in a manner that I expected to hear a 'nudge, nudge, wink, wink' at some point, with the side of the nose being tapped with a forefinger, and it actually creeped me out a bit. All of them are retired Reg F Officers from the same regiment. The good news is that, unlike in past years where this culturally ingrained and transparently nepotistic process played out, I believe these are all good people.

And it _will _happen that way because there is no higher level control about who does the most senior jobs based on the merit principle largely due to the lack of an objective, competitive career management program, unending demand due to the unchanging number of units, and a lack of available supply.


----------



## ueo

daftandbarmy said:


> Cue a recent chat I had with a guy where the conversation went something like this:
> 
> "Oh, he's (white male) going to be CO first, then I'm (white male) going to be next, and then this guy (white male) will be after me...."
> 
> This was all mentioned in a manner that I expected to hear a 'nudge, nudge, wink, wink' at some point, with the side of the nose being tapped with a forefinger, and it actually creeped me out a bit. All of them are retired Reg F Officers from the same regiment. The good news is that, unlike in past years where this culturally ingrained and transparently nepotistic process played out, I believe these are all good people.
> 
> And it _will _happen that way because there is no higher level control about who does the most senior jobs based on the merit principle largely due to the lack of an objective, competitive career management program, unending demand due to the unchanging number of units, and a lack of available supply.


Perhaps there is not a qualified person of a non white male group?


----------



## Kat Stevens

ueo said:


> Perhaps there is not a qualified person of a non white male group?


Nah, that's just crazy talk!


----------



## brihard

ueo said:


> Perhaps there is not a qualified person of a non white male group?


Possibly so. So why is that? How and why has the institution failed to attract, develop, and promote the other 64% of the population? Not that perfectly proportionate representation of Canadian demographics is likely in mid-to-senior military ranks, but you accidentally put a spotlight on the bigger problem.


----------



## Brad Sallows

People who would rather be doctors and nurses and lawyers and managers and whatnot can't be in two places at once.


----------



## Remius

brihard said:


> Possibly so. So why is that? How and why has the institution failed to attract, develop, and promote the other 64% of the population? Not that perfectly proportionate representation of Canadian demographics is likely in mid-to-senior military ranks, but you accidentally put a spotlight on the bigger problem.


I think though, we have to look at what the pool was like 20, 25, 30 years ago as they are the ones that comprise our current pool of available and qualified types.


----------



## daftandbarmy

brihard said:


> Possibly so. So why is that? How and why has the institution failed to attract, develop, and promote the other 64% of the population? Not that perfectly proportionate representation of Canadian demographics is likely in mid-to-senior military ranks, but you accidentally put a spotlight on the bigger problem.



Exactly.

Other organizations have successfully addressed these demographic disparities through intentional, versus accidental, HR management approaches led and supported from the highest levels.

Given no other support or direction from on high, at the unit level, it seems that 'Bros Before Hoes' Rules prevail in many cases. Especially where economic drivers are in play e.g., topping up CAF pension income.


----------



## brihard

Remius said:


> I think though, we have to look at what the pool was like 20, 25, 30 years ago as they are the ones that comprise our current pool of available and qualified types.


Certainly. I recognize the time lag- though in D&B’s case he’s talking about CO of a PRes unit, which is not nearly so selective a process as in the Regs; more a matter of who continues to show up. That, in turn, is a factor of who is supported in balancing their PRes service and outside life (there’s your ‘two places at once’), who is encouraged into opportunities and training, and who is made to feel welcome as part of the team, unit, and institution.

In either case, we’re still only reaching back to mid 2000s, which isn’t that long ago.

What does the current crop of subbies look like? What about the junior Majors? I bet in ten years we could have more or less the same conversation about nepotism and lack of representation in command teams.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

brihard said:


> Certainly. I recognize the time lag- though in D&B’s case he’s talking about CO of a PRes unit, which is not nearly so selective a process as in the Regs; more a matter of who continues to show up. That, in turn, is a factor of who is supported in balancing their PRes service and outside life (there’s your ‘two places at once’), who is encouraged into opportunities and training, and who is made to feel welcome as part of the team, unit, and institution.
> 
> In either case, we’re still only reaching back to mid 2000s, which isn’t that long ago.
> 
> What does the current crop of subbies look like? What about the junior Majors? I bet in ten years we could have more or less the same conversation about nepotism and lack of representation in command teams.


Nepotism is a reality in any organization and, life in general.  How you combat it is to have standard(s) and to have someone who is independent validate the application of those standards.  The CAF's problem isn't that it doesn't have standards, it's that it doesn't actually apply the standards it does have.

CAF standards are what I would call: flexible. 

It's made worse by the fact that in a peace time Military, there are no consequences for failure.  

How many people have had a Senior Officer call them because they were unhappy with a decision they may have made about that certain Senior Officer's offspring?

"RAISES HAND"


----------



## lenaitch

Jarnhamar said:


> Seems like we should retire that gendered term.


And agist too.  I'm sure somebody could find fault with the word "network" as well.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Part of the problem is we need to shift away from the corporate "Credentials" based management model that was adopted in the early 2000s and adopt a more "Effects" based leadership model. 

I say Effects based in the sense of "What are the effects of this person leading the organization? Are they positive? Toxic? Do people want to work with/for this person? Let's take a look at the health and morale of the group you command; discipline problems? Administrative Actions? Merely having having them aren't a reflection of your command ability, but they do speak to the environment you're fostering."

The ability to competently lead isn't vested in topping ALP, JCSP, or having a CCE Language profile or Masters of Defense Studies; they compliment it for sure, but the true metric of a leader's ability should always be reflected primarily in the personnel they're responsible for.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

brihard said:


> Certainly. I recognize the time lag- though in D&B’s case he’s talking about CO of a PRes unit, which is not nearly so selective a process as in the Regs; more a matter of who continues to show up. That, in turn, is a factor of who is supported in balancing their PRes service and outside life (there’s your ‘two places at once’), who is encouraged into opportunities and training, and who is made to feel welcome as part of the team, unit, and institution.


For a woman that wants a family, be in the PRes and have a career, it means being in 3 places at once. The big reality for a woman is that they must take about a year out of their career for each child at the minimum and more likely 2-3 per child. The good news is that it is far more acceptable for a father to take time off work to help raise a child. In fact the two things I am most thankfully and appreciative of my government job is that I could take time off of work with partial pay to help with the first year of each child. Plus the fact that I get 80% healthcare for my Type 1 kid. If we want to level the playing field more, it's not punishing men or women who take time off to raise their kids. That should be seen as a benefit to society, because a kid who has parents involved will likley cost society a lot less down the road.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Colin Parkinson said:


> . If we want to level the playing field more, it's not punishing men or women who take time off to raise their kids.


But that can also mean 'punishing' those who didn't take time off.  I remember a girl who as soon as she got full time had 3 children in 5 years.  Now has the same seniority for job picks/ etc as those who worked all of those five years.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

The swerve about the future of RMC/degrees/ etc has been moved here.








						Arbour Report - Recommendation #29:  Future of Military Colleges
					

In the recent Arbour report, recommendation #29 is to evaluate the future of military colleges.  Specifically:  Recommendation #29: A combination of Defence Team members and external experts, led by an external education specialist, should conduct a detailed review of the benefits, disadvantages...




					army.ca
				




Nice that this thread is quiet.
Bruce


----------



## daftandbarmy

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> The swerve about the future of RMC/degrees/ etc has been moved here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arbour Report - Recommendation #29:  Future of Military Colleges
> 
> 
> In the recent Arbour report, recommendation #29 is to evaluate the future of military colleges.  Specifically:  Recommendation #29: A combination of Defence Team members and external experts, led by an external education specialist, should conduct a detailed review of the benefits, disadvantages...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> army.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice that this thread is quiet.
> Bruce



Yes, too quiet


----------



## dimsum

'I kept it a secret': Former naval officer speaks out about sexual abuse and addiction
					

A former member of the Royal Canadian Navy is speaking out about sexual assault in the forces and her subsequent struggle with addiction. Mia Lynch, once a proud member of the Royal Canadian Navy, says her pride turned into pain not long after enlisting.




					www.ctvnews.ca


----------



## McG

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/maj-gen-dany-fortin-sexual-assault-trial-begins-1.6584214


----------



## Ostrozac

There seems to be a new trend for military defendants to wear 1A (DEU with medals) for their criminal trials. Presumably because the medals are more impressive than the ribbons. This seems to skirt the edges of misusing the uniform, 3 is approved for off-duty wear, while 1A is supposed to be reserved for ceremonial use. The standard for court martial, which is written in policy, remains 3 (DEU with ribbons).


----------



## Booter

Is a court martial in the definitions as any court proceedings?


----------



## Haggis

Booter said:


> Is a court martial in the definitions as any court proceedings?


Roughly put, DEU 3 is regarded as equivalent to business attire whereas  DEU 1/1A is a tuxedo equivalent.  DEU 3 would be suitable in any courtroom.

He wouldn't  be the first GO/FO to play fast and loose with the dress regulations.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Haggis said:


> Roughly put, DEU 3 is regarded as equivalent to business attire whereas  DEU 1/1A is a tuxedo equivalent.  DEU 3 would be suitable in any courtroom.
> 
> He wouldn't  be the first GO/FO to play fast and loose with the dress regulations.


Especially since this isn't a Court Martial, its a civil trial. Pretty sure our various Dress Regs, DAODs, and CANFORGENs state its a big no no wearing any military uniform (1,1A, 3, 5s) to a civil trial.


----------



## Journeyman

rmc_wannabe said:


> Especially since this isn't a Court Martial, its a civil trial. Pretty sure our various Dress Regs, DAODs, and CANFORGENs state its a big no no wearing any military uniform (1,1A, 3, 5s) to a civil trial.


New dress regs.   #shrug


----------



## Navy_Pete

They all seem to be using file photos/footage, so would take it with a grain of salt unless it's actually from today.


----------



## SupersonicMax

rmc_wannabe said:


> Especially since this isn't a Court Martial, its a civil trial. Pretty sure our various Dress Regs, DAODs, and CANFORGENs state its a big no no wearing any military uniform (1,1A, 3, 5s) to a civil trial.


Source?


----------



## Blackadder1916

Navy_Pete said:


> They all seem to be using file photos/footage, so would take it with a grain of salt unless it's actually from today.



From the linked article

"Maj.-Gen. Dany Fortin arrived at the Gatineau courthouse *Monday morning dressed in his military uniform wearing his medals* with his wife, daughter and legal team by his side."


----------



## Infanteer

Haggis said:


> Roughly put, DEU 3 is regarded as equivalent to business attire whereas  DEU 1/1A is a tuxedo equivalent.  DEU 3 would be suitable in any courtroom.
> 
> He wouldn't  be the first GO/FO to play fast and loose with the dress regulations.



[pedantic]
DEU is not an order of dress, its a type of uniform.

Order of dress #3 (Service) is "business attire" equivalent.

And "tuxedo equivalent" would be #2 (Mess), not #1 (Ceremonial).  Nobody would wear a tuxedo to a funeral (nor, to the original point, should it be worn to a civil proceeding either).
[/pedantic]


----------



## Good2Golf

I suppose he, like VAdm(Re’d) Norman could have asked the CDS for permission?


----------



## btrudy

rmc_wannabe said:


> Especially since this isn't a Court Martial, its a civil trial. Pretty sure our various Dress Regs, DAODs, and CANFORGENs state its a big no no wearing any military uniform (1,1A, 3, 5s) to a civil trial.



I'm not aware of any such provision in the dress regs. At least for a Reg Force member; if he was a reservist he'd need to have permission from his Chain of Command, as per Chapt 2 Section 1 para 26 of the dress instructions. 

But there's very little in the way of prohibitions on Reg Force members wearing their uniform while off duty, beyond the generic "the deportment and appearance of all ranks, in uniform or when wearing civilian attire, shall on all occasions reflect credit on the CAF and the individual." At least to my recollection. Certainly not in the dress instructions themselves, which is where I'd _expect_ such a prohibition to be located. Could you perhaps point us in the direction of the regulation you're thinking of?

As for the question of what order of dress would be appropriate for the occasion, wouldn't the relevant reference for that be Annex A Chapt 2? Which is, not surprisingly, completely vague on the subject. Court appearances aren't specified on any of the various orders of dress, but 1A does specify that it's for a "Formal and other significant occasions for which the wearing of complete ceremonial attire is not necessary or appropriate". Obviously, you're not bringing a sword to court, but it's quite clearly a formal and significant occasion, and thus I'd personally suggest it's the most appropriate uniform to wear to your civilian criminal trial if you're going to be wearing a uniform at all.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Dress instructions | Annex A Categories and orders of dress - Canada.ca
					

Canadian Armed Forces Dress Instructions




					www.canada.ca
				




(Medals only)No. 1AFormal and other significant occasions for which the wearing of complete ceremonial attire – No. 1 or 1B orders – is not deemed necessary or appropriate; ie., no swords, ceremonial belts, bayonets, etc.:
a.  investitures;
b.  levees;
c.  ceremonial parades;
d.  ceremonial occasions, when attending as a spectator;
e.  on Remembrance Days in messes;
f.  formal military weddings; and
g.  other occasions as ordered.(Duty)No. 3Daily duty and travel dress, suitable for all occasions, including:
a.  divisions, routine parades and inspections;
b.  public appearances;
c.  off-duty wear;
d.  appropriate military social occasions; and
e.  other occasions as ordered.

And from the Court Martial Procedures Guide which, though it deals with military trials, would suggest the appropriate order of dress for civil proceedings.






						Court Martial Procedure Guide - Canada.ca
					

The court martial procedure guide.




					www.canada.ca
				





> Dress
> 3. Orders of dress for participating military members, listed at para 8, are as prescribed by the Chief Military Judge. For military participants, Service Dress Nº 3 (tunic with ribbons) will be worn unless otherwise specified by the military judge presiding at the court martial. Headdress is worn by participating military members until after the pleas have been entered but may be removed earlier at the discretion of the military judge. Headdress is also worn for the pronouncement of findings and sentence. At other times during the proceedings, headdress is not worn except for military witnesses who are called to testify.



But to throw a spanner in the works (as a good contrarian) let's not forget the former Chief Military Judge's wearing of civilian dress to the abortive attempt to court martial him.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Infanteer said:


> [pedantic]
> And "tuxedo equivalent" would be #2 (Mess), not #1 (Ceremonial).  *Nobody would wear a tuxedo to a funeral (nor, to the original point, should it be worn to a civil proceeding either).*
> [/pedantic]



Obviously


----------



## Navy_Pete

rmc_wannabe said:


> Especially since this isn't a Court Martial, its a civil trial. Pretty sure our various Dress Regs, DAODs, and CANFORGENs state its a big no no wearing any military uniform (1,1A, 3, 5s) to a civil trial.


Nope, they just define if you are on duty or not. For example, DAOD 7001 talks about showing up as a witness, and the difference between criminal and civilian trials (for how you should be freed up).

Basically you are on duty for criminal cases as a witness, but doesn't say anything to dress. That should allow some common sense for directions from the CO to say what the order of dress is (ie civie dress for non-DND related cases maybe).  There is a catch all for things not covered in the policy where you may be on either special leave for civil cases or on annual/LWOP as plaintiff or defendent.

This guy falls under the CDS, so if they don't like him rolling up in uniform I'm sure they can tell him. If they are going to kick things that happen in the military to civie courts instead of a court martial they probably should figure it out.

Defence Administrative Orders and Directives (DAOD) - 7000 - Canada.ca


----------



## Ostrozac

rmc_wannabe said:


> Especially since this isn't a Court Martial, its a civil trial. Pretty sure our various Dress Regs, DAODs, and CANFORGENs state its a big no no wearing any military uniform (1,1A, 3, 5s) to a civil trial.


That’s not my reading of the dress regulations — Number 3 dress is specifically described as “suitable for all occasions” and I wouldn’t object if the defendant wore that order of dress - DEU with ribbons. I do object to medals being worn on an occasion when undress ribbons are more suitable.


----------



## OldSolduer

Ostrozac said:


> That’s not my reading of the dress regulations — Number 3 dress is specifically described as “suitable for all occasions” and I wouldn’t object if the defendant wore that order of dress - DEU with ribbons. I do object to medals being worn on an occasion when undress ribbons are more suitable.


When we had soldiers go to court it was expected they would be in DEU. It is a duty to attend court when summoned.


----------



## dangerboy

When I was a court-attending officer both myself and the soldier were in civilian suits and ties, I was directed to by the Adjt. Of course, it being the Brandon courthouse people thought we were both lawyers as I don't think any of the other defendants dressed for their court cases.


----------



## kev994

Blackadder1916 said:


> Dress instructions | Annex A Categories and orders of dress - Canada.ca
> 
> 
> Canadian Armed Forces Dress Instructions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.canada.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Medals only)No. 1AFormal and other significant occasions for which the wearing of complete ceremonial attire – No. 1 or 1B orders – is not deemed necessary or appropriate; ie., no swords, ceremonial belts, bayonets, etc.:
> a.  investitures;
> b.  levees;
> c.  ceremonial parades;
> d.  ceremonial occasions, when attending as a spectator;
> e.  on Remembrance Days in messes;
> f.  formal military weddings; and
> g.  other occasions as ordered.(Duty)No. 3Daily duty and travel dress, suitable for all occasions, including:
> a.  divisions, routine parades and inspections;
> b.  public appearances;
> c.  off-duty wear;
> d.  appropriate military social occasions; and
> e.  other occasions as ordered.


Oh good! We can wear No 3 for “off duty wear.” So many applicable settings…


----------



## Navy_Pete

dangerboy said:


> When I was a court-attending officer both myself and the soldier were in civilian suits and ties, I was directed to by the Adjt. Of course, it being the Brandon courthouse people thought we were both lawyers as I don't think any of the other defendants dressed for their court cases.


I think it would be good to just have guidelines and let COs figure it out; if we can trust them with people's lives, they can say what order of dress is appropriate.

For example, I have to attend a criminal trial as a witness for something with no connection to the CAF; planning on doing it in business wear. If I was a witness at a criminal case against a CAF member for something that happened in the CAF, I think it would make sense to roll up in uniform if it was relevant. There is a huge range between the two, so you need flexibility.

Personnally I don't think there is any good reason for a CAF member to show up as a defendent in uniform for something that has nothing to do with CAF, but in this case the incident happened at RMC (CMR?) while both the accused and accuser were in the CAF, so seems reasonable.

Given that it happened 30+ years ago, not sure how likely a conviction is, but expect even with an acquittal he is done.


----------



## TacticalTea

Navy_Pete said:


> I think it would be good to just have guidelines and let COs figure it out; if we can trust them with people's lives, they can say what order of dress is appropriate.
> 
> For example, I have to attend a criminal trial as a witness for something with no connection to the CAF; planning on doing it in business wear. If I was a witness at a criminal case against a CAF member for something that happened in the CAF, I think it would make sense to roll up in uniform if it was relevant. There is a huge range between the two, so you need flexibility.
> 
> Personnally I don't think there is any good reason for a CAF member to show up as a defendent in uniform for something that has nothing to do with CAF, but in this case the incident happened at RMC (CMR?) while both the accused and accuser were in the CAF, so seems reasonable.
> 
> Given that it happened 30+ years ago, not sure how likely a conviction is, but expect even with an acquittal he is done.


I think it would be inappropriate to show up in uniform for something that has nothing to do with the CAF.

It's as if you'd be saying ''Hey, look at me, I'm a uniformed serviceman, I deserve special consideration, your Honour".


----------



## lenaitch

Unless an order of dress is specifically laid out, appropriateness becomes subjective and defence counsel will make tactical decisions to portray their client in the most favourable light.  Besides, even if a violation of dress and deportment rules, if it were me I'd be weighing that against the conduct of a criminal trial; I'd rather win a criminal case then plead out to a rules violation.


----------



## Good2Golf

lenaitch said:


> Unless an order of dress is specifically laid out, appropriateness becomes subjective and defence counsel will make tactical decisions to portray their client in the most favourable light.  Besides, even if a violation of dress and deportment rules, if it were me I'd be weighing that against the conduct of a criminal trial; I'd rather win a criminal case then plead out to a rules violation.


And I was shaking my head when some suggested that the now-retired beer-drinking Van Doo trooper’s head be raised on a pike pole, now the question has been raised about what some may call inappropriate/chargeable wardrobe… 🤦🏻 

I’m with you, @lenaitch, I’d risk it…just like Mark Norman did as well.


----------



## Jarnhamar

TacticalTea said:


> I think it would be inappropriate to show up in uniform for something that has nothing to do with the CAF.
> 
> It's as if you'd be saying ''Hey, look at me, I'm a uniformed serviceman, I deserve special consideration, your Honour".


The general didn't bother with the grievance process, why bother with dress regs?


----------



## Good2Golf

Jarnhamar said:


> The general didn't bother with the grievance process, why bother with dress regs?


Grieve to someone who at best, maintained an observer vice active status in the firing process by senior civil servants unfold?  For something that was happening notably OUTSIDE/beyond the CAF sphere of influence?  And the CAF grievance process has jurisdiction over a bunch of DMs, ADMs and DGs?

“Alex, I’ll take data points from a third of a century prior taken out of context and manipulated in support of someone’s personalized vendetta against a number of assuming targets near to others whom the someone wanted to crush, for $1,000.”


----------



## OldSolduer

I think there is way more than meets the eye on this one. Hijinks…


----------



## Good2Golf

OldSolduer said:


> I think there is way more than meets the eye on this one. Hijinks…


@OldSolduer, methinks thou art being polite. 😉


----------



## Weinie

Guy is on trial for his reputation and his freedom. He has earned every medal that he wears. I am inclined that he can wear whatever the hell he wants.


----------



## McG

CAF might want to think about if it really wants to leave the door open for members to decide for themselves if they will appear in uniform at civilian court. Would we have been happy with this guy defending himself in uniform?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Weinie said:


> Guy is on trial for his reputation and his freedom. He has earned every medal that he wears. I am inclined that he can wear whatever the hell he wants.



My subs and I have all earned our medals as well; I don’t get a bypass on regs. Why would he?

The “I can do what I want because I am XYZ rank” is a major problem in the CAF and one of the root causes we are facing the public scrutiny we have been in the recent past IMO.

One standard for all.  If Cpl Bloggins can’t wear their No1 to their impaired driving court date…then no one should be.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Good2Golf said:


> I’m with you, @lenaitch, I’d risk it…just like Mark Norman did as well.



I think it probably depends on the case, but I could see that backfiring in some trials as well. I'd do the same though if I thought it would benefit me in the trial; the CAF has all the tools to tell you not to wear the uniform if they want.


----------



## Weinie

Eye In The Sky said:


> My subs and I have all earned our medals as well; I don’t get a bypass on regs. Why would he?
> 
> The “I can do what I want because I am XYZ rank” is a major problem in the CAF and one of the root causes we are facing the public scrutiny we have been in the recent past IMO.
> 
> One standard for all.  If Cpl Bloggins can’t wear their No1 to their impaired driving court date…then no one should be.


Find him in contempt of dress regs, from an Air Force guy...........pffffffffffttttttttttttt.


----------



## Good2Golf

McG said:


> CAF might want to think about if it really wants to leave the door open for members to decide for themselves if they will appear in uniform at civilian court. Would we have been happy with this guy defending himself in uniform?
> View attachment 73663


False equivalency with the icing of a conviction on top.

So is Williams going to be dragged out as a ridiculous extreme every time there is a question, grey zone, etc. about a presumed innocent member of the CAF going to court?


----------



## Good2Golf

Eye In The Sky said:


> My subs and I have all earned our medals as well; I don’t get a bypass on regs. Why would he?
> 
> The “I can do what I want because I am XYZ rank” is a major problem in the CAF and one of the root causes we are facing the public scrutiny we have been in the recent past IMO.
> 
> One standard for all.  If Cpl Bloggins can’t wear their No1 to their impaired driving court date…then no one should be.


The day that I see Cpl Bloggins ever be placed in a position to have a vindictive and apparently untouchable senior bureaucrat (allegedly) engineer a life-impacting criminal charge and proceedings against them purported to have happened during basic training three decades earlier, I’ll agree that everyone should be treated equally, but with the twist that they should all be able to wear 1A when defending themselves in any court, military or civilian.   When the truth comes out on this one, I think you might agree EITS.  We shall see.


----------



## Weinie

Good2Golf said:


> The day that I see Cpl Bloggins ever be placed in a position to have a vindictive and apparently untouchable senior bureaucrat (allegedly) engineer a life-impacting criminal charge and proceedings against them purported to have happened during basic training three decades earlier, I’ll agree that everyone should be treated equally, but with the twist that they should all be able to wear 1A when defending themselves in any court, military or civilian.   When the truth comes out on this one, I think you might agree EITS.  We shall see.


They are cancerous.


----------



## McG

Good2Golf said:


> False equivalency with the icing of a conviction on top.


We have the power of hind-site, but Williams is not a false equivalency.  If Williams had decided to fight the charges against him, there would not have been "icing of a conviction on top" at that time.  Are we happy that anyone can wear the CAF uniform to defend themselves in court?  The answer is yes or no.  The answer cannot be yes but only when we like the guy.

If Williams had been in court using his uniform to persuade the world and the court that he was innocent, would we have been happy with that?  If the answer is no, then the answer must always be no.


----------



## Good2Golf

McG said:


> Are we happy that anyone can wear the CAF uniform to defend themselves in court?  The answer is yes or no.  The answer cannot be yes but only when we like the guy.


I disagree.  Don’t restrict based on hindsight of a past extreme.  I have no grief with any CAF member wearing 1A in court.  I’m certainly not going to try an pre-judge any of them.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Good2Golf said:


> False equivalency with the icing of a conviction on top.
> 
> So is Williams going to be dragged out as a ridiculous extreme every time there is a question, grey zone, etc. about a presumed innocent member of the CAF going to court?


Also, he is a rapist and murder, not up for sexual misconduct. Totally different.


----------



## dapaterson

The complainant in court is alleging that she was sexually assaulted by Fortin.


----------



## Weinie

Navy_Pete said:


> Also, he is a rapist and murder, not up for sexual misconduct. Totally different.


I was a PAO for more than 25 years. If you had asked me in 2010 what were the top 1000 issues that the CAF would have to deal with that year, I would not have surmised that the CO of Trenton would have been indicted for murder. Outlier/Black swan.


----------



## McG

But members of the military doing criminal things is not a black swan.  Through the years, I have seen CAF members charges for all sorts of things ... drunk driving, theft, street racing, assault, sexual assault, confinement & sexual assault, sexual assault of minors, drug trafficking, and more.  Sometimes these individuals are found guilty and sometimes not-guilty.  Some of the not-guilty are still released because the balance of probabilities suggests they probably did something very wrong.

We get fussed on this site when the media feel the need to publicize the individual's connection to the military.  Surely it must be worse for the individual to turn themselves into a billboard that announces this connection.


----------



## OldSolduer

Good2Golf said:


> @OldSolduer, methinks thou art being polite. 😉


I do try on occasion. 

BTW Russell Williams was on his way to becoming a serial killer, and the authorities should be digging into his past.


----------



## Good2Golf

dapaterson said:


> The complainant in court is alleging that she was sexually assaulted by Fortin.


And that is for the Court to determine, is it is for the Court to determine if the complainant’s alleging of aggravated sexual assault against VAdm Edmundson is upheld.  I still think they both (Fortin and Edmundson) should be able to wear 1A…or do we put restrictions on dress specifically for those alleged to have committed sexually-related crimes, vice say, alleged to had disclosed national secrets or cabinet confidences?


----------



## Navy_Pete

Weinie said:


> I was a PAO for more than 25 years. If you had asked me in 2010 what were the top 1000 issues that the CAF would have to deal with that year, I would not have surmised that the CO of Trenton would have been inducted for murder. Outlier/Black swan.


There have been a few studies that show there are a number of psycopaths in high performing positions, but the vast majority aren't actually violent. There seems to be a fair bit of overlap at the qualities of a good leader as well as a psycopath, but yeah, pretty crazy situation.


----------



## Weinie

McG said:


> But members of the military doing criminal things is not a black swan.  Through the years, I have seen CAF members charges for all sorts of things ... drunk driving, theft, street racing, assault, sexual assault, confinement & sexual assault, sexual assault of minors, drug trafficking, and more.  Sometimes these individuals are found guilty and sometimes not-guilty.  Some of the not-guilty are still released because the balance of probabilities suggests they probably did something very wrong.
> 
> We get fussed on this site when the media feel the need to publicize the individual's connection to the military.  *Surely it must be worse for the individual to turn themselves into a billboard that announces this connection.*


i spent more than 39 years in the military. The fact that a population of more than 100k occasionally commits crimes is, to me, ordinary. The fact that the Commanding Officer of CFB Trenton committed two murders, is to me, a Black Swan.


----------



## Lumber

Weinie said:


> I was a PAO for more than 25 years. If you had asked me in 2010 what were the top 1000 issues that the CAF would have to deal with that year, I would not have surmised that the CO of Trenton would have been indicted for murder. Outlier/Black swan.


Your user name makes so much more sense now...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Good2Golf said:


> The day that I see Cpl Bloggins ever be placed in a position to have a vindictive and apparently untouchable senior bureaucrat (allegedly) engineer a life-impacting criminal charge and proceedings against them purported to have happened during basic training three decades earlier, I’ll agree that everyone should be treated equally, but with the twist that they should all be able to wear 1A when defending themselves in any court, military or civilian.   When the truth comes out on this one, I think you might agree EITS.  We shall see.



If the findings on this or any legal process are balanced on “medals or ribbons”, something is seriously failing IMO.  

The severity of accusations and jeopardy to the mbr is real, but I don’t see the link to that and “ignoring another policy”.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Weinie said:


> Find him in contempt of dress regs, from an Air Force guy...........pffffffffffttttttttttttt.



Right?!??   🙂


----------



## Good2Golf

Eye In The Sky said:


> If the findings on this or any legal process are balanced on “medals or ribbons”, something is seriously failing IMO.


…(logical extension) or uniform then, right?  Civil court begets civilian attire?


----------



## Weinie

Lumber said:


> Your user name makes so much more sense now...


The COS of LFCA said I was, and always would be, a staff weinie, and the degree my opinion would factor into the discussion would differ. depending on the severity of the discussion. I concurred, and then had the Comd overrule his advice, based on my advice, multiple times. Suck that COS.


----------



## Good2Golf

Weinie said:


> The COS of LFCA said I was, and always would be, a staff weinie, and the degree my opinion would factor into the discussion would differ. depending on the severity of the discussion. I concurred, and then had the Comd overrule his advice, based on my advice, multiple times. Suck that COS.


Man…you were so much nicer when you were a wiggly-amp kid… 😆


----------



## Weinie

Good2Golf said:


> Man…you were so much nicer when you were a wiggly-amp kid… 😆


Yeahhhhh................giggles, and then giggles again. And will still be giggling long after. Thanks for that G2G


----------



## McG

Good2Golf said:


> …or do we put restrictions on dress specifically for those alleged to have committed sexually-related crimes, vice say, alleged to had disclosed national secrets or cabinet confidences?


I would suggest that the uniform should not be worn to defend one's self in criminal court regardless of the charge.  If it is not a service offence in front of a service tribunal, then the service uniform does not belong.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Good2Golf said:


> …(logical extension) or uniform then, right?  Civil court begets civilian attire?


 
Unless the provisions for No 1A are met, or any other order in the Annex or pub…yes.

As a Jnr NCM, I attended court as the accused.  In civilians, as was my Attending Officer (a CP02), years ago.  Recently, I know of a Snr NCO in court as the accused facing CCC charges.  Both them and their Attending Officer (a Capt) were in civilians.   The Snr NCO has medals and service that are unrelated to the charges.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Eye In The Sky said:


> Unless the provisions for No 1A are met, or any other order in the Annex or pub…yes.
> 
> As a Jnr NCM, I attended court as the accused.  In civilians, as was my Attending Officer (a CP02), years ago.  Recently, I know of a Snr NCO in court as the accused facing CCC charges.  Both them and their Attending Officer (a Capt) were in civilians.   The Snr NCO has medals and service that are unrelated to the charges.



For Attending Officer, I've seen both - in uniform and in civvies.  On the occasion that I was Attending Officer, I was in uniform (No 3).  If the accused's lawyer mentions his military service in either defence or as a factor in determining punishment, it's useful to be readily identifiable to the judge for a response IAW QR&O 19.60(1).


----------



## Booter

The Fortin allegation is from RMC- on duty is how it was described. Like stemming from duty or similar. 

Williams wasn’t- proximal to work?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Blackadder1916 said:


> For Attending Officer, I've seen both - in uniform and in civvies.  On the occasion that I was Attending Officer, I was in uniform (No 3).  If the accused's lawyer mentions his military service in either defence or as a factor in determining punishment, it's useful to be readily identifiable to the judge for a response IAW QR&O 19.60(1).



No 3 seems to be IAW CAF policy.

Did you need to request auth/inform the CofC of the “in uniform” piece at all?


----------



## Lumber

Booter said:


> The Fortin allegation is from RMC- on duty is how it was described. Like stemming from duty or similar.
> 
> Williams wasn’t- proximal to work?


The allegation isn't duty related at all. The allegation is that he went into the complainants room at night, sat on her bed, and masturbated while fondling her breast. The only reason you could somehow say it was duty related is that it was on RMC campus, where no one is really ever "off the clock" completely.

Edit: the allegation is that he was using _her _hand to masturbate.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Eye In The Sky said:


> No 3 seems to be IAW CAF policy.
> 
> Did you need to request auth/inform the CofC of the “in uniform” piece at all?



When I was detailed, the CO Adjt told me to go in uniform.  Even if he hadn't, I would have assumed No 3s was the appropriate dress.  The accused (convicted) was in civvies.  And on the one occasion that I appeared as a witness in a civilian trial, I was in uniform.


----------



## Booter

Lumber said:


> The allegation isn't duty related at all. The allegation is that he went into the complainants room at night, sat on her bed, and masturbated while fondling her breast. The only reason you could somehow say it was duty related is that it was on RMC campus, where no one is really ever "off the clock" completely.


Which is specifically why I’m saying it’s work related. It’s in an environment where they are subject to enforced rules, wearing uniforms- where they are policing each other officially (senior and first year stuff) I mean- i didn’t attend RMC. I just see an argument that one is parallel/proximal to duty or close- and the other isn’t. 

If I was in the field and I reached
Into another guys bag- would it be off duty because we were on a rest period?


----------



## dapaterson

Booter said:


> The Fortin allegation is from RMC- on duty is how it was described. Like stemming from duty or similar.
> 
> Williams wasn’t- proximal to work?


He sexually assaulted and murdered a subordinate.


----------



## Lumber

dapaterson said:


> He sexually assaulted and murdered a subordinate.


Come again?!?


----------



## dimsum

Lumber said:


> Come again?!?


I’m assuming they were referring to Williams.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Lumber said:


> Come again?!?



One of Williams victims was Corporal Marie France Comeau; RIP.


----------



## Lumber

Gotcha. Sorry, I though he was referring to Fortin. :S


----------



## Weinie

I will state again, without any sense of remorse, that MGen Fortin, can. IMO, wear whatever the fuck he wants to defend himself.


----------



## AmmoTech90

Anybodies opinion going to change if Fortin is found guilty?


----------



## Good2Golf

AmmoTech90 said:


> Anybodies opinion going to change if Fortin is found guilty?


Not mine. I also think the VAdm Edmundson can wear wear what he wants (as though 1A v 3 is such a visible difference to Joe and Jane Canada)…but I also have a wish that LS(Ret’d) Viau’s testimony will be taken seriously by the courts and an appropriate outcome determined re: Edmundson.


----------



## OldSolduer

AmmoTech90 said:


> Anybodies opinion going to change if Fortin is found guilty?


Honestly I have very little knowledge of this case. Its over 30 years old - it seems to me some skullduggery had to have happened for this to be where it is today. Some senior bureaucrat got his/her nose out of joint? Maybe were found wanting on the competency scale but has friends?


----------



## KevinB

I’m still trying to figure out the Fortin issue. 
  Seem
Like the agreed  facts are; She jerked him off while he fondled her.  
   I don’t understand how someone can be forced to give a handjob.  I mean if she didn’t want to she had the very tool in her hand to stop it….


----------



## rmc_wannabe

KevinB said:


> I’m still trying to figure out the Fortin issue.
> Seem
> Like the agreed  facts are; She jerked him off while he fondled her.
> I don’t understand how someone can be forced to give a handjob.  I mean if she didn’t want to she had the very tool in her hand to stop it….


----------



## KevinB

rmc_wannabe said:


>


Yeah I did that intentionally. 
    Mainly as this case seems to have several issues.


----------



## Lumber

KevinB said:


> I’m still trying to figure out the Fortin issue.
> Seem
> Like the agreed  facts are; She jerked him off while he fondled her.
> I don’t understand how someone can be forced to give a handjob.  I mean if she didn’t want to she had the very tool in her hand to stop it….


First off, there are no agreed upon facts. Fortin is denying it completely. The allegation is that he used her hand to masturbate. I.e. He grabbed her hand, forced it around his penis, than used his hand to motion her hand. As to the second part, are you seriously using the argument that "if there was no physical attempt to stop the sexual assault, it wasn't actually assault"? You're completely disregarding the power and frequency of intimidation in sexual assault?


----------



## Blackadder1916

KevinB said:


> Like the agreed  facts are; . . .
> I don’t understand how someone can be forced to give a .. . .



What's to understand?  The complainant says that she woke up to find that the accused had wrapped her hand around his penis and was holding it in place with his hand while he masturbated.  I don't know how often it happens, but I recall two cases from the 1980s in which physicians did the same thing to patients who were either sedated in clinic or asleep as in-patients in civilian hospital.  One of the cases involved a former CF doctor in the Ottawa area.  He had been MOTP and out as soon as obligatory service up.  There wasn't a lot of reference to his military service in the press back then - he had been out a few years, but some of us were familiar with him from NDMC.  And yes, both those pieces of shit were convicted.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Blackadder1916 said:


> What's to understand?  The complainant says that she woke up to find that the accused had wrapped her hand around his penis and was holding it in place with his hand while he masturbated.  I don't know how often it happens, but I recall two cases from the 1980s in which physicians did the same thing to patients who were either sedated in clinic or asleep as in-patients in civilian hospital.  One of the cases involved a former CF doctor in the Ottawa area.  He had been MOTP and out as soon as obligatory service up.  There wasn't a lot of reference to his military service in the press back then - he had been out a few years, but some of us were familiar with him from NDMC.  And yes, both those pieces of shit were convicted.



Appalling.

More new things I wish I didn't know about... sigh...


----------



## Jarnhamar

> Fortin's lawyer Isabel Schurman has argued there are inconsistencies between the woman's interviews with investigators and her testimony in court.





> The woman testified on Monday that Fortin never spoke during the alleged assault. On Tuesday, Schurman asked why the complainant told an investigator last year that she recognized Fortin's voice and his French accent during the incident.





> The complainant's boyfriend at the time of the alleged sexual assault testified Tuesday that he doesn't recall the woman telling him about what happened. He said he would have acted had he known about the alleged assault.
> 
> The complainant testified Monday that she told her boyfriend after the alleged incident.


----------



## KevinB

Lumber said:


> First off, there are no agreed upon facts. Fortin is denying it completely. The allegation is that he used her hand to masturbate. I.e. He grabbed her hand, forced it around his penis, than used his hand to motion her hand. As to the second part, are you seriously using the argument that "if there was no physical attempt to stop the sexual assault, it wasn't actually assault"? You're completely disregarding the power and frequency of intimidation in sexual assault?


Sorry I seem to have misunderstood what the allegations and admissions from the parties where.


----------



## OldSolduer

Lumber said:


> First off, there are no agreed upon facts. Fortin is denying it completely. The allegation is that he used her hand to masturbate. I.e. He grabbed her hand, forced it around his penis, than used his hand to motion her hand. As to the second part, are you seriously using the argument that "if there was no physical attempt to stop the sexual assault, it wasn't actually assault"? You're completely disregarding the power and frequency of intimidation in sexual assault?


So is it "She said, he said"? Are there witnesses?


----------



## TacticalTea

OldSolduer said:


> So is it "She said, he said"? Are there witnesses?


Based on what @dapaterson relates, it's ''she said, he said, she said''.


----------



## Haggis

OldSolduer said:


> Are there witnesses?


There are.  So far it appears their testimony is exculpatory.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

It seems like at this point the entire case was based on  She said, She said, She said again.

I don't agree with the publication ban.  If you're going to make accusations like this that, regardless of the outcome, end up destroying a person's reputation, your name should be public information.


----------



## OldSolduer

Humphrey Bogart said:


> It seems like at this point the entire case was based on  She said, She said, She said again.
> 
> I don't agree with the publication ban.  If you're going to make accusations like this that, regardless of the outcome, end up destroying a person's reputation, your name should be public information.


I would tend to agree with that. What is good for the gander....

I still think it was a set up to start with.


----------



## dapaterson

Strong disagree.

The proportion of false accusations in low.

The proportion of individuals leveraging their authority to avoid penalty for their misconduct is much higher.

Barriers to reporting are already high.


----------



## TacticalTea

dapaterson said:


> Strong disagree.
> 
> The proportion of false accusations in low.
> 
> The proportion of individuals leveraging their authority to avoid penalty for their misconduct is much higher.
> 
> Barriers to reporting are already high.


Based on what stats? I've lost count of the stories of false accusations I've personally dealt with, that my friends have dealt with, or that I've had to investigate.

Of course there are sick individuals out there, but that's true on both sides, and as such justice should be fair. Either both are confidential or neither is.


----------



## Jarnhamar

dapaterson said:


> Strong disagree.
> 
> The proportion of false accusations in low.
> 
> The proportion of individuals leveraging their authority to avoid penalty for their misconduct is much higher.
> 
> Barriers to reporting are already high.



I agree and disagree with you.
(Hey I could be a politician)

Totally agree about leveraging authority, especially in the military. 

On the other hand in the current climate an accusation is handled like a guilty verdict front the start. Fotin has been sitting at home doing nothing (and so have others).

Will an innocent verdict exonerate him? I suspect not.

A publication ban on a 30+ year old accusation seems odd to me.


----------



## dapaterson

TacticalTea said:


> Based on what stats? I've lost count of the stories of false accusations I've personally dealt with, that my friends have dealt with, or that I've had to.
> 
> Of course there are sick individuals out there, but that's true on both sides, and as such justice should be fair. Either both are confidential or neither is.


So, your friends deny they did anything, so you chalk that up as a false accusation?

Studies suggest that the rate of false accusations lands between 2-10% of accusations.

On the other hand, ~90% of assaults are not reported.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

dapaterson said:


> So, your friends deny they did anything, so you chalk that up as a false accusation?
> 
> Studies suggest that the rate of false accusations lands between 2-10% of accusations.
> 
> On the other hand, ~90% of assaults are not reported.


And all the stats are very cold comfort if you happen to be in the "2-10%" group.


----------



## FJAG

dapaterson said:


> Strong disagree.
> 
> The proportion of false accusations in low.
> 
> The proportion of individuals leveraging their authority to avoid penalty for their misconduct is much higher.
> 
> Barriers to reporting are already high.


Luckily criminal standards for conviction are not based on proportional standards but based on the evidence of each particular case and the judge's evaluation of that evidence.

There are a non-zero number of false accusations. In a criminal context that's a large enough number to guard against. The old saying that "better that a hundred guilty men are set free than one innocent man convicted" still applies. This is why the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt" rather than "a balance of probabilities".

🍻


----------



## dapaterson

So, if we assume only 10% are reported, and a 10% chance of a false accusation, that's a 1% chance.

If we go with 2% false accusations, that's 0.2%.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Better ten guilty free than one innocent convicted.  Apply the principle.


----------



## dapaterson

FJAG said:


> Luckily criminal standards for conviction are not based on proportional standards but based on the evidence of each particular case and the judge's evaluation of that evidence.
> 
> There are a non-zero number of false accusations. In a criminal context that's a large enough number to guard against. The old saying that "better that a hundred guilty men are set free than one innocent man convicted" still applies. This is why the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt" rather than "a balance of probabilities".
> 
> 🍻


And hence why we proceed with trials, where the prosecution is convinced that there is a reasonable prospect of conviction.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Brad Sallows said:


> Better ten guilty free than one innocent convicted.  Apply the principle.


A very non-military approach 🙂


----------



## FJAG

dapaterson said:


> And hence why we proceed with trials, where the prosecution is convinced that there is a reasonable prospect of conviction.


If I had a nickel for every time the crown overcharged a case in order to leverage a plea bargain ... or where they dodged making a decision to not prosecute in an emotionally/politically charged case and left it to a judge to sort out for them ... it takes courage to not prosecute in a questionable case when there is pressure from various quarters to push it on. Sometimes that courage is lacking.

I'm generally a pro-prosecution type and no apologist for defence counsel but they all put on their pants one leg at a time - sh*t happens. There need to be sufficient safeguards in a system to ensure that any flubs along the way do not lead to injustice.

🍻


----------



## Good2Golf

FJAG said:


> I'm generally a pro-prosecution type and no apologist for defence counsel but they all put on their pants one leg at a time - sh*t happens. There need to be sufficient safeguards in a system to ensure that any flubs along the way do not lead to injustice.


David Milgaard, RIP, would likely have agreed strongly with you @FJAG.


----------



## QV

dapaterson said:


> So, your friends deny they did anything, so you chalk that up as a false accusation?
> 
> Studies suggest that the rate of false accusations lands between 2-10% of accusations.
> 
> On the other hand, ~90% of assaults are not reported.


I’d be interested to know how they come to those numbers because any file I’m aware of where it was determined the accusation was false (usually the victim later admitting it), no charges ever came out of the public mischief offence, rather the case against the original accused was simply dropped. “To not discourage real victims”… bullshit excuse.


----------



## Eaglelord17

Jarnhamar said:


> I agree and disagree with you.
> (Hey I could be a politician)
> 
> Totally agree about leveraging authority, especially in the military.
> 
> On the other hand in the current climate an accusation is handled like a guilty verdict front the start. Fotin has been sitting at home doing nothing (and so have others).
> 
> Will an innocent verdict exonerate him? I suspect not.
> 
> A publication ban on a 30+ year old accusation seems odd to me.


A innocent verdict doesn't necessarily mean he didn't do it, it can simply mean there wasn't enough evidence to convict him, a distinct difference. He isn't proving his innocence, the Crown needs to prove his guilt which 30 years after the fact only based on witness testimony is a very difficult thing to do. 

I hate the guilty/innocent diametric, it isn't a accurate statement. The Scottish had it figured out with Guilty, Innocent, and not proven.


----------



## TacticalTea

dapaterson said:


> So, your friends deny they did anything, so you chalk that up as a false accusation?
> 
> *Studies suggest* that the rate of false accusations lands between 2-10% of accusations.
> 
> On the other hand, ~90% of assaults are not reported.


Tsk-tsk

If you're gonna bring up studies, gotta cite them properly.

Because that first number looks an awful like the numbers for judicially proven innocence, which is exceedingly harder to prove than just non-guilty.

And the second number, seems akin to that ''study'' which claimed that virtually everyone on school campuses is sexually assaulted. Well of course that becomes ''true'' when you count jokes - amongst other such items - as sexual violence, which is what they did.


----------



## Brad Sallows

"Not proven" is f*cked up.  Either the case is made or it's not.  There are enough misconducted trials and faulty verdicts and reputations lost to mere allegations without adding one more tar brush to the tool box.

Allegations of sexual impropriety are among the hardest to recover from, and therefore people are tempted to use them as smears.  (Ask Brett Kavanaugh.)  I suppose that if false allegations are easier to make, more of them will be made.


----------



## Eaglelord17

Brad Sallows said:


> "Not proven" is f*cked up.  Either the case is made or it's not.  There are enough misconducted trials and faulty verdicts and reputations lost to mere allegations without adding one more tar brush to the tool box.
> 
> Allegations of sexual impropriety are among the hardest to recover from, and therefore people are tempted to use them as smears.  (Ask Brett Kavanaugh.)  I suppose that if false allegations are easier to make, more of them will be made.


Declaring someone "Innocent" is messed up, when you haven't actually proven they are innocent. There are plenty of things which have happened in this world where the evidence to convict someone of that offence doesn't exist even though it did happen. 

People who want complete exoneration should have to prove they didn't commit the offence (i.e. solid alibi, etc.), a much higher burden than simply the crown failing to prove they did it. For those that fall in the middle 'not proven' is a fair way to go. Legally it has the same effect as 'not guilty'.


----------



## TacticalTea

Eaglelord17 said:


> Declaring someone "Innocent" is messed up, when you haven't actually proven they are innocent. There are plenty of things which have happened in this world where the evidence to convict someone of that offence doesn't exist even though it did happen.
> 
> People who want complete exoneration should have to prove they didn't commit the offence (i.e. solid alibi, etc.), a much higher burden than simply the crown failing to prove they did it. For those that fall in the middle 'not proven' is a fair way to go. Legally it has the same effect as 'not guilty'.


Legally... to a certain extent.

Factually, your reputation is still ruined, you've still lost your job, friends, been made a pariah, descended into a chasm of degraded mental health, and who knows where THAT leads. I've seen it time and again.

Hence the need for confidentiality. What I've just described amounts in my mind to ''extremely grave injury to an individual'', as in the phrase ''Applies to information or assets that, if compromised, could cause extremely grave injury to an individual, organization or government.''... the standard for...

Confidentiality would not affect victims in any way whatsoever, nor the judicial process, provided that it is voluntary.


----------



## btrudy

FJAG said:


> Luckily criminal standards for conviction are not based on proportional standards but based on the evidence of each particular case and the judge's evaluation of that evidence.
> 
> There are a non-zero number of false accusations. In a criminal context that's a large enough number to guard against. The old saying that "better that a hundred guilty men are set free than one innocent man convicted" still applies. This is why the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt" rather than "a balance of probabilities".
> 
> 🍻


This is indeed true, from the perspective of how people need to be treated by the criminal justice system. 

Those of us who aren't the criminal justice system incarnate are, of course, allowed to make their own judgement calls, to account for the fact that said system is inherently stacked in favour of the defendants.


----------



## Remius

btrudy said:


> This is indeed true, from the perspective of how people need to be treated by the criminal justice system.
> 
> Those of us who aren't the criminal justice system incarnate are, of course, allowed to make their own judgement calls, to account for the fact that said system is inherently stacked in favour of the defendants.



Plenty of awesome places like China, North Korea, Russia, Afghanistan etc where the system is inherently stacked in favour of the prosecution.


----------



## Kilted

Haggis said:


> Is that worse than being disbelieved, despite evidence and/or witnesses that corroborate your complaint?  Or, maybe the victim just experienced the event differently.


Based on what she said, even if we go beyond all the inconsistencies, is there not the possibility that this occurred and she simply misidentified him?


----------



## Haggis

Kilted said:


> Based on what she said, even if we go beyond all the inconsistencies, is there not the possibility that this occurred and she simply misidentified him?


Of course it is. Which is why I postulated in an earlier post that the victim and witness testimony heard to date (yesterday) would tend to exonerate Fortin.


----------



## Haggis

Jarnhamar said:


> Very true. Terrible behavior. It's still happening today.


Which points to the abject failure of Operation HONOUR and the ongoing inability/unwillingness of the chain of command to use the tools available to deal with this sort of behaviour.


----------



## Lumber

Alright so, back on actual topic, the trial was supposed to be 2 days long. I believe those 2 days have passed. Since it is a Judge only trial, how long until we can expect a verdict?


----------



## brihard

Lumber said:


> Alright so, back on actual topic, the trial was supposed to be 2 days long. I believe those 2 days have passed. Since it is a Judge only trial, how long until we can expect a verdict?


A few weeks to a couple months probably? Likely on the lower end, it was not a complex case.


In other news, CAF is revisiting whether serving members may wear uniform to civil trials as the accused.



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/debate-uniform-military-court-sexual-assaul-trials-1.6593556


----------



## Kilted

brihard said:


> A few weeks to a couple months probably? Likely on the lower end, it was not a complex case.
> 
> 
> In other news, CAF is revisiting whether serving members may wear uniform to civil trials as the accused.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/debate-uniform-military-court-sexual-assaul-trials-1.6593556


Is there someone at NDHQ whose entire job is to read this forum?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Kilted said:


> Is there someone at NDHQ whose entire job is to read this forum?


----------



## kev994

Kilted said:


> Is there someone at NDHQ whose entire job is to read this forum?


They were arguing about it on Reddit too and we know at least one 2-star reads that because he made a comment about it on his AMA.


----------



## kev994

Lumber said:


> Alright so, back on actual topic, the trial was supposed to be 2 days long. I believe those 2 days have passed. Since it is a Judge only trial, how long until we can expect a verdict?


I thought I saw an article that said Oct 15th but I can’t find it now.
He’s in court to appeal his removal from the vaccine thing on Oct 5, that’s probably what I was thinking about.


----------



## brihard

Kilted said:


> Is there someone at NDHQ whose entire job is to read this forum?


In an institution of 80+ thousand, if someone isn’t following prominent social media, that’s a fail.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

brihard said:


> A few weeks to a couple months probably? Likely on the lower end, it was not a complex case.
> 
> 
> In other news, CAF is revisiting whether serving members may wear uniform to civil trials as the accused.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/debate-uniform-military-court-sexual-assaul-trials-1.6593556


Here is the thing:

A deliberate decision was made to move all military sexual assault cases downtown.

In the past, many of those cases would have been heard in a Court Martial setting, wearing uniforms.

Is this an unintended consequence?


----------



## Furniture

btrudy said:


> This is indeed true, from the perspective of how people need to be treated by the criminal justice system.
> 
> Those of us who aren't the criminal justice system incarnate are, of course, allowed to make their own judgement calls, to account for the fact that said system is inherently stacked in favour of the defendants.


Yes... because everyone is innocent until proven guilty. 

I guess we could throw away hundreds of years of wisdom to appease the Twitter crowd, but I'm not sure I want to be a part of a society that does that.


----------



## Jarnhamar

The Upcoming court martial proceedings seems to have quite a few sexual assault trials coming up.


​


----------



## OldSolduer

Jarnhamar said:


> The Upcoming court martial proceedings seems to have quite a few sexual assault trials coming up.
> 
> 
> ​


I noted that as well.


----------



## brihard

Jarnhamar said:


> The Upcoming court martial proceedings seems to have quite a few sexual assault trials coming up.
> 
> 
> ​


They usually do.


----------



## rnkelly

I’m confused, weren’t these supposed to be transferred to civilian courts?

Or, are these the ones that the civilian courts refused to take?


----------



## FJAG

rnkelly said:


> I’m confused, weren’t these supposed to be transferred to civilian courts?
> 
> Or, are these the ones that the civilian courts refused to take?


Some were already in the military system and will be completed there. All new ones go downtown.

🍻


----------



## dapaterson

FJAG said:


> Some were already in the military system and will be completed there. All new ones go downtown.
> 
> 🍻


Unless downtown rejects them.

It's a work in progress.


----------



## daftandbarmy

dapaterson said:


> Unless downtown rejects them.
> 
> It's a work fee calculation process in progress.



There, FTFY


----------



## Lumber

daftandbarmy said:


> There, FTFY


When they first announced this I was sort of against it because I felt like the military was caving to social pressure vice making a smart decision. 

The more I think about it though, the more I think it's a genius move on the part of the military. The military is under extreme scrutiny for everything related to sexual assault/misconduct/harrasement/behaviour/etc. There is a huge impression that we are not impartial and protect or own/our senior ppl. Now, personally I think there was definitely a lot of that going on that prevented cases from even being investigated/charged in the first place, but I believe that once we actually got cases into our justice system that we did not better or worse than the public would. So, once we transfer responsibility for these things to the public sector, the military can effectively absolve itself of all criticism related to this process. It's genius if you ask me. Whether this will actually be better for the members though, I'm holding out hope. I have some opinions but they are rational and anectodal at best.


----------



## brihard

Lumber said:


> When they first announced this I was sort of against it because I felt like the military was caving to social pressure vice making a smart decision.
> 
> The more I think about it though, the more I think it's a genius move on the part of the military. The military is under extreme scrutiny for everything related to sexual assault/misconduct/harrasement/behaviour/etc. There is a huge impression that we are not impartial and protect or own/our senior ppl. Now, personally I think there was definitely a lot of that going on that prevented cases from even being investigated/charged in the first place, but I believe that once we actually got cases into our justice system that we did not better or worse than the public would. So, once we transfer responsibility for these things to the public sector, the military can effectively absolve itself of all criticism related to this process. It's genius if you ask me. Whether this will actually be better for the members though, I'm holding out hope. I have some opinions but they are rational and anectodal at best.


The civilian criminal justice system will only deal with criminal complaints. The broader category of “harmful and inappropriate sexual behaviour” will be of zero interest to civilian law enforcement or courts. Something will either be criminal or it will not. A CAF member won’t be able to go to Halifax police or Pembroke OPP or Cold Lake RCMP and seek recourse for, as an example, a superior making sexual used comments about them in the workplace. CAF will still have to deal with the HR aspects of this. And I believe the majority of HISB will fall well short of the criminal level, but will still post HR challenges for CAF.

Kicking the criminal files to civvie street is probably a smart move, but it only shuffles some of the problem.


----------



## OldSolduer

brihard said:


> Kicking the criminal files to civvie street is probably a smart move, but it only shuffles some of the problem.


The problem is twofold IMO - first the CAF recruited the problem, then failed to do anything about it when the problem became a problem.

That sounds a lot like Jean Chretien quote - just listen to him "say dat in your ead"


----------



## QV

brihard said:


> The civilian criminal justice system will only deal with criminal complaints. The broader category of “harmful and inappropriate sexual behaviour” will be of zero interest to civilian law enforcement or courts. Something will either be criminal or it will not. A CAF member won’t be able to go to Halifax police or Pembroke OPP or Cold Lake RCMP and seek recourse for, as an example, a superior making sexual used comments about them in the workplace. CAF will still have to deal with the HR aspects of this. And I believe the majority of HISB will fall well short of the criminal level, but will still post HR challenges for CAF.
> 
> Kicking the criminal files to civvie street is probably a smart move, but it only shuffles some of the problem.



There was a time when files like this did go downtown all the time, as did any criminal case when the investigating MP swore an information. Then in around 2011ish there were significant changes to the military police group orders and the powers-that-be decided "primacy of the military justice system" which they stated meant that so long as there was the slimmest whiff of a "military nexus" the file was dealt with in the military justice system... This was colossally stupid and resulted in all manner of serious crimes being referred to military courts. I have my own opinions why the CAF wanted to keep these kinds of things in house rather then let the civilian courts handle it.

Edit: to strike out a word.


----------



## Lumber

QV said:


> There was a time when files like this did go downtown all the time, as did any criminal case when the investigating MP swore an information. Then in around 2011ish there were significant changes to the military police group orders and the powers-that-be decided "primacy of the military justice system" which they stated meant that so long as there was the slimmest whiff of a "military nexus" the file was dealt with in the military justice system... This was colossally stupid and resulted in all manner of serious crimes being referred to military courts. I have my own opinions why the CAF wanted to keep these kinds of things in house rather then let the civilian courts handle it.


Does your opinion happen to be that the Harper government was obsessed with controlling the narrative?


----------



## OldSolduer

OldSolduer said:


> The problem is twofold IMO - first the CAF recruited the problem, then failed to do anything about it when the problem became a problem.
> 
> That sounds a lot like Jean Chretien quote - just listen to him "say dat in your ead"


Make that threefold - society either failed to recognize the problem and if it did it did nothing to take care of it. 

We all have a story "Well so and so was a bit weird (or off or whatever descriptor you want to insert) but....."


----------



## QV

Lumber said:


> Does your opinion happen to be that the Harper government was obsessed with controlling the narrative?



I think it's less to do with government controlling the narrative and more to do with senior CAF wanting to avoid public embarrassment while retaining more control/influence in the outcome. Just an opinion from the cheap seats.


----------



## brihard

QV said:


> I think it's less to do with government controlling the narrative and more to do with senior CAF wanting to avoid public embarrassment while retaining more control/influence in the outcome. Just an opinion from the cheap seats.


An informed one, though. Thanks for that.


----------



## Bluebulldog

And hot off the press today. Surprisingly the CBC writes a fairly damning article on an investigation gone wrong. 



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-sexual-misconduct-suicide-1.6596686


----------



## Good2Golf

Bluebulldog said:


> And hot off the press today. Surprisingly the CBC writes a fairly damning article on an investigation gone wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-sexual-misconduct-suicide-1.6596686



A sad situation that puts in question the impartiality of an investigative service that is supposed to (or should) consider relevant evidence/information in the determination to lay charges (which imply an assessment of likely successful prosecution, in order to proceed with charges). 



> "It's not unusual," said [Professor of Law] Scott, who added that in this instance, military police "would charge based on the evidence produced through the complaint from a victim.
> 
> "And they don't have an obligation — as the law as currently is understood at the stage of investigation and charge — to go talk to the accused."



I certainly think AN investigation should continue, but the CFNIS is seriously compromised in this regard, and should be removed from the process.


----------



## OldSolduer

Good2Golf said:


> A sad situation that puts in question the impartiality of an investigative service that is supposed to (or should) consider relevant evidence/information in the determination to lay charges (which imply an assessment of likely successful prosecution, in order to proceed with charges).
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly think AN investigation should continue, but the CFNIS is seriously compromised in this regard, and should be removed from the process.


I've seen this song before. One of my soldiers was never given the benefit of the doubt and was railroaded by the CoC until one of the officers - a female Log type - got on the case and saved his ass. The female soldier who accused him was posted out and I do not believe was ever held accountable.

And another thing - the captain who investigated my soldier was dating the accuser at the time. 

From what I have read here about the pilot and his subsequent suicide it seems the CFNIS had their collective minds made up. A pox on them all. 

A$$holes.


----------



## KevinB

I for one am totally shocked that the NIS botched another investigation…
    /sarcasm 

Disgusting.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Good2Golf said:


> A sad situation that puts in question the impartiality of an investigative service that is supposed to (or should) consider relevant evidence/information in the determination to lay charges (which imply an assessment of likely successful prosecution, in order to proceed with charges).
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly think AN investigation should continue, but the CFNIS is seriously compromised in this regard, and should be removed from the process.


I'm going to say it again:

If you ever have the misfortune of being accused of something, THE POLICE ARE NOT YOUR FRIEND, Don't talk to them, don't try to "Explain your side of the story".

The Police don't care about your side of the story, it's not "Anything you say can and will be used FOR YOU". It's "Anything you say can and will be used AGAINST YOU"

Be polite and courteous and politely decline to answer any of their questions and don't cooperate one bit.

In their mind, you're already a criminal scumbag, so screw them.  Don't help them at all 😉.


----------



## Kat Stevens

KevinB said:


> I for one am totally shocked that the NIS botched another investigation…
> /sarcasm
> 
> Disgusting.


Not only drive a man to suicide, but then double down on their assholery?  I may have mentioned this before, but I'm so glad to be retired.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Kat Stevens said:


> Not only drive a man to suicide, but then double down on their assholery?  I may have mentioned this before, but I'm so glad to be retired.


It's too bad the Major didn't have someone in his court that could have pointed him in the right direction.  If these text messages were a smoking gun, a good criminal defence lawyer could have worked some magic.


----------



## KevinB

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I'm going to say it again:
> 
> If you ever have the misfortune of being accused of something, THE POLICE ARE NOT YOUR FRIEND, Don't talk to them, don't try to "Explain your side of the story".
> 
> The Police don't care about your side of the story, it's not "Anything you say can and will be used FOR YOU". It's "Anything you say can and will be used AGAINST YOU"
> 
> Be polite and courteous and politely decline to answer any of their questions and don't cooperate one bit.
> 
> In their mind, you're already a criminal scumbag, so screw them.  Don't help them at all 😉.


Any LE friend will tell you the same thing - STFU and Lawyer up.


----------



## kev994

Bluebulldog said:


> And hot off the press today. Surprisingly the CBC writes a fairly damning article on an investigation gone wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-sexual-misconduct-suicide-1.6596686


Why are the MPs even involved in this? I don’t understand why a complaint by a civilian about something that happened in civi world ended up on the military’s lap.


----------



## brihard

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I'm going to say it again:
> 
> If you ever have the misfortune of being accused of something, THE POLICE ARE NOT YOUR FRIEND, Don't talk to them, don't try to "Explain your side of the story".
> 
> The Police don't care about your side of the story, it's not "Anything you say can and will be used FOR YOU". It's "Anything you say can and will be used AGAINST YOU"
> 
> Be polite and courteous and politely decline to answer any of their questions and don't cooperate one bit.
> 
> In their mind, you're already a criminal scumbag, so screw them.  Don't help them at all 😉.


Often sound. Not always. I - and most of us - have at some point or another obtained a statement from a suspect, looked into their side of things, corroborated it, and not laid charges as a result. A lot of criminal allegations are bullshit, but if we only have the complainant’s side, that may be difficult to discern. Sure, it’ll come out in trial, but that’s 16 months and a lot of money later.

If you every find yourself suspected or accused of something, get good criminal defence counsel ASAP, and consider whether or not it would be wise to have counsel assist you in drafting a written statement, or getting questions from the investigator in writing and responding in writing. We cannot ignore a statement that comes in, and it becomes part of everything we have to consider. Also, if we seek warrants or other judicial authorizations, we absolutely MUST disclose anything exculpatory to the judge or justice considering the warrant application. Most simply, we don’t want to look like idiots or lose in court, and neither does crown. Most of us will close a file if evidence comes to light that does not support a prosecution.

In any case, statement or no, don’t make ANY decision about your participation (or not) in a criminal investigation without engaging a lawyer. And don’t call the guy who needs to advertise on the back of a bus or a roadside billboard.

Anyway, in the case at hand, the accused literally offered a statement and the police didn’t take it. That’s fucking junk. It’s inept investigation, and it’s brutally unfair to the person facing the allegation. But it was the MPs, so…


----------



## Jarnhamar

I got called in to speak with CFNIS not too long ago regarding something. They interviewed me and when the interview was done the nicer of the two made a point of telling me he's leaving his phone behind then walked me outside so we could speak off the record in a more private setting with no one else around. In case there's anything I wanted to say to just him. I thought it was very thoughtful of him


----------



## brihard

Jarnhamar said:


> I got called in to speak with CFNIS not too long ago regarding something. They interviewed me and when the interview was done the nicer of the two made a point of telling me he's leaving his phone behind then walked me outside so we could speak off the record in a more private setting with no one else around. In case there's anything I wanted to say to just him. I thought it was very thoughtful of him


If you’re suspected/accused in something this is obviously bullshit. If you’re simply a witness with no jeopardy, often as not we're still trying to figure out WTF is going on, and it can be useful to simply hear from someone what they think and why. But, still, don’t say anything you wouldn’t be willing to see on paper with your name next to it unless you’ve been explicitly given privilege as a confidential informant.


----------



## QV

I’m no fan of the policies and orders that direct the MP and NIS, and I also know the CBC often prints a bunch of bullshit. I do know for certain that MPs are required to make attempts to interview all subjects. Subjects occasionally lawyer up.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Jarnhamar said:


> I got called in to speak with CFNIS not too long ago regarding something. They interviewed me and when the interview was done the nicer of the two made a point of telling me he's leaving his phone behind then walked me outside so we could speak off the record in a more private setting with no one else around. In case there's anything I wanted to say to just him. I thought it was very thoughtful of him



Did he say something like 'this is off the record', because then you know for sure that it's not off the record


----------



## lenaitch

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I'm going to say it again:
> 
> If you ever have the misfortune of being accused of something, THE POLICE ARE NOT YOUR FRIEND, Don't talk to them, don't try to "Explain your side of the story".
> 
> The Police don't care about your side of the story, it's not "Anything you say can and will be used FOR YOU". It's "Anything you say can and will be used AGAINST YOU"
> 
> Be polite and courteous and politely decline to answer any of their questions and don't cooperate one bit.
> 
> In their mind, you're already a criminal scumbag, so screw them.  Don't help them at all 😉.


A little over the top in the "criminal scumbag" characterization but generally decent advice.

I've been out for several years and no longer have my cards but clearly recall that my Force's 'standard caution' used the words "may be used as evidence".  No mention of the 'against you' part; although I am aware some forces did use that version.

Honest question:  What type of investigative training does the MP/CFNIS get?  Do they get to avail themselves of senior and specialized courses at CPC, their own school, FBI  National Academy, etc..


----------



## Jarnhamar

brihard said:


> If you’re suspected/accused in something this is obviously bullshit. If you’re simply a witness with no jeopardy, often as not we're still trying to figure out WTF is going on, and it can be useful to simply hear from someone what they think and why. But, still, don’t say anything you wouldn’t be willing to see on paper with your name next to it unless you’ve been explicitly given privilege as a confidential informant.


If there's one thing Liberal and Conservative MPs pissing while on zoom calls taught it it's that you're always on the record 



daftandbarmy said:


> Did he say something like 'this is off the record', because then you know for sure that it's not off the record


Oh ya. The "I'll leave my phone behind" was pretty smooth but I have high saving throws.


----------



## Good2Golf

brihard said:


> We cannot ignore a statement that comes in, and it becomes part of everything we have to consider.


Unlike the Military Police, so it would seem.  😔/😡


----------



## Kat Stevens

lenaitch said:


> A little over the top in the "criminal scumbag" characterization but generally decent advice.
> 
> I've been out for several years and no longer have my cards but clearly recall that my Force's 'standard caution' used the words "may be used as evidence".  No mention of the 'against you' part; although I am aware some forces did use that version.
> 
> Honest question:  What type of investigative training does the MP/CFNIS get?  Do they get to avail themselves of senior and specialized courses at CPC, their own school, FBI  National Academy, etc..


They spend a weekend at a Holiday Inn Express.


----------



## OldSolduer

Good2Golf said:


> Unlike the Military Police, so it would seem.  😔/😡


Keystone Kops for the most part. Send them back to traffic duties


----------



## lenaitch

OldSolduer said:


> Keystone Kops for the most part. Send them back to traffic duties


And that may be part of the problem.  I only observe them from the outside looking in, but it seems the peacetime role of the MPs on base are a combination of traffic enforcement and security guard.  I would imagine even, for example, domestic disputes in RHUs/shacks are handled completely differently than they would be outside the fence.  This is probably overly simplistic, but perhaps if they were organized more along the lines of a civilian police service, with members assigned to 'detective' duties, scenes of crime, etc. even on a rotation basis, skills would be developed and they wouldn't have had to create an essentially separate CFNIS.  Uniformed 'patrol' members still take the first call, run the radar and rattle door knobs.  That's what we did.  Obviously, easier on larger basis.

I realize their are intrinsic issues of chain of command that need to be better sorted out.  Civilian law enforcement don't typically interact with people who are part of the same employer.


----------



## QV

lenaitch said:


> Honest question:  What type of investigative training does the MP/CFNIS get?  Do they get to avail themselves of senior and specialized courses at CPC, their own school, FBI  National Academy, etc..



Not certain about the FBI academy, but yes to all the rest. There are hundreds of former MP with civilian agencies, the leading consensus seems to be was they got more advanced training earlier with the MP that has benefited them greatly but toxic leadership and ridiculous policies are the main drivers for leaving.

This may be difficult for most to understand, but the reason the MP are such a shit show is because of the orders and policies the CAF and senior MP leadership forces upon them. The people in the MP are a cross section of good, bad, ugly at the same ratios as any other group of people.


----------



## Brad Sallows

So apparently investigators don't actively investigate with a view to exoneration, much?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Brad Sallows said:


> So apparently investigators don't actively investigate with a view to exoneration, much?


Nope. Not in my experience.

You don’t get an “atta boy” for the charges you didn’t lay…


----------



## Jarnhamar

Without a hint of exaggeration the most _toxic leadership _email I've ever seen in the CAF was from a Military Police RSM to their people. It would be a very strong contender for in person speeches too. Top 2 or 3.

_"Wouldn't piss on this guy if he was on fire"_ comes to mind.


----------



## Brad Sallows

I figured.  Just something to keep in mind the next time someone starts bleating the "but he wasn't exonerated" bullsh!t.


----------



## Furniture

Bluebulldog said:


> And hot off the press today. Surprisingly the CBC writes a fairly damning article on an investigation gone wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-sexual-misconduct-suicide-1.6596686


The frustrating part is that anyone with a hint of common sense knew this was going to happen.

In the zeal to prove "we've changed" the CAF will destroy people. I don't believe it's a top down command, but ambitious/unscrupulous individuals with authority will use that authority to advance the agenda, hoping to advance themselves.

Like @SeaKingTacco said, you dont get promoted for not laying charges/handing out admin measures.


----------



## lenaitch

QV said:


> Not certain about the FBI academy, but yes to all the rest. There are hundreds of former MP with civilian agencies, the leading consensus seems to be was they got more advanced training earlier with the MP that has benefited them greatly but toxic leadership and ridiculous policies are the main drivers for leaving.
> 
> This may be difficult for most to understand, but the reason the MP are such a shit show is because of the orders and policies the CAF and senior MP leadership forces upon them. The people in the MP are a cross section of good, bad, ugly at the same ratios as any other group of people.


Yup.  Good point.  Two ex-MPs that I can recall who came to my service; one solid, buckets of common sense and did well in his career, the other, not so much.


Brad Sallows said:


> So apparently investigators don't actively investigate with a view to exoneration, much?


You investigate to determine and assemble the facts.  Several reviews of major investigations that were found wanting have used the term 'tunnel vision', which is often tough to avoid.  An investigative team helps to vary perspectives.  Whether or not the facts usefully point to culpability depends on them and how they are gathered.  As an investigator, you might make determinations and assessments that a court later differs with.


Jarnhamar said:


> Without a hint of exaggeration the most _toxic leadership _email I've ever seen in the CAF was from a Military Police RSM to their people. It would be a very strong contender for in person speeches too. Top 2 or 3.
> 
> _"Wouldn't piss on this guy if he was on fire"_ comes to mind.


I suppose like QV said, they are a slice of the organization.  At one point my next door neighbour was the RSM at the local base.  I went to visit the guardhouse a couple of times.  He seemed to have a solid working relationship with his staff; no BS but seemed respectful (of course, he could have been a complete asshat behind closed doors, I don't know).


----------



## Booter

my view from above is that the current climate towards sexual assault is, in a general sense, lay the charges- and the crown can decide which goes forward. I’m an not shocked at any story, from my recent experience with several agencies, that they didn’t care if they got the suspect statement or not. The mood is the charge is going to crown. They’ll make decisions.

In a general sense, supported by statistics in several provinces- suspect statements are not sought often on any offence. Whether that is popular to say or not- it’s not an MP problem. 

I review detachments and services on a semi regular basis- off the top of my head I can’t think of one that didn’t have a review recommendation that they needed to actually interview suspects


----------



## Good2Golf

Booter said:


> I review detachments and services on a semi regular basis- off the top of my head I can’t think of one that didn’t have a review recommendation that they needed to actually interview suspects


Too bad in this case…it might have altered the sad outcome.


----------



## Eaglelord17

The issue the MPs are running into is if they don’t charge them they are accused of being biased and acting as a old boys club. If they do charge them they are accused of being biased and it all being political.

At least by charging every case the prosecutor can decide if the charge has merit and drop them as needed. 

Very odd they didn’t at least get a statement from him, thats a big deal for evidence gathering. Can lead to them admitting guilt off the bat saving the whole effort, lead to new evidence or witnesses, produce a solid alibi, etc.


----------



## KevinB

My take on MP's is too stupid to be a real cop, and too gutless to be a real solider...
  I've met a few exceptions, but a lot have simply cemented that.


----------



## Furniture

Eaglelord17 said:


> The issue the MPs are running into is if they don’t charge them they are accused of being biased and acting as a old boys club. If they do charge them they are accused of being biased and it all being political.
> 
> *At least by charging every case the prosecutor can decide if the charge has merit and drop them as needed.*
> 
> Very odd they didn’t at least get a statement from him, thats a big deal for evidence gathering. Can lead to them admitting guilt off the bat saving the whole effort, lead to new evidence or witnesses, produce a solid alibi, etc.


That is cold comfort to the people ruined by it. 

If the best the MP/policing world can off to explain away this behavior is "its easier this way", there is a serious cultural problem in the MP/policing world.


----------



## brihard

Eaglelord17 said:


> At least by charging every case the prosecutor can decide if the charge has merit and drop them as needed.



But that’s horseshit. The threshold for charging is:

“Any one who, on reasonable grounds, believes that a person has committed an indictable offence may lay an information in writing and under oath before a justice…”

While the information is actually usually sworn by a court liaison officer or someone similarly assigned, the fact of the matter is that charges should not be laid unless the person responsible for the investigation _believes that a person has committed an offence_. If you don’t confidently hold an articulable belief that the person did the thing, don’t accuse them of it. And yes, I have had a few cases where through pursuing an investigation (even to the point of getting a court order to a phone company to produce phone records), I’ve reached a belief opposite from the suspicion I started with, and I was able to conclude a matter without charges.

We’re investigators, not prosecutors. Our job is determining, as best we can, what the truth is, and then seeing how that fits the law.


----------



## Eaglelord17

brihard said:


> But that’s horseshit. The threshold for charging is:
> 
> “Any one who, on reasonable grounds, believes that a person has committed an indictable offence may lay an information in writing and under oath before a justice…”
> 
> While the information is actually usually sworn by a court liaison officer or someone similarly assigned, the fact of the matter is that charges should not be laid unless the person responsible for the investigation _believes that a person has committed an offence_. If you don’t confidently hold an articulable belief that the person did the thing, don’t accuse them of it. And yes, I have had a few cases where through pursuing an investigation (even to the point of getting a court order to a phone company to produce phone records), I’ve reached a belief opposite from the suspicion I started with, and I was able to conclude a matter without charges.
> 
> We’re investigators, not prosecutors. Our job is determining, as best we can, what the truth is, and then seeing how that fits the law.


I am not saying I like that solution, I am simply saying that is likely the route our risk adverse reactionary organization has taken.


----------



## Takeniteasy

This thread is comical at best, many former members (I included) were thrown under the bus, stigmatized, and humiliated by the CoC willful ignorance and discriminatory attitudes. Many are armchair quarterbacking here and you do not even see it.


----------



## Haggis

Eaglelord17 said:


> The issue the MPs are running into is if they don’t charge them they are accused of being biased and acting as a old boys club. If they do charge them they are accused of being biased and it all being political.
> 
> At least by charging every case the prosecutor can decide if the charge has merit and drop them as needed.


It would seem that, in a few cases, "reasonable belief" is confused with "balance of probabilities", a far lower threshold.


----------



## brihard

…Never mind.


----------



## brihard

Haggis said:


> It would seem that, in a few cases, "reasonable belief" is confused with "balance of probabilities", a far lower threshold.



Anyone who’s still able to be getting that confused should be supervised by someone who doesn’t, and shouldn’t be able to forward their own charges. There should still be a supervisory review on the file before it’s submitted.


----------



## Furniture

brihard said:


> Anyone who’s still able to be getting that confused should be supervised by someone who doesn’t, and shouldn’t be able to forward their own charges. There should still be a supervisory review on the file before it’s submitted.


That would work, right up until the supervisor realized that choosing to not proceed with charges could end their career, while there would be zero career  repercussions for proceeding... 

The choice between your career and some "scumbag's" isn't a choice at all for most people.


----------



## Booter

“He said” “she said” sexual assaults, in my experience- reviewing and working with the crown prosecutors and police management, where there is no fear for the victim- like it’s a matter of consent- or it’s in some long historical nature will get sent to the crown for their decision on what they are willing to take to court. Some places will just lay a charge and let court sort it out. That’s not a good practice- but it is a REWARDED practice because it’s uncontroversial for the investigating officer. They get to “believe the victim” and blame the crown. If they don’t- they are subject to the politics of sexual offences currently out there. It is not right- I wouldn’t endorse this. But it’s observable. 

If there is any matrix or concern for the person articulated- a no contact Condition will be put in place, that needs there to be some court process attached to it, there are several ways that can look. The crown may still look at it and decide that it’s not something theyll pursue and drop the charge. 

In certain circumstances- a summons could be delivered for the suspect. The officer just giving them a court date- if the suspect tries to give a statement right there it’s not how the process works- it is my experience again, that a person will want to talk at the door but not when they are told to speak to a lawyer and set up and interview. 

It’s easy to say how the system is supposed to look and act. What it does despite what people say it should be doing is something else entirely.


----------



## brihard

Booter said:


> In certain circumstances- a summons could be delivered for the suspect. The officer just giving them a court date- if the suspect tries to give a statement right there it’s not how the process works- it is my experience again, that a person will want to talk at the door but not when they are told to speak to a lawyer and set up and interview.


Which is why if someone wanted to talk to me immediately I would always very clearly and firmly caution them first, and then start my recorder, caution them again with that going, and let them talk. In car dash cams with good audio capture from a shoulder mic are fantastic for this, and the body cams that are coming soon should be even better. If someone not in custody wants to suddenly talk, I’m not gonna be the one to tell them no; I’ll just be the guy who makes sure they understand they don’t have to and can shut up and walk away at any time. We shouldn’t be nervous to take unprompted statements; it may be the only one we get. It’s also not my job to tell someone in the moment that they _should_ talk to a lawyer; just that they have the right to.

To my mind, not taking a statement that’s on offer and legally clean is no different from seeing and ignoring a piece of physical evidence.


----------



## Booter

So. The court detail officer delivering summons and court documents- who often has no understanding of the actual offence and what happened, in a place larger than a small detachment, is supposed to skillfully receive a statement and deliver the cautions in a quality way that will work in court?

Ignoring for a fact that two districts that immediately come to mind- will not accept a cautioned “statement” that isn’t video recorded- they may examine an utterance but a meandering statement is a complete waste of their time- so much so that it is unfair to suggest the suspect is getting an actual chance to provide their version of events.

We’ll have to disagree on how sexual assault investigations presently meet the system. I agree with your premise- for all you GAF.

It is a place that requires constant cajoling everywhere I am involved.

Your points about cams are all valid. I agree entirely that this will offset a lot of the corners I see cut


----------



## Booter

In my usual vein- for about five years after a court wanted audio recorded statements only. I had the displeasure of dealing with a commander who only would have his people do hand written statements. The battle went on over years- because of money. Even where it was clearly outlined that it was to our benefit and expectation.

We have best practice, we have expectation, and then we have the RCMP, my experience with CFNIS is similar. Despite some very talented investigators.


----------



## Booter

brihard said:


> It’s also not my job to tell someone in the moment that they _should_ talk to a lawyer; just that they have the right to.


Poor wording on my part. Good catch. 🤓


----------



## brihard

Booter said:


> So. The court detail officer delivering summons and court documents- who often has no understanding of the actual offence and what happened, in a place larger than a small detachment, is supposed to skillfully receive a statement and deliver the cautions in a quality way that will work in court?


You know what, totally fair point. I was thinking in the context of delivering my own paperwork on my files, but yeah. Very unfair to a member serving process on someone else's behalf.



Booter said:


> Ignoring for a fact that two districts that immediately come to mind- will not accept a cautioned “statement” that isn’t video recorded- they may examine an utterance but a meandering statement is a complete waste of their time- so much so that it is unfair to suggest the suspect is getting an actual chance to provide their version of events.


I could have been more clear. If someone said they wanted to start talking about what happened in a file where I'm investigating them as suspect, I don't mean that I'd say "OK, give 'er" and then listen to fifteen minutes of babbling. We have a model for taking statements for a reason, and I'd aim to do that properly.



Booter said:


> We’ll have to disagree on how sexual assault investigations presently meet the system. I agree with your premise- for all you GAF.
> 
> It is a place that requires constant cajoling everywhere I am involved.


No, you're right, how they actually go is often not how they ought to. I'm speaking normatively- what ought to be. I know, and am disappointed by the fact that, some police services or individual officers will 'chance it' and just fire a marginal case off for charges and for crown to then sort out.



Booter said:


> Your points about cams are all valid. I agree entirely that this will offset a lot of the corners I see cut


Yup. I'm very glad they're becoming normal.


----------



## OldSolduer

I warned everyone over a year ago about witch hunts lest you burn innocent people.


----------



## Kilted

OldSolduer said:


> I warned everyone over a year ago about witch hunts lest you burn innocent people.


----------



## Halifax Tar

OldSolduer said:


> I warned everyone over a year ago about witch hunts lest you burn innocent people.



You did. 

Unfortunately this Maj wasn't afforded a proper investigation, it sounds like. 

That's a command failure.  Sadly, again, I'm sure those responsible will never be identified or face a disciplinary process themselves.


----------



## btrudy

I expect that we'll be seeing a report from the MP Complaints Commission. 

That having been said, honestly IMHO it looks like folks are largely taking the family's claims that the texts would have exonerated the Major at face value, without any reasonable basis for that at this point. After all, the strong likelihood is that they already had the text messages anyways, provided to them by the complainant. 

Are police _obligated_ to take input from folks they suspect to be criminals, when investigating a crime? Granted, I'm not a lawyer, but from what I know, generally speaking the only reason police talk to folks they're investigating is to elicit a confession.


----------



## SupersonicMax

btrudy said:


> I expect that we'll be seeing a report from the MP Complaints Commission.
> 
> That having been said, honestly IMHO it looks like folks are largely taking the family's claims that the texts would have exonerated the Major at face value, without any reasonable basis for that at this point. After all, the strong likelihood is that they already had the text messages anyways, provided to them by the complainant.
> 
> Are police _obligated_ to take input from folks they suspect to be criminals, when investigating a crime? Granted, I'm not a lawyer, but from what I know, generally speaking the only reason police talk to folks they're investigating is to elicit a confession.


It’s not about the text 100% exonerating Cristian but rather, to at least have his chance to give his side of the story and give him fairness in the process.  That lack of fairness (even if only perceived) led to someone not seeing a favourable outcome and that person took his own life.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

btrudy said:


> I expect that we'll be seeing a report from the MP Complaints Commission.
> 
> That having been said, honestly IMHO it looks like folks are largely taking the family's claims that the texts would have exonerated the Major at face value, without any reasonable basis for that at this point. After all, the strong likelihood is that they already had the text messages anyways, provided to them by the complainant.
> 
> Are police _obligated_ to take input from folks they suspect to be criminals, when investigating a crime? Granted, I'm not a lawyer, but from what I know, generally speaking the only reason police talk to folks they're investigating is to elicit a confession.


I thought that we were taking people’s claims at face value. Are you saying that people make up accusations?


----------



## Furniture

btrudy said:


> I expect that we'll be seeing a report from the MP Complaints Commission.
> 
> *That having been said, honestly IMHO it looks like folks are largely taking the family's claims that the texts would have exonerated the Major at face value, without any reasonable basis for that at this point. *After all, the strong likelihood is that they already had the text messages anyways, provided to them by the complainant.
> 
> Are police _obligated_ to take input from folks they suspect to be criminals, when investigating a crime? Granted, I'm not a lawyer, but from what I know, generally speaking the only reason police talk to folks they're investigating is to elicit a confession.


Looks like you're assuming guilt based on the claims of the complainant. 

It sure sounds like the MPs had their "guilty bastard" to march in and weren't interested in looking into it any further.


----------



## Good2Golf

btrudy said:


> That having been said, honestly IMHO it looks like folks are largely taking the family's claims that the texts would have exonerated the Major at face value, without any reasonable basis for that at this point.


Which folks?  As others noted, the concern was that the alleged accused’ provision of information at hand was summarily refused by the investigating MP. 




btrudy said:


> After all, the strong likelihood is that they already had the text messages anyways, provided to them by the complainant.


‘Strong likelihood’…does that pass your test for the depth of investigation for something that (I believe) everyone accepts is an issue to take seriously?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Good2Golf said:


> Which folks?  As others noted, the concern was that the alleged accused’ provision of information at hand was summarily refused by the investigating MP.
> 
> 
> 
> ‘Strong likelihood’…does that pass your test for the depth of investigation for something that (I believe) everyone accepts is an issue to take seriously?


I read about this case in the media.  Weird situation that sort of read like some sort of Swinger Club gone wrong.


----------



## Booter

btrudy said:


> After all, the strong likelihood is that they already had the text messages anyways, provided to them by the complainant.


Absolutely not true. There would be no requirement for the complainant to show or even mention such a thing at all.

Like an incredible small unlikely chance- maybe perhaps they could have been aware of them? Maybe,

But complainants conceal things like texts all the time- even where they could be supported by them. Or where they contradict their version of events- even more so.

Victims of sexual assaults are embarrassed by the complaint, they make all types of decisions that don’t necessarily make “sense” to people in chairs watching. And that’s best case scenario.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Booter said:


> Absolutely not true. There would be no requirement for the complainant to show or even mention such a thing at all.
> 
> Like an incredible small unlikely chance- maybe perhaps they could have been aware of them? Maybe,
> 
> But complainants conceal things like texts all the time- even where they could be supported by them. Or where they contradict their version of events- even more so.
> 
> Victims of sexual assaults are embarrassed by the complaint, they make all types of decisions that don’t necessarily make “sense” to people in chairs watching. And that’s best case scenario.


Jian Ghomeshi enters the chat, where extensive text messages that were not provided to authorities were brought forward in Court by the defence team.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I read about this case in the media.  Weird situation that sort of read like some sort of Swinger Club gone wrong.


----------



## OldSolduer

A word of advice for y’all: 

If you’re thinking about having a fling this is a good reason not to.


----------



## Navy_Pete

I can't imagine from an investigator perspective if the accused is volunteering to speak to you, you wouldn't take the statement. Especially in a he said/she said type scenario you probably want both on file if you can get it, as that would seem to give you a number of avenues to dig into and may result in a stronger case against them.

Nice bit of tunnel vision though on the MP side, but don't expect anything other than this getting swept under a rug and written off as collateral damage.


----------



## QV

I think everyone should wind their neck in a bit. Nobody here has a hot clue except what was in a CBC article. And the CBC is garbage. 

Here's another article for you all to chew on. Maybe the CAF should avoid handing SA files to the RCMP? Let's pick and choose now... whos up?  



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rcmp-sexual-assault-1.6597502
		

"Grossly inadequate" 

The CAF problem with sex assault files was not the investigators... it was keeping those cases within the military justice system and not sending them downtown where they belong. 

If you want to shit on anything, shit on the CAF leadership and the Provost Marshal for leading everything in this direction to keep things "in house" that didn't belong there.


----------



## Booter

there is no satisfaction civi-side on these things either. That’ll be the next story. They are specialized investigations that more often than not are done by general investigators- RCMP or otherwise. The success rate is abysmal- that’s bad for both accused and for complainants and victims.


----------



## Good2Golf

QV said:


> I think everyone should wind their neck in a bit. Nobody here has a hot clue except what was in a CBC article. And the CBC is garbage.


You’re sure assuming a lot with that broad brush of yours.  Maybe some of us knew, or even flew with Christian, either in Canada or in AFG?  I met him in Moose Jaw years after he had augmented 408 Sqn on Griffons in KAF.  A very humble and nice fellow.  Similar to other threads I’ve participated in, I’m not saying that SA allegations shouldn’t be investigated, nor that due consideration shouldn’t be given to a potential/alleged victim, just as innocence is (or should be) presumed for an accused.  However, there were some serious issues with the investigation from the beginning, and as noted below, it wasn’t just because some generals or the Provost Marshall were trying to keep things in house that things went sideways.



> The CAF problem with sex assault files was not the investigators... it was keeping those cases within the military justice system and not sending them downtown where they belong.



Disagree with you’re giving the investigators a bye with how they proceeded in this case.  Agree with your second point about the desire of the CAF/CFPM to keep things in house.



> If you want to shit on anything, shit on the CAF leadership and the Provost Marshal for leading everything in this direction to keep things "in house" that didn't belong there.



While true, again, it doesn’t explain what to the layperson appears a significant disregard for procedure, and to an number of current/former LEOs here, also seems to have been ‘off’…


----------



## QV

Good2Golf said:


> You’re sure assuming a lot with that broad brush of yours.  Maybe some of us knew, or even flew with Christian, either in Canada or in AFG?  I met him in Moose Jaw years after he had augmented 408 Sqn on Griffons in KAF.  A very humble and nice fellow.  Similar to other threads I’ve participated in, I’m not saying that SA allegations shouldn’t be investigated, nor that due consideration must be given to a potential/alleged victim, just as innocence is (or should be) presumed for an accused.  However, there were some serious issues with the investigation from the beginning, and as noted below, it wasn’t just because some generals or the Provost Marshall were trying to keep things in house that things went sideways.
> 
> 
> 
> Disagree with you’re giving the investigators a bye with how they proceeded in this case.  Agree with your second point about the desire of the CAF/CFPM to keep things in house.
> 
> 
> 
> While true, again, it doesn’t explain what to the layperson appears a significant disregard for procedure, and to an number of current/former LEOs here, also seems to have been ‘off’…


Sure GTG, assuming the CBC article is exactly right. 

Christian is a victim of the environment the institution has created in handling cases like this. This is what I mean by that:

#believeallwomen 
The CAF is an institution rife with "sexual misconduct" (which now also means bad jokes and failed personal relationships)
The "he's not been exonerated" mantra when cases are dropped or fail to meet the standard of conviction 

I'm not saying investigative mistakes didn't happen. It's clear mistakes happen too often in most organizations, like the RCMP as well as the MP. 

Sometimes an OldSolduer says it best about witch hunts. I can tell you it's not the coal face that perpetuates the witch hunts.


----------



## Good2Golf

QV, rare is a case where there is but one link in the chain.  I agree with you, if I understand what you’re saying, that there were a number of factors that contributed to a series of unfortunate events, the most grave being Christian taking his own life. I don’t think the investigation issues were the only factor…but I am also quite mindful of the challenges that supervisors/CoC have where issues of mental health and ideation of self-harm come into play, and it is more than unfortunate that a number of those involved weren’t able to change the course Christian’s ultimate actions.

I think that this entire event needs to be reviewed for a number of reasons, including impact on the alleged victim, as much as possible to the allegations against Christian, the conduct of the investigation to the point with Christian took his life, and how the investigation unfolded after his death, and of the greater challenges that this and other cases have brought to light with what earlier had been espoused by many as a panacea to systemic CAF-internal issues addressing SA/SM/HISB.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Lumber

Good2Golf said:


> QV, rare is a case where there is but one link in the chain.  I agree with you, if I understand what you’re saying, that there were a number of factors that contributed to a series of unfortunate events, the most grave being Christian taking his own life. I don’t think the investigation issues were the only factor…but I am also quite mindful of the challenges that supervisors/CoC have where issues of mental health and ideation of self-harm come into play, and it is more than unfortunate that a number of those involved weren’t able to change the course Christian’s ultimate actions.
> 
> I think that this entire event needs to be reviewed for a number of reasons, including impact on the alleged victim, as much as possible to the allegations against Christian, the conduct of the investigation to the point with Christian took his life, and how the investigation unfolded after his death, and of the greater challenges that this and other cases have brought to light with what earlier had been espoused by many as a panacea to systemic CAF-internal issues addressing SA/SM/HISB.
> 
> Regards
> G2G


Maybe people wanted to reach out and "see how he was doing", but we're afraid that they'd get the same treatment as Rouleau and Bains.


----------



## OldSolduer

Lumber said:


> Maybe people wanted to reach out and "see how he was doing", but we're afraid that they'd get the same treatment as Rouleau and Bains.


Here is my take on this: No matter what the consequences you MAY face if you think someone is suicidal you fucking ask them "are you thinking of suicide" and if the answer is "yes" stay with them, keep them on the phone or whatever - find help ASAP.

It is the DECENT thing to do.


----------



## Furniture

OldSolduer said:


> Here is my take on this: No matter what the consequences you MAY face if you think someone is suicidal you fucking ask them "are you thinking of suicide" and if the answer is "yes" stay with them, keep them on the phone or whatever - find help ASAP.
> 
> It is the DECENT thing to do.


100%

I think the issue is that the Maj was effectively cut off from work, so people didn't have the interactions with him to take note of how bad things were.


----------



## btrudy

Furniture said:


> Looks like you're assuming guilt based on the claims of the complainant.
> 
> It sure sounds like the MPs had their "guilty bastard" to march in and weren't interested in looking into it any further.



Assuming that the claim is not a bald-faced lie, then yes, I am.


----------



## Navy_Pete

btrudy said:


> Assuming that the claim is not a bald-faced lie, then yes, I am.


Holy F*& are you ever basic. Even if the complaint is totally founded, the system shouldn't drive someone to the point where they commit suicide. Presumption of innocence is still a thing, so you may want to put down the torch, knowing f-all about the case.

Not giving someone the opportunity to make a statement, banning them from talking to anyone from work, and basically ostracizing them from their life is a pretty significant step to take. Someone shit the bed here, and hopefully there is a completely independent review done by someone outside the military on this.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Furniture said:


> 100%
> 
> I think the issue is that the Maj was effectively cut off from work, so people didn't have the interactions with him to take note of how bad things were.


Being a part of the team gets hammered into our heads in basic training. Being pulled out of your platoon for most recruits is a huge psychological hit.

For most of us belonging to the team is a huge part of our sense of self and that grows over the years. Ripping that away from someone effectively ostracizing them, and acting like they're guilty, is going to do some damage.


----------



## Furniture

btrudy said:


> Assuming that the claim is not a bald-faced lie, then yes, I am.


What I find amusing in this answer is the total lack of awareness.

That sort of attitude WRT people's buddies is exactly what lead us to where we are now.  eg. "John couldn't have assaulted those women, I know him, and he would lie about it".

When you conduct even a simple UDI you look into the circumstances and get as much information as possible before moving forward with anything. That the MPs showed a lack of interest in the accused's side is troubling. The MPs aren't the TPS, they should have the time and resources to dedicate to the investigation to ensure it's as thorough as possible, particularly given the alleged crimes, and the profile of the case.


----------



## btrudy

Navy_Pete said:


> Holy F*& are you ever basic. Even if the complaint is totally founded, the system shouldn't drive someone to the point where they commit suicide.



And no where did I state that it should. 



Navy_Pete said:


> Presumption of innocence is still a thing, so you may want to put down the torch, knowing f-all about the case.



I am not the personification of the criminal justice system. All I know about the case what was reported: the victim claimed that on two seperate occasions, the Major had sex with her while she was unconscious. 

I'm allowed to take that statement at face value. And, naturally, if that is indeed an accurate statement, then the dude did indeed commit said crime. Sure, he hadn't been convicted, etc. That's for the criminal justice system to do its thing. I am well within my rights to believe the statements provided to the press by the victim in question.



Navy_Pete said:


> Not giving someone the opportunity to make a statement, banning them from talking to anyone from work, and basically ostracizing them from their life is a pretty significant step to take. Someone shit the bed here, and hopefully there is a completely independent review done by someone outside the military on this.



Removing someone from their job in light of a complaint of this nature is reasonable. I get that it sucks for the offender. But they're not the ones we need to be primarily concerned about here. A victim-centric approach is required. 

I'm not saying this to be callous, but simply put some people will, realizing that they'll be facing the consequences of their actions, choose to commit suicide rather than face those consequences. This is a tragedy, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't lay charges where appropriate, or ensure that adequate action is taken to separate victims from their assaulters in the workplace when needed.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

btrudy said:


> All I know about the case what was reported: the victim claimed that on two seperate occasions, the Major had sex with her while she was unconscious.


Did I miss a link somewhere??


----------



## btrudy

'The culture needs to change': Victim of alleged sexual assault by military major calling for more support from CAF
					

A woman who alleges she was sexually assaulted twice by a major with the Royal Canadian Air Force at 15 Wing Moose Jaw is calling on the military to provide more help and resources for alleged victims.




					regina.ctvnews.ca


----------



## kev994

btrudy said:


> 'The culture needs to change': Victim of alleged sexual assault by military major calling for more support from CAF
> 
> 
> A woman who alleges she was sexually assaulted twice by a major with the Royal Canadian Air Force at 15 Wing Moose Jaw is calling on the military to provide more help and resources for alleged victims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regina.ctvnews.ca


It’s either the same case or one hell of a coincidence.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

I'm just going to back away slowly now.........


----------



## Jarnhamar

btrudy said:


> 'The culture needs to change': Victim of alleged sexual assault by military major calling for more support from CAF
> 
> 
> A woman who alleges she was sexually assaulted twice by a major with the Royal Canadian Air Force at 15 Wing Moose Jaw is calling on the military to provide more help and resources for alleged victims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regina.ctvnews.ca




Do you think she should have been given personal meetings with the major's boss prior to his death and to his boss and the base commander afterwards?


----------



## btrudy

Jarnhamar said:


> Do you think she should have been given personal meetings with the major's boss prior to his death and to his boss and the base commander afterwards?



I don't see how we can pretend to value a victim-centric approach to sexual assault if senior officers refuse to give up even half an hour of their time to speak with a victim who's requesting it.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Alleged victim.


----------



## daftandbarmy

btrudy said:


> 'The culture needs to change': Victim of alleged sexual assault by military major calling for more support from CAF
> 
> 
> A woman who alleges she was sexually assaulted twice by a major with the Royal Canadian Air Force at 15 Wing Moose Jaw is calling on the military to provide more help and resources for alleged victims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regina.ctvnews.ca



Jesus...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Just going to put it out there while I'm slowly backing away........maybe no one wanted to talk to the spouse of a co-worker who was out getting her monkey punched?

I know I wouldn't......


----------



## btrudy

Kat Stevens said:


> Alleged victim.



Don't put words into my mouth. You're free to disbelieve if you wish, but literally none of us here are under any such obligation.


----------



## Kat Stevens

btrudy said:


> Don't put words into my mouth. You're free to disbelieve if you wish, but literally none of us here are under any such obligation.


So you have access to information none of the rest of us do to form your judgement? Too bad this poor fucker went and inconveniently died on you before you could oil up the torch and sharpen your pitchfork. She said it so it has to be true. Gotcha.


----------



## btrudy

Kat Stevens said:


> So you have access to information none of the rest of us do to form your judgement? Too bad this poor fucker went and inconveniently died on you before you could oil up the torch and sharpen your pitchfork. She said it so it has to be true. Gotcha.



I have a credible account of the events presented by the victim in question. 

That is literally all I need to believe her.


----------



## Jarnhamar

btrudy said:


> I don't see how we can pretend to value a victim-centric approach to sexual assault if senior officers refuse to give up even half an hour of their time to speak with a victim who's requesting it.


If I tell you I feel harassed by some of your statements here and want to speak with your supervisor are you going to take a victim-centric approach and provide me your supervisors contact information so I can request a meeting?


----------



## Kat Stevens

Guess we'll never know now, will we? And Amber is _*totes*_ innocent, she said so after all.


----------



## QV

btrudy said:


> I have a credible account of the events presented by the victim in question.
> 
> That is literally all I need to believe her.


“Credible”? How would you know it’s credible?


----------



## Takeniteasy

Once again, the amount of armchair quarterbacking is comical. This thread is an example of why people have found it hard to come forward to report. Unless you are directly involved with the alleged facts, events then you are simply speculating and from my experience many current and former members lack any faculty to address these matters. Just because you know someone, flew with them, served in the dirt beside them, sat beside them in morning briefs etc... does not mean you know them or that they are not capable of committing offences. We have many examples of members (proven truth/factual) doing things we cannot comprehend of wrap our brains around compared to the person we knew or thought we had known.

I lost my career after almost 22 years of busting my ass trying to prove I was of value to only hear well it's a sensitive topic and you need to know your place. Thankfully I have not gone the route of suicide (but that is just me saying to myself over and over "don't give them the satisfaction) but I have listened to many cans of BEERS over the years! I have also had to watch while my at the time commander has moved up in the ranks and is now head of a division. This is a person who tried to use verbal and physical intimidation to try and stop me from submitting a formal complaint. They were the first in a line of COC officers/Senior Command Chiefs who shit the bed and all I could do was sit there with no voice or power. It has taken 10 years and a ruling by a Human Rights Commissioned Lawyer for the Class Action to provide me with some smitten of truth in what I have been going through.

Review the three reports by former Supreme Court Judges and the CAF apology.  You can bet when I sit down for the so-called Restorative Justice meeting that not only my name will be used in the discussion but those who were the ones who perpetuated discriminatory behaviors. I have had to learn to stop making excuses for them and realize that it was not my fault for doing the right thing. But no worries they will not bear any weight; it has been mine to bare for the past ten years and for the future.

In my circumstances the CDS said in the Final Decision, the CAF does not preclude LGBT members from affiliating themselves with any group! Well, I belonged to the Canadian Armed Forces and that was the only group I should have needed to feel safe, my back covered, and valued!

These issues are not black and white and are extremely complicated but if you cannot agree while wearing the CAF uniform to upholding the highest of standards for human worth, dignity, and spirit then you need to find yourself another job. Ranting over....


----------



## Kilted

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Just going to put it out there while I'm slowly backing away........maybe no one wanted to talk to the spouse of a co-worker who was out getting her monkey punched?
> 
> I know I wouldn't.....





Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Just going to put it out there while I'm slowly backing away........maybe no one wanted to talk to the spouse of a co-worker who was out getting her monkey punched?
> 
> I know I wouldn't......


I think that this was a much more complicated situation than has been reported on.


----------



## FJAG

btrudy said:


> I don't see how we can pretend to value a victim-centric approach to sexual assault if senior officers refuse to give up even half an hour of their time to speak with a victim who's requesting it.


Senior officers getting involved in talking to victims and witnesses is a quick way for an allegation of command influence to be generated.

You leave investigations to the professionals and you leave victim support to the professionals.

🍻


----------



## QV

FJAG said:


> Senior officers getting involved in talking to victims and witnesses is a quick way for an allegation of command influence to be generated.
> 
> You leave investigations to the professionals and you leave victim support to the professionals.
> 
> 🍻


That’s a bit of legal advice many could/should have used over the years.


----------



## OldSolduer

btrudy said:


> Assuming that the claim is not a bald-faced lie, then yes, I am.


Hunting witches are you? All men are not to be believed? Have you no sense of justice?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Kilted said:


> I think that this was a much more complicated situation than has been reported on.



I'm with you. 

Also I am very sorry our organization treated you so poorly.  You didn't deserve that.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Brace, brace, brace....

On Oct. 11, Statistics Canada will begin conducting the 2022 Survey on Sexual Misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. CAF members will receive personalized links via email. The survey will remain open until Dec. 21, 2022.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1577735220639727616


----------



## kev994

daftandbarmy said:


> Brace, brace, brace....
> 
> On Oct. 11, Statistics Canada will begin conducting the 2022 Survey on Sexual Misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. CAF members will receive personalized links via email. The survey will remain open until Dec. 21, 2022.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1577735220639727616


Oh good, another voluntary/mandatory survey.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

btrudy said:


> Assuming that the claim is not a bald-faced lie, then yes, I am.



You, and anyone who thinks like this (guilty until proven innocent) are a massive problem in the CAF, and in Canada.


----------



## OldSolduer

Eye In The Sky said:


> You, and anyone who thinks like this (guilty until proven innocent) are a massive problem in the CAF, and in Canada.


The presumption of innocence is paramount...

Except on the crimes of sexual assault - at least in some peoples' minds.

There will always be those despite all evidence to the contrary that will say "He did it".


----------



## btrudy

OldSolduer said:


> The presumption of innocence is paramount...
> 
> Except on the crimes of sexual assault - at least in some peoples' minds.
> 
> There will always be those despite all evidence to the contrary that will say "He did it".



Again, the presumption of innocence is paramount for the criminal justice system. I am not the criminal justice system. 

I'm allowed to come to my own conclusions. You can't go through life never believing anything anyone says unless it's proven in court. If your buddy comes to you with "I caught my wife cheating on me", I wouldn't expect your response to be "Where's the court decision?".  If I go and punch my boss in the face, I sure as shit expect that action will be taken even before the court martial is conducted. 

Hell, I'm also allowed to make judgements that conflict with judgements that the criminal justice; Bill Cosby is still a rapist piece of shit, even if he got off on a technicality. 

*When someone says that they were raped, you're allowed to believe them*. 

The victim's account in this case seems perfectly credible to me, and I see no compelling reason I shouldn't believe her. 

And frankly, I think all y'all who seem default to always disbelieving any allegations of sexual assault are contributing immensely to the CAF's culture that routinely allows rapists to get off without consequences. You're doing a massive disservice to your fellow service members, and to Canada as a whole.


----------



## QV

btrudy said:


> The victim's account in this case seems perfectly credible to me, and I see no compelling reason I shouldn't believe her.


There will be differing opinions on the level of credibility based on the available information. How complainants act/react post incident, for example, may partially drive that opinion.


----------



## Jarnhamar

btrudy said:


> *When someone says that they were raped, you're allowed to believe them*.



Of course you are.

Personally I think 90% (or more) of the alligations of sexual assault in the CAF are legitimate.

I would also believe 90% (or more) of sexual assaults go unreported.


Part of the problem comes from the optics of people defending proceedural fairness. 
Some see that as not defending victims.

The truth is when proceedural fairness isn't followed guilty people go free. So it's vital we follow proceedural fairness to make sure victims get justice.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

btrudy thinks things need to change in the CAF,.......Also btrudy,......."march the guilty bastard in".


----------



## btrudy

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> btrudy thinks things need to change in the CAF,.......Also btrudy,......."march the guilty bastard in".



 Well fucking excuse me for thinking that a system which perpetuates sexual violence and shields abusers from consequences is absolutely a high priority for things to fix.

My bad. It's not like this, oh, I dunno, has been ruining our collective reputation for well over a decade or anything.


----------



## OldSolduer

Society itself has to change. 


Good luck


----------



## btrudy

OldSolduer said:


> Society itself has to change.
> 
> 
> Good luck



I would posit that it's at least feasible in theory for an organization which prides itself upon operating on the notion of "discipline" should at least in theory be able to lead the way in eliminating such behaviour from its ranks.

Mind you, seems like half the people on this board seem opposed to any actual actions taken to do so, so... y'know.


----------



## Furniture

btrudy said:


> Well fucking excuse me for thinking that a system which perpetuates sexual violence and shields abusers from consequences is absolutely a high priority for things to fix.
> 
> My bad. It's not like this, oh, I dunno, has been ruining our collective reputation for well over a decade or anything.


I think you missed the point entirely.

In the particular case that has been the topic of discussion lately, you seem to be quite happy to ignore the concerns raised regarding the investigation. I suspect you are quite happy ignoring the concerns for broadly the same reasons the MPs seem to have conducted themselves the way they did, wanting to see someone pay. i.e. "March the guilty bastard in" 

You can't fix a broken system by breaking the system in a different way. If people don't trust that they will get a fair investigation into allegations, then the system has failed.


----------



## btrudy

Furniture said:


> I think you missed the point entirely.
> 
> In the particular case that has been the topic of discussion lately, you seem to be quite happy to ignore the concerns raised regarding the investigation. I suspect you are quite happy ignoring the concerns for broadly the same reasons the MPs seem to have conducted themselves the way they did, wanting to see someone pay. i.e. "March the guilty bastard in"
> 
> You can't fix a broken system by breaking the system in a different way. If people don't trust that they will get a fair investigation into allegations, then the system has failed.



Simply put, no one here has convinced me that the concerns about the investigation are all that legitimate. I'm not a lawyer nor a police officer, but I was never under the impression that investigating officers are required to interview suspects. No one here has provided any evidence to the contrary.

Nor do the family's claims that these texts would be exonerating seem convincing. Certainly if said texts were released, I'd read 'em and might come to a different conclusion. But they haven't been, so I'm left basing my conclusions upon the evidence I do have available to me: the clearly articulated and credible sounding account that the victim in this case told to the media.

Guilty people proclaim their innocence all the time.


----------



## Jarnhamar

btrudy said:


> Simply put, no one here has convinced me


In order to be convincible one needs to have an open mind. You seem rather set in your ways and beliefs.


----------



## ModlrMike

This case is why I don't believe that the MPs or CFNIS should have the power to lay charges. We should align with what is practice in the civilian arena where the Crown prosecutor's office decides. 

To quote from Law & Order: In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: The police, who investigate crime, and the district attorneys, who prosecute the offenders.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Drinking to blackout, with another person your cheating with in a hotel room, makes you credible??


----------



## daftandbarmy

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Drinking to blackout, with another person your cheating with in a hotel room, *TWICE*, makes you credible??



There, FTFY


----------



## btrudy

ModlrMike said:


> This case is why I don't believe that the MPs or CFNIS should have the power to lay charges. We should align with what is practice in the civilian arena where the Crown prosecutor's office decides.
> 
> To quote from Law & Order: In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: The police, who investigate crime, and the district attorneys, who prosecute the offenders.



Uhhh maybe don't get your info from Law and Order? That's a different country. Police can and do lay charges in Canada; e.g. "Regina Police Service lay charges to Sunday's Amber Alert abductor"


----------



## ModlrMike

They do, but they shouldn't IMHO.


----------



## btrudy

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Drinking to blackout, with another person your cheating with in a hotel room, makes you credible??



Seems like a credible story to me. Are you under the impression that that's something that doesn't happen?


----------



## btrudy

daftandbarmy said:


> There, FTFY



No shit, people often give abusers more than one chance. This shouldn't be surprising to anyone who's been paying any attention at all.


----------



## btrudy

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Drinking to blackout, with another person your cheating with in a hotel room, makes you credible??



Actually, let me touch upon this again.

In your mind, the fact that she was drinking heavily ruins her credibility. Let's follow this line of reasoning to its natural conclusion. Ergo, women who are drinking heavily can't have their testimony trusted. Ergo, it's open season to rape anyone who ever gets really drunk with you, because you know that you'll get away with it. As long as there's no other witnesses, perfect crime.

You do realize just how absolutely shitty of a stance it is that you're taking here, right? 

Sometimes people who are sexually assaulted aren't perfect people. Sometimes the things they were doing aren't "respectable". 

That doesn't mean they're not entitled to justice when they are victimized. It doesn't mean that it a woman passed out drunk should be viewed as a slab of meat to stick your dick in, because who's going to believe her?


----------



## Jarnhamar

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Drinking to blackout, with another person your cheating with in a hotel room, makes you credible??



I don't have an opinion either way who's telling the truth and who isn't.

This story seems like there is way more to it than what we're reading about.

Not letting the civilian accuser have a one on one meeting with the accused's military supervisor was still the right call.


Maybe the way forward is for the CAF to have some type of support liaison officer who can offer victims support services and resources. Similar to a Designated Assistant role.
Not that we could logistically accomplish that at this time. A civilian liaison person maybe ?


----------



## Brad Sallows

Drinking heavily definitely ruins a person's credibility.  Are you going to stand by the rest of your chain of reasoning?


----------



## btrudy

Jarnhamar said:


> I don't have an opinion either way who's telling the truth and who isn't.
> 
> This story seems like there is way more to it than what we're reading about.
> 
> Not letting the civilian accuser have a one on one meeting with the accused's military supervisor was still the right call.
> 
> 
> Maybe the way forward is for the CAF to have some type of support liaison officer who can offer victims support services and resources. Similar to a Designated Assistant role.
> Not that we could logistically accomplish that at this time. A civilian liaison person maybe ?



Even civilians can request a Victim Liaison Officer (please note this system wasn't in place at the time), although I'm sure that 99.9% of them wouldn't be aware of that fact.


----------



## Jarnhamar

btrudy said:


> Even civilians can request a Victim Liaison Officer (please note this system wasn't in place at the time), although I'm sure that 99.9% of them wouldn't be aware of that fact.


I've clearly never heard of that. Thank you that's good information.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

btrudy said:


> In your mind, the fact that she was drinking heavily ruins her credibility. Let's follow this line of reasoning to its natural conclusion. Ergo, women who are drinking heavily can't have their testimony trusted.



Again with the sexism,  you really are a piece of work.


----------



## Kilted

OldSolduer said:


> Society itself has to change.
> 
> 
> Good luck


I remember the attitudes the other members of my BMQ had about women the day they showed up to BMQ many, many years ago. Let's just say that they weren't positive. New recruits now may be more afraid to say the same things out loud, but I'm sure many of them think the same way.


----------



## btrudy

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Again with the sexism,  you really are a piece of work.



Seriously? What the fuck it is with you and the stupid "that's sexist" claim any time someone _describes something that overwhelmingly happens to women? _

51% of women report it having happened to them. Fifty one fucking percent. 

Get your head out of your ass and try arguing in good faith for once.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

We  were discussing "credibility".....try and follow the train of thought  before you get vulgar please.

I dont think a drunk man is credible either.....


----------



## OldSolduer

btrudy said:


> Seriously? What the fuck it is with you and the stupid "that's sexist" claim any time someone _describes something that overwhelmingly happens to women? _
> 
> 51% of women report it having happened to them. Fifty one fucking percent.
> 
> Get your head out of your ass and try arguing in good faith for once.


Me thinks you doth protest too much. And I could tell you a few stories about being wrongfully accused but I sure it will fall on deaf ears.


----------



## Kilted

btrudy said:


> Seriously? What the fuck it is with you and the stupid "that's sexist" claim any time someone _describes something that overwhelmingly happens to women? _
> 
> 51% of women report it having happened to them. Fifty one fucking percent.
> 
> Get your head out of your ass and try arguing in good faith for once.


Not really sure as how that article is relevant to the discussion.  The testimony of a drunk person will always be less credible than if they were sober.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Relief of Duties for Member Deployed on Operation REASSURANCE – Maritime Task Force - Canada.ca
					

On October 2, 2022, Vice-Admiral Bob Auchterlonie, Commander Canadian Joint Operations Command (CJOC) relieved the Executive Officer of His Majesty’s Canadian Ship (HMCS) Kingston of their duties as a result of an alleged incident of inappropriate conduct of a sexualized nature that took place...




					www.canada.ca
				




On October 2, 2022, Vice-Admiral Bob Auchterlonie, Commander Canadian Joint Operations Command (CJOC) relieved the Executive Officer of His Majesty’s Canadian Ship (HMCS) _Kingston_ of her duties as a result of an alleged incident of inappropriate conduct of a sexualized nature that took place during a port visit in Lisbon, Portugal, while deployed on Operation REASSURANCE. The allegations have not been proven and an investigation into this incident is ongoing.


----------



## Halifax Tar

btrudy said:


> Again, the presumption of innocence is paramount for the criminal justice system. I am not the criminal justice system.



I am not going to engage in the dog pile or scuffle going on @btrudy, in this area we generally see the world through the same glasses. 

But I want to propose something to you.  You absolutely are the criminal justice system (CJS). The CJS only exists so long as the citizenry allows and generally abides by it.  It represents you and every other Canadian.  And it was created by and is adjusted by every Canadian, through or governmental processes. 

Not that I think you need to be an expert, but I do think you and I and every other Canadian are a part of it.


----------



## lenaitch

ModlrMike said:


> This case is why I don't believe that the MPs or CFNIS should have the power to lay charges. *We should align with what is practice in the civilian arena where the Crown prosecutor's office decides.*
> 
> To quote from Law & Order: In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: The police, who investigate crime, and the district attorneys, who prosecute the offenders.


That protocol is only in place in, I believe, Quebec and BC.  And it is just a protocol - the Criminal Code says otherwise.


----------



## ModlrMike

Then I stand corrected, but maintain my stance regarding the MPs and CFNIS.


----------



## captloadie

This is an example of a case that will always be divisive. There will be friends and family of the Major who will believe he was innocent and the system is to blame for him taking his life. There will be friends and family of the victim who will believe her, and think either his death was what he deserved, or that he took the easy way out and won't have to face the consequences of his actions.

There will be members on this forum who will be "triggered" and see this as another troubled CAF member who sadly resorted to suicide. There will be others who are "triggered" and see this as another example of the old boys club trying to make excuses for a rampant problem within the CAF.

We will all have our opinions, and we should be free to express them here, within reason. We should all try to be a little less defensive about when someone disagrees with our opinion, because at the end of the day, it is still only our opinion, whether it is backed up by facts, experience, or personal beliefs.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

captloadie said:


> This is an example of a case that will always be divisive. There will be friends and family of the Major who will believe he was innocent and the system is to blame for him taking his life. There will be friends and family of the victim who will believe her, and think either his death was what he deserved, or that he took the easy way out and won't have to face the consequences of his actions.
> 
> There will be members on this forum who will be "triggered" and see this as another troubled CAF member who sadly resorted to suicide. There will be others who are "triggered" and see this as another example of the old boys club trying to make excuses for a rampant problem within the CAF.
> 
> We will all have our opinions, and we should be free to express them here, within reason. We should all try to be a little less defensive about when someone disagrees with our opinion, because at the end of the day, it is still only our opinion, whether it is backed up by facts, experience, or personal beliefs.


Here Here!

I do like how many times you used the word triggered!  Everyone is triggered by everything these days!


----------



## Lumber

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Here Here!
> 
> I do like how many times you used the word triggered!  Everyone is triggered by everything these days!


I'm triggered by the fact that you just made an assumption about me.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Lumber said:


> I'm triggered by the fact that you just made an assumption about me.


I am now triggered by your assumption…


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Lumber said:


> I'm triggered by the fact that you just made an assumption about me.


I'm triggered you're assuming I made an assumption about you!


----------



## OldSolduer

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Here Here!
> 
> I do like how many times you used the word triggered!  Everyone is triggered by everything these days!


I am triggered by all the triggers people have for no good reason other than they are P&SSIES>


----------



## daftandbarmy

OldSolduer said:


> I am triggered by all the triggers people have for no good reason other than they are P&SSIES>



Coincidentally, I came across this recently:

Death Knell for Trigger Warnings?​
A new study says trigger warnings are useless. Does that mean they should be abandoned?


Trigger warnings don’t help students, and they might even hurt those grappling with serious trauma. That’s the upshot of a new study on trigger warnings published in _Clinical Psychological Science_.

Concerned about the use of trigger warnings absent clear evidence of their effectiveness, the authors conducted a series of experiments on 1,394 people, a mix of first-year psychology students at Victoria University of Wellington, in New Zealand and internet users. They wanted to know to what extent trigger warnings affect people's ratings of negative material and their symptoms of distress, namely "negative affect," intrusive thoughts and avoidance.

Subjects either watched or read content on topics from car accidents to domestic violence (content involving sexual violence was not part of the experiment -- more on that later). Some got trigger warnings about what was ahead, while others did not. Some reported experiencing traumatic events, such as a "really bad car" or other accident, or domestic abuse.

Afterward, subjects rated their negative emotional states, and the degree to which they experienced intrusive thoughts and tried to avoid thinking about the content. Some subjects were tested on their reading comprehension abilities following exposure to sensitive content.

A “mini meta-analysis” of the experiments revealed that trigger warnings didn’t make any difference. Subjects who saw them, compared with those who did not, judged the videos to be similarly negative, felt similarly negative, experienced similarly frequent intrusive thoughts and avoidance, and comprehended subsequent material similarly well.

By some measures, there was a slight helpful effect for trigger warnings. But the authors say that it was essentially insignificant, was "minuscule" compared to the effects of actual therapy and was possibly influenced by a placebo-like effect of seeing a trigger warning (trigger warnings are not supposed to be a substitute for therapy, of course, the article says). It's worth noting that a very small number of students withdrew from the experiment after seeing a trigger warning. And the existing psychological literature on traumatic stress suggests that avoidance is a coping mechanism that maintains the traumatic stress.

The study notes several limitations: researchers did not specifically recruit people with a history of psychopathology and did not ask about subjects’ socioeconomic status or education level. Plus, they say, trigger warnings “may have nontrivial effects we did not measure,” such as the vividness of intrusions -- not just frequency.

What does it all mean? The authors explore this, writing, “Some might wonder if professors should continue to issue trigger warnings. After all, if the warnings do not worsen distress and students believe the warnings are helpful, then why not?”

Ultimately, however, the authors are against trigger warnings. “Put simply,” they say, “people are not always good judges of the effects interventions have on themselves or others and the chronic effects of trigger warnings may be different from their acute effects. College students are increasingly anxious, and widespread adoption of trigger warnings in syllabi may promote this trend, tacitly encouraging students to turn to avoidance, thereby depriving them of opportunities to learn healthier ways to manage potential distress.”

Lead author Mevagh Sanson, a postdoctoral research fellow in psychology at New Zealand’s University of Waikato, didn’t equivocate Wednesday via email.

“Trigger warnings don’t help,” she said. “And they may still hurt -- the long-term consequences of avoidance have been addressed in related areas, and so we know that encouraging avoidance helps to maintain disorders such as PTSD.”









						New study says trigger warnings are useless. Does that mean they should be abandoned?
					

A new study says trigger warnings are useless. Does that mean they should be abandoned?




					www.insidehighered.com


----------



## Eaglelord17

There is many problems with sexual assault cases in this country. I would say it is one of the lowest prosecuted crimes in comparison to how much actually happens and has a fairly low conviction rate.

The reason for this is because it usually turns into a he said she said situation. Very rarely is there much physical evidence, the 'classic' rape situation (i.e. some random grabs and rapes a woman or man) very rarely happens. Usually it is between people who were dating or some other type of relationship and someone crosses a line, people were drunk, etc.

Statements are often taken years later as the victim usually doesn't want to come forward immediately. Having gone through the process myself, the biggest reason it took until 2015 for any change to our system was because of the way our system works. The people committing these crimes are your coworkers. Not just that these are the people you expect to have your back and potentially kill people with. The level of trust that is broken there is huge and creates huge stigmas to reporting. 'Don't blade your buddy'. Many will claim there was no problem in the CAF, but it all depended on where you were. The type of behavior which should never have been tolerated in the first place stopped immediately once Op Honour started.

Unfortunately because it is often a he said she said thing and the requirement is to prove guilt, many guilty people get off scot free because of the lack of evidence, not because the crime wasn't committed. Having read a good amount of CAF court martial summaries for sexual assault, there have been more than a few cases where the judge ruled not guilty but not because they didn't think anything happened. Rather nothing was conclusively proven.

ex. ON TARGET: Soldier alleges he faced reprisals for helping female colleague — espritdecorps There is a quote from another article on the same case which I shall include here but cannot include the link to due to army.ca's policies (specific writer) "In his ruling, the judge stated that clearly something happened at the base but the prosecutor had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt there had been a sexual assault or disgraceful conduct."

This is why I like not proven instead of not guilty. Allow the judge to make the decision on which to use. Not guilty if the evidence overwhelmingly exonerates the accused. 'Not proven' if on a balance of probabilities they did what they were accused of but there wasn't enough evidence to convict them. Then use the not proven verdict to allow them to get kicked out of the military because we don't need those types of people in our ranks.


----------



## Jarnhamar

[





Eaglelord17 said:


> This is why I like not proven instead of not guilty. Allow the judge to make the decision on which to use. Not guilty if the evidence overwhelmingly exonerates the accused. 'Not proven' if on a balance of probabilities they did what they were accused of but there wasn't enough evidence to convict them. Then use the not proven verdict to allow them to get kicked out of the military because we don't need those types of people in our ranks.



After everything you've seen from our peers and senior leadership do you really trust the military to have the power to kick people out even after the court not having enough evidence to discipline them?

We dont have any evidence but we still think you're guilty so you're out.

I understand the spirit of what you're saying here but man oh man would that get abused.


----------



## Eaglelord17

Jarnhamar said:


> [
> 
> After everything you've seen from our peers and senior leadership do you really trust the military to have the power to kick people out even after the court not having enough evidence to discipline them?
> 
> We dont have any evidence but we still think you're guilty so you're out.
> 
> I understand the spirit of what you're saying here but man oh man would that get abused.


Not enough evidence to convict them, very different that not having any evidence. 

Again allow the judge to use a balance of probabilities for determining which title to apply. This is a legal standard for civil cases and most companies terminate people over a balance of probabilities so it actually isn’t anything new for the vast majority of Canadians. 

We are willing to dismiss people for simply not getting a injection which is their charter right to refuse. If a judge has enough evidence to say they likely committed sexual assault but we can’t 100% prove it, thats all I need to see them evicted from the ranks.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

We have admin processes that can see people released, but the CAF doesn’t use the bare balance of probabilities, or shouldn’t, if we follow our own Mil Admin Law.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Setting "overwhelming evidence for exoneration" as the bar for "not guilty" should die as painfully and loudly as possible.  It's a huge jump down from that to "balance of probabilities".  Unless perhaps "not guilty" starts just above "balance of probabilities"?


----------



## QV

I’m starting to think some folks here need to live in a world where overwhelming evidence of exoneration is required for “not guilty”. I don’t want to live there, but they should.


----------



## OldSolduer

QV said:


> I’m starting to think some folks here need to live in a world where overwhelming evidence of exoneration is required for “not guilty”. I don’t want to live there, but they should.


A reasonable doubt is all that is needed for a determination of not guilty. Despite that, some will always think the perpetrator did it.


----------



## Haggis

OldSolduer said:


> A reasonable doubt is all that is needed for a determination of not guilty. Despite that, some will always think the perpetrator did it.


That's because there is the court of law and the court of public opinion.  A finding of "not guilty" in the former can lead to a finding of "got away with it" in the latter.  Ask VAdm Norman how that works.


----------



## OldSolduer

Haggis said:


> That's because there is the court of law and the court of public opinion.  A finding of "not guilty" in the former can lead to a finding of "got away with it" in the latter.  Ask VAdm Norman how that works.


Roger that.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Aaaaand the latest, out this morning ....


> On 19 October 2022, the Military Police laid service infraction charges against three Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) Officers in regards to a “Call-Sign Review Board” event at 409 Tactical F Squadron, 4 Wing Cold Lake, on 22 June 2022.
> 
> Two senior officers were charged pursuant to Queen’s Regulations and Orders (QR&O), 120.03(d), Failure to Effectively Carry Out Responsibilities for having failed to effectively enforce Defence Administrative Orders and Directives (DAOD) 9005-1, Sexual Misconduct Response, when an inappropriate call sign was proposed, discussed, and assigned during the event.
> 
> A junior officer was charged pursuant to QR&O 120.03(i), Undermining Discipline, Efficiency, or Moral for having participated in the assignment of an inappropriate call sign at the event contrary to DAOD 9005-1, Sexual Misconduct Response.
> 
> As the service infraction charges have been referred to the respective Commanding Officers of the persons charged for a determination to proceed with Summary Hearings, no additional information can be released by the Military Police.


Archived link here


----------



## Fabius

So what was the inappropriate call sign?


----------



## kev994

Fabius said:


> So what was the inappropriate call sign?


I assume this is the same incident that ‘delayed’ the Wing CoC. 








						3 Wing Change of Command “Delayed”
					

No details on why other than it relates to a call sign review board held in Cold Lake in Jun.   https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2022/08/statement-by-the-commander-of-the-royal-canadian-air-force.html?fbclid=IwAR2phCdYkNW3xlvciBToSjL2flNC40sA57kr6mZuTS3H0vQqM2Qfm6NsoEs




					army.ca
				




Mod edit just to fix link


----------



## OldSolduer

Fabius said:


> So what was the inappropriate call sign?


No kidding I’d like to know too.


----------



## KevinB

The Bread Guy said:


> Aaaaand the latest, out this morning ....
> 
> Archived link here


Shouldn't that be the KR&O's...

I see grounds for an appeal.


----------



## dapaterson

Legally speaking, the name of the instruments is embodied in QR&O 1.01, issued under the authority of the MND.

Until the MND amends the name, they remain QR&Os.

Maybe the name change will not be KR&O, but instead be something that isn't gendered, like the French version.


----------



## KevinB

dapaterson said:


> Legally speaking, the name of the instruments is embodied in QR&O 1.01, issued under the authority of the MND.
> 
> Until the MND amends the name, they remain QR&Os.


Of the top of my head don't those use Regina as the R. v Accused 
  Since the Sovereign is no longer female...



dapaterson said:


> Maybe the name change will not be KR&O, but instead be something that isn't gendered, like the French version.


----------



## dangerboy

KevinB said:


> Of the top of my head don't those use Regina as the R. v Accused
> Since the Sovereign is no longer female...


The have one now using "The King" in the upcoming Court Martial calendar but the rest are all still R. v


----------



## KevinB

dangerboy said:


> The have one now using "The King" in the upcoming Court Martial calendar but the rest are all still R. v
> 
> View attachment 74347


The King v. seems so much more ominous...


----------



## kev994

More details from CBC.


			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/corey-mask-call-sign-1.6623411


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Failure to carry out duties IAW DAOD 9005-1 has to be the most vague and kangaroo court sounding charges I've ever heard.  Time to retire my boys, just remember, the CAF needs you more than you need them 😉


----------



## dapaterson

KevinB said:


> Of the top of my head don't those use Regina as the R. v Accused
> Since the Sovereign is no longer female...


R can mean Regina, but fortunately the Latin would be Rex, so the abbreviation of R need not change.


----------



## KevinB

dapaterson said:


> R can mean Regina, but fortunately the Latin would be Rex, so the abbreviation of R need not change.


Not but the documentation of the abbreviation.  

Your point about making a non gender specific monarchy reference is growing on me..


----------



## dapaterson

The Monarch's Regulations and Orders.

The Royal Regulations and Orders.

Any number of options...


----------



## KevinB

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Failure to carry out duties IAW DAOD 9005-1 has to be the most vague and kangaroo court sounding charges I've ever heard.  Time to retire my boys, just remember, the CAF needs you more than you need them 😉


Depending what the C/S was one should figure that especially in this day and age, that childish behaviors in naming conventions are not acceptable.   By sitting back and ignoring the vote they effectively blessed it. 


Side comment: clearly it wasn’t that a committee same sex relationship if the complainant did in fact ‘go straight’ with one of the other pilots - but that’s not the issue.


----------



## OldSolduer

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Failure to carry out duties IAW DAOD 9005-1 has to be the most vague and kangaroo court sounding charges I've ever heard.  Time to retire my boys, just remember, the CAF needs you more than you need them 😉


Another catch all - I wonder if that lady that represented Admiral Norman would be interested.....


----------



## SupersonicMax

OldSolduer said:


> Another catch all - I wonder if that lady that represented Admiral Norman would be interested.....


Except that summary hearings are administrative in nature.


----------



## OldSolduer

SupersonicMax said:


> Except that summary hearings are administrative in nature.


Speaking of lawyers where has Michel Drapeau been lately or has he retired?


----------



## Remius

OldSolduer said:


> Speaking of lawyers where has Michel Drapeau been lately or has he retired?


Say his name three times in the mirror.  You’ll find out…


----------



## OldSolduer

Remius said:


> Say his name three times in the mirror.  You’ll find out…


no thanks, why tempt fate?


----------



## brihard

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Failure to carry out duties IAW DAOD 9005-1 has to be the most vague and kangaroo court sounding charges I've ever heard.  Time to retire my boys, just remember, the CAF needs you more than you need them 😉


Nah, this one was fairly egregious and blatantly stupid. The callsign was related to me in confidence by someone in a position to know; I won’t share it here out of respect for that confidence. But whatever dumbass thought this was going to fly (figuratively or literally) needs some serious correction, as does whoever in the chain ‘passed the fault’.


----------



## OldSolduer

brihard said:


> Nah, this one was fairly egregious and blatantly stupid. The callsign was related to me in confidence by someone in a position to know; I won’t share it here out of respect for that confidence. But whatever* dumbass *thought this was going to fly (figuratively or literally) needs some serious correction, as does whoever in the chain ‘passed the fault’.


THAT is the key word and there are far too many of those at all levels in every workplace. Trouble is what to do with them?

As I always say "If you're going to be the bad example at least be good at it".


----------



## Jarnhamar

I won't be able to sleep tonight unless I hear this guys callsign.


----------



## Haggis

dapaterson said:


> The Monarch's Regulations and Orders.
> 
> The Royal Regulations and Orders.
> *
> Any number of options...*


Including de-royalization.


----------



## dapaterson

Haggis said:


> Including de-royalization.


Except that would also require amending the French version; right now, it's only one clause in the English that requires amendment (and subsequent changes to the remainder of the volumes, as they draw their naming convention from that clause).

De-royalizing would be a larger undertaking.


----------



## Takeniteasy

Interesting that Iain H is at the top of this as the 1 CAD Commander and it involves rumors relating to a junior officer who is in a committed same sex relationship. I hope he performs his duties better this time around...


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

SupersonicMax said:


> Except that summary hearings are administrative in nature.



Whatever that means.  Again, I personally would just quit if I got slapped with this.  After all, it's *just administrative* right?  And I've got the administrative right to frig off 😉



brihard said:


> Nah, this one was fairly egregious and blatantly stupid. The callsign was related to me in confidence by someone in a position to know; I won’t share it here out of respect for that confidence. But whatever dumbass thought this was going to fly (figuratively or literally) needs some serious correction, as does whoever in the chain ‘passed the fault’.


Well it also appears that something was done about it, apparently there were "texts" exchanged and Marks did tell people to stop using it.  The CBC allegedly has these texts but didn't feel the need to release them, they just let everyone know they have them.

Alas, whatever was done about it wasn't enough and we have been given just enough information to be "outraged" but not enough to actually make any sort of informed decision. 

I wonder of all the other people in the room, how many of them all went "yah awesome nickname!" There were probably way more than 3 people in there, so why aren't they all getting skewered?

We also know the nickname was apparently about a member's alleged fling with another member who "was in a committed relationship".

*I think it's safe to say the CAF doesn't need summary hearings at this point, it needs the Maury Povich show.*







As I said, if this is where we are at now, it's time to retire. If I were Marks and Mask, I'd be putting my papers in tomorrow and going elsewhere.  Anywhere but the CAF would be a good start.

That actually brings up another interesting question, if these are just administrative in nature, can the CAF even hold a hearing for you after you've been released?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Takeniteasy said:


> Interesting that Iain H is at the top of this as the 1 CAD Commander and it involves rumors relating to a junior officer who is in a committed same sex relationship. *I hope he performs his duties better this time around...*








That line caught my eye, Spicy!


----------



## dimsum

Humphrey Bogart said:


> As I said, if this is where we are at now, it's time to retire. If I were Marks and Mask, I'd be putting my papers in tomorrow and going elsewhere. Anywhere but the CAF would be a good start.


I hear China is probably not the place to be for a fast jet person right now.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Jarnhamar said:


> I won't be able to sleep tonight unless I hear this guys callsign.



I'm just glad that the same rules of propriety don't apply to nicknames we Infantry folk give each other, or else...


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

dimsum said:


> I hear China is probably not the place to be for a fast jet person right now.


🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

I died laughing thinking about this!  Wonder if they would get given shares in Power Corp of Canada for their services? 😁

I can picture the phone ringing in the Provost Marshall's office with PMJT on the other line:

"Marks and Mask are off the table, they are TOO IMPORTANT to the cause, comprende!?"



daftandbarmy said:


> I'm just glad that the same rules of propriety don't apply to nicknames we Infantry folk give each other, or else...



Dead, all dead!  I'd be dead, you'd be dead, we'd all be dead!


----------



## Jarnhamar

Humphrey Bogart said:


> We also know the nickname was apparently about a member's alleged fling with another member who "was in a committed relationship".


Fucking classy right there.

Wait, maybe they _didn't know any better_. We better load them on The Path to Dignity and Respect and Trusted to Serve.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Jarnhamar said:


> Fucking classy right there.
> 
> Wait, maybe they _didn't know any better_. We better load them on The Path to Dignity and Respect and Trusted to Serve.



Brainwashing stations opening now, no waiting!


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Jarnhamar said:


> Fucking classy right there.
> 
> Wait, maybe they _didn't know any better_. We better load them on The Path to Dignity and Respect and Trusted to Serve.


The fling or the nickname 🤣

Definitely need a DLN course on flings, it seems to be a problem on Air Force bases anyways.

I can think of some core material I'd add:


----------



## Kat Stevens

removed


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Fabius said:


> So what was the inappropriate call sign?


I have a friend who flew F15s in the USAF.  She retired as a 2*.  Her C/S was Mounds.  Because Almond Joys got nuts....  As time went by, she found this less and less amusing....


----------



## TacticalTea

Kevin Spacey innocent.

Only tangentially related, but it's yet another highly public case that falls through.



> “I’ve learned a lesson, which is never apologize for something you didn’t do,” he said.


----------



## OldSolduer

daftandbarmy said:


> I'm just glad that the same rules of propriety don't apply to nicknames we Infantry folk give each other, or else...


Oh the terms of endearment when "dumbass" is a minor nickname


----------



## Journeyman

For whatever it's worth, the PhD played by Kelly McGillis in Top Gun in the movie was called "Charlie." The c/s of the real woman in Miramar was "Legs."


----------



## Furniture

Journeyman said:


> For whatever it's worth, the PhD played by Kelly McGillis in Top Gun in the movie was called "Charlie." The c/s of the real woman in Miramar was "Legs."


Equally as un-useful, the nickname of two of my Sgts in Cold Lake back in '01 was "Flamer"... They each referred to one another that way.

Point being, what was accepted even 21 years ago is not acceptable today, so why would a reference to a movie filmed near 40 years ago matter?


----------



## dimsum

Journeyman said:


> For whatever it's worth, the PhD played by Kelly McGillis in Top Gun in the movie was called "Charlie." The c/s of the real woman in Miramar was "Legs."


When an 80s action movie has to tone something down for being too misogynistic...


----------



## Journeyman

Furniture said:


> Point being, what was accepted even 21 years ago is not acceptable today, so why would a reference to a movie filmed near 40 years ago matter?


It matters not at all.  

I apparently missed the "legitimately footnoted relevance" clause for all Army.ca posts. I'll try to do better. 1

1.  That's sarcasm, by the way.


----------



## The Bread Guy

This just in - (yet?) another set of eyes to look things over ....


> Today, the Minister of National Defence, Anita Anand, announced the appointment of Madame Jocelyne Therrien as External Monitor to oversee the Department of National Defence (DND) and Canadian Armed Forces’ (CAF) efforts to address sexual misconduct and harassment on the Defence Team. In particular, Madame Therrien will monitor National Defence’s implementation of the various recommendations of former Supreme Court Justice Madame Arbour’s Independent External Comprehensive Review (IECR) into harassment and sexual misconduct on the Defence Team. This appointment delivers on recommendation 48 of the report, and will help ensure that meaningful culture change within the DND/CAF continues to occur.
> 
> Madame Therrien is a former executive of the Office of the Auditor General of Canada where she conducted numerous audits of federal government entities and led the Parliamentary and International portfolios. Recently, she was part of the review of four cases of workplace harassment within the RCMP. Madame Therrien began her federal public service career as a parole officer.
> 
> The External Monitor reports to the Minister of National Defence and has been appointed by the Governor in Council for an initial term of one year ...


----------



## dapaterson

That's one of the Arbour recommendations.


----------



## SupersonicMax

dapaterson said:


> That's one of the Arbour recommendations.








At least one recommendation is addressed!


----------



## daftandbarmy

The Bread Guy said:


> This just in - (yet?) another set of eyes to look things over ....



Good move. 

Now the MND and CDS can blame her when it doesn't work


----------



## Navy_Pete

And an update on this one; looks like a couple of summary trials. Really annoying as now I'm highly curious what the nickname is. With all the secrecy it's either really bad or this is really overblown, can't figure out which. Unfortunately nothing will be on record like a CM so will never know.

Which I suppose is probably for the best, as it will probably stick anyway (at least behind that person's back).

Will they now reconvene the board to pick a new call sign? Or maybe just put together a call sign generator and have it randomly assigned for fun.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/military-misconduct-edmonton-alberta-1.6666993


> 'Inappropriate' fighter pilot nickname leads to charges against 2 senior Air Force officers​​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lee Berthiaume  · The Canadian Press  · Posted: Nov 28, 2022 2:07 PM MT | Last Updated: 1 hour ago
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Canadian Armed Forces CF-18 fighter jet taxis after landing in Kuwait on October 28, 2014.  Two senior Air Force officers have been charged for allegedly failing to stop a group of fighter pilots from assigning an inappropriate nickname to another member.  (DND, Handout/Canadian Press)
> Two senior Air Force officers have been charged for allegedly failing to stop a group of fighter pilots from assigning an inappropriate nickname to another member in June.
> Col. Colin Marks and Lt.-Col. Corey Mask each face one charge of failing to effectively carry out their responsibilities and will face disciplinary hearings, according to the Royal Canadian Air Force.
> Specifically, military police have accused the two officers of having failed to enforce the military's orders when it comes to preventing and addressing sexual misconduct.
> Neither Marks nor Mask responded to requests for comment on Monday.
> Air Force spokesman Maj. Trevor Reid said in a statement Monday that both officers were charged last month.
> The charges are not criminal in nature, and Reid said their hearings will be conducted by other officers in Cold Lake, Alta.
> 
> Fighter squadron commander removed from post after probe into sexually explicit pilot call sign
> A summary hearing is scheduled for Mask on Dec. 5 and will be heard by the commander of military cadets, Brig.-Gen. Jamie Speiser-Blanchet.
> Marks's hearing is scheduled for Dec. 12 and will be conducted by Col. Robert McBride, commander of 3rd Canadian Division Support Base Edmonton.
> Neither hearing will be open to the public, Reid said.
> "The Royal Canadian Air Force believes in a just culture, centred upon supporting victims and their well-being," Reid said in a written statement.
> "We also believe in our members and in their ability and commitment to learn from their mistakes and to always strive to be better. The results of the summary hearings will be communicated following their conclusion."
> Disciplinary response​A third, more junior officer was also charged with undermining discipline or morale "for having participated in the assignment of an inappropriate call sign," Reid said.
> "Following a review of evidence, a summary hearing for this officer was determined to not be appropriate; rather, the chain-of-command has applied separate administrative measures as a disciplinary response."
> The third officer's name was not released.
> Administrative measures, which typically involve warnings and reprimands, have also been imposed on a number of other officers ranging in rank from second lieutenant to major, Reid added.
> The charges and disciplinary actions stem from an informal meeting known as a "call sign review board" on June 22 at one of Canada's two main fighter jet bases, 4 Wing Cold Lake in Alberta.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A pilot positions a CF-18 fighter jet at the CFB Cold Lake, in Cold Lake, Alta. on Tuesday, October 21, 2014.  The charges and disciplinary actions stem from an informal meeting this summer at 4 Wing Cold Lake in Alberta. (Jason Franson/The Canadian Press)
> Despite their formal-sounding names, former fighter pilots have described such review boards as informal meetings after major training exercises or operations in which pilots assign nicknames, or call signs, to newer members over drinks.
> According to the air force, during the meeting in June, several fighter pilots proposed, discussed and assigned an "inappropriate" call sign for another pilot.
> Air Force commander Lt.-Gen. Eric Kenny first revealed an investigation into the meeting on June 22 when he announced in August that a ceremony to install Marks as commander of Canada's other fighter jet base, 3 Wing in Bagotville, Que., was being delayed.
> 'Exceptional circumstances'​The revelation cast a spotlight on a long-standing tradition in Canada's military of assigning call signs at a time when the military is still dealing with the fallout from a rash of inappropriate — and in some cases criminal — behaviour by senior officers.
> Retired lieutenant-colonel Rory Fowler, who is now a lawyer specializing on military cases, questioned the decision to conduct the hearings for Marks and Mask behind closed doors.
> "While an officer conducting a summary hearing does have the discretion to close part, or all of a hearing, the expectation is that such a derogation from transparency will only arise in exceptional circumstances," Fowler said in an email.


----------



## daftandbarmy

I don't care what anyone thinks...  this is pretty funny:


----------



## Quirky

daftandbarmy said:


>



Would probably get people hanged for that today.


----------



## Lumber

Quirky said:


> Would probably get people hanged for that today.


"Blow" Jobin


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Quirky said:


> Would probably get people hanged for that today.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Navy_Pete said:


> And an update on this one; looks like a couple of summary trials. Really annoying as now I'm highly curious what the nickname is. With all the secrecy it's either really bad or this is really overblown, can't figure out which. Unfortunately nothing will be on record like a CM so will never know.
> 
> Which I suppose is probably for the best, as it will probably stick anyway (at least behind that person's back).
> 
> Will they now reconvene the board to pick a new call sign? Or maybe just put together a call sign generator and have it randomly assigned for fun.
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/military-misconduct-edmonton-alberta-1.6666993


Summary Hearing, not Trial.


----------



## brihard

SeaKingTacco said:


> Summary Hearing, not Trial.


Seems to be the sort of boneheaded move where relatively prompt _professional discipline_ is more called for than charging an _offense_. I hope the new system is working out as intended.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

brihard said:


> Seems to be the sort of boneheaded move where relatively prompt _professional discipline_ is more called for than charging an _offense_. I hope the new system is working out as intended.


We will see. There was an Air Force wide email on the matter, today.


----------



## brihard

SeaKingTacco said:


> We will see. There was an Air Force wide email on the matter, today.


Before the hearing? Huh. What was the gist of it?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

brihard said:


> Before the hearing? Huh. What was the gist of it?


Accused have the presumption of innocence…we take misconduct seriously and will learn from this…we are victim focussed. That sort of thing.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

SeaKingTacco said:


> We will see. There was an Air Force wide email on the matter, today.



It must not have made it thru the LRP firewall...or not to my level, at least.


----------



## GR66

Eye In The Sky said:


> It must not have made it thru the LRP firewall...or not to my level, at least.


Well, he did say it was AIR FORCE wide...


----------



## Kilted

Furniture said:


> Equally as un-useful, the nickname of two of my Sgts in Cold Lake back in '01 was "Flamer"... They each referred to one another that way.
> 
> Point being, what was accepted even 21 years ago is not acceptable today, so why would a reference to a movie filmed near 40 years ago matter?


Because Top Gun will always matter.


----------



## Kilted

SeaKingTacco said:


> Accused have the presumption of innocence…we take misconduct seriously and will learn from this…we are victim focussed. That sort of thing.


Potential judicial interference.  Is there such a thing as a mishearing?


----------



## kev994

Eye In The Sky said:


> It must not have made it thru the LRP firewall...or not to my level, at least.


It went to the WComds and the MGen asked them to distribute it to their wings 🤷‍♂️.


----------



## dimsum

GR66 said:


> Well, he did say it was AIR FORCE wide...


Considering that LRP works far more with navies than with other elements (although not as much as MH), there is a non-zero number of people who wouldn't mind LRP becoming Naval Aviation.

But I digress.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

dimsum said:


> Considering that LRP works far more with navies than with other elements (although not as much as MH), there is a non-zero number of people who wouldn't mind LRP becoming Naval Aviation.
> 
> But I digress.



I should get my sqn patch done up as VP 4XX to "start the wave"...


----------



## daftandbarmy

dimsum said:


> Considering that LRP works far more with navies than with other elements (although not as much as MH), there is a non-zero number of people who wouldn't mind LRP becoming Naval Aviation.
> 
> But I digress.



It's all about the phallic symbols


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Can someone just tell me what the Callsign was?  😁


----------



## QV

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Can someone just tell me what the Callsign was?  😁


We must know this.


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:


> I should get my sqn patch done up as VP 4XX to "start the wave"...


Start wearing it around and see how long it takes for people to notice.

Back on topic - the Reddit thread continues to be a source of facepalm "entertainment": 

Some folks complaining that the RCAF / CAF is "too thin-skinned"
Some folks wondering why this is news when the CAF has more serious sexual misconduct 

Some folks again thinking that anyone with more rank than a Cpl is a predatory idiot


----------



## Lumber

QV said:


> We must know this.


According to this reddit thread, it was FAWG. Read the reddit comment to see the meaning.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Lumber said:


> According to this reddit thread, it was FAWG. Read the reddit comment to see the meaning.



I’d REALLY like to believe that is not factual and that, in this place we are at, with the recent (5 year history of bad press for the CAF on this subj), that this was not the C/S.


----------



## MJP

dimsum said:


> Start wearing it around and see how long it takes for people to notice.
> 
> Back on topic - the Reddit thread continues to be a source of facepalm "entertainment":
> 
> Some folks complaining that the RCAF / CAF is "too thin-skinned"
> Some folks wondering why this is news when the CAF has more serious sexual misconduct
> 
> Some folks again thinking that anyone with more rank than a Cpl is a predatory idiot


You forgot that every other post was wondering what the CS was.

There are some good aspects of the subreddit but it is vastly under shadowed by the everything above Cpl is useless circle jerk.  It is also over-moderated, much like army.ca use to be by some but they get away with it cause not many understand how Reddit postings in a subreddit work.  In essence they can set it so every post or new topic is subject to approval before it is seen by the public or they can shadow ban folks that call them out. 

.


----------



## Quirky

Reddit subs are setup as dictatorships with the mods in charge, it needs a serious Musk intervention. Question something that’s against the sub narrative? You’ll get “downvoted” and probably banned because you offended the moderator. Comments are hidden because the eco chamber of the sub doesn’t approve of your opinion. China admires Reddit.

For the callsign issue, sure, charge them I guess. I won’t lose sleep over it whatever happens.


----------



## MJP

Quirky said:


> Reddit subs are setup as dictatorships with the mods in charge, it needs a serious Musk intervention. Question something that’s against the sub narrative? You’ll get “downvoted” and probably banned because you offended the moderator. Comments are hidden because the eco chamber of the sub doesn’t approve of your opinion. China admires Reddit.


The funny thing is like many dictatorships the people that use the r/Canadianforcess Subreddit love the moderator team, not realizing how much they control the narrative.  China indeed would love their methods


----------



## brihard

Lumber said:


> According to this reddit thread, it was FAWG. Read the reddit comment to see the meaning.


I’ve had that corroborated from another source, for what little that’s worth.

Pretty effing stupid on the part of those involved, if this is reported accurately.


----------



## Furniture

brihard said:


> I’ve had that corroborated from another source, for what little that’s worth.
> 
> Pretty effing stupid on the part of those involved, if this is reported accurately.


It's a pretty sad state of affairs in the RCAF when senior people can't understand how that callsign is entirely inappropriate. 

For any future RCAF Col's in waiting, if a callsign is a suggested search term on p***hub, it's inappropriate.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

So was it Grinder, FOG or FAWG?  

The jury still appears to be out.  



Furniture said:


> It's a pretty sad state of affairs in the RCAF when senior people can't understand how that callsign is entirely inappropriate.
> 
> For any future RCAF Col's in waiting, if a callsign is a suggested search term on *p***hub*, it's inappropriate.


Canadian owned!  They are just doing their part to support Québec Industrial Regional Benefits.


----------



## dapaterson

Interestingly, the QR&O chapter on summary proceedings says they should normally be open to the public  The decision to close these ones suggests that the leadership is still thinking damage control.

Of course, NDA 20(1) states that commissions are granted during pleasure, suggesting a fairly low legal bar to tossing officers out of the CAF.  But alleged "procedural fairness" means a lot of garbage is indefinitely retained instead.


----------



## OldSolduer

brihard said:


> I’ve had that corroborated from another source, for what little that’s worth.
> 
> Pretty effing stupid on the part of those involved, if this is reported accurately.


Not a terribly brilliant choice.


----------



## MJP

dapaterson said:


> Interestingly, the QR&O chapter on summary proceedings says they should normally be open to the public  The decision to close these ones suggests that the leadership is still thinking damage control.
> 
> Of course, NDA 20(1) states that commissions are granted during pleasure, suggesting a fairly low legal bar to tossing officers out of the CAF.  But alleged "procedural fairness" means a lot of garbage is indefinitely retained instead.


One of the most disappointing summary trials of was for a WO accused of sexual harassment  ( jerking off in the shower at the base gym) that the Bde commander held in his office.  Excellent officer and leader but the fact he would want to shield the WO from public scrutiny was telling.

When I pointed out my concern,  I was told by my boss (the WO was one of his subordinates) to drop the issue.


While my boss was a push over, so I don't account his actions entirely to his own devising it left a bad taste in my mouth


----------



## dimsum

MJP said:


> WO accused of sexual harassment ( jerking off in the shower at the base gym)


Wait, like the communal showers?  I'm not sure what charge should be laid but "harassment" doesn't seem fitting.


----------



## dapaterson

The mystery pooper in the Carling showers enters the conversation.


----------



## MJP

dimsum said:


> Wait, like the communal showers?  I'm not sure what charge should be laid but "harassment" doesn't seem fitting.


I didn't see all the evidence(see also closed Bde Comd held summary trial) but that was my understanding.

I agree with you and struggle with why this cat wasn't kicked the fuck out


----------



## ballz

MJP said:


> I didn't see all the evidence(see also closed Bde Comd held summary trial) but that was my understanding.
> 
> I agree with you and struggle with why this cat wasn't kicked the fuck out



If we're talking of the same jerking off in the shower guy, then he was promoted to MWO. Surely there was only one in Edmonton? I just had no idea he was a WO when it happened.


----------



## OldSolduer

dapaterson said:


> The mystery pooper in the Carling showers enters the conversation.


Every unit has one.


----------



## daftandbarmy

brihard said:


> I’ve had that corroborated from another source, for what little that’s worth.
> 
> Pretty effing stupid on the part of those involved, if this is reported accurately.



Seconded... it's not even slightly witty, which is an even better reason to punish the offending pair.


----------



## Kilted

dapaterson said:


> Interestingly, the QR&O chapter on summary proceedings says they should normally be open to the public  The decision to close these ones suggests that the leadership is still thinking damage control.
> 
> Of course, NDA 20(1) states that commissions are granted during pleasure, suggesting a fairly low legal bar to tossing officers out of the CAF.  But alleged "procedural fairness" means a lot of garbage is indefinitely retained instead.


Well, that is the same term of office for the Prime Minister as well.


----------



## Kilted

MJP said:


> One of the most disappointing summary trials of was for a WO accused of sexual harassment  ( jerking off in the shower at the base gym) that the Bde commander held in his office.  Excellent officer and leader but the fact he would want to shield the WO from public scrutiny was telling.
> 
> When I pointed out my concern,  I was told by my boss (the WO was one of his subordinates) to drop the issue.
> 
> While my boss was a push over and IMHO weak at best, so I don't account his actions entirely to his own devising it left a bad taste in my mouth.


Well, was this individual discovered because someone was spying on him?


----------



## QV

Lumber said:


> According to this reddit thread, it was FAWG. Read the reddit comment to see the meaning.


SMDH


----------



## Furniture

Kilted said:


> Well, was this individual discovered because someone was spying on him?


Now I'm curious... Was the subject WO cleaning vigorously in their own stall and someone decided to check on them, or was this a public thing? 

Definitely changes the dynamic if the former and not the latter.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Dr. Lockyer's restorative justice session update:



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1597734422337695744


----------



## MJP

Kilted said:


> Well, was this individual discovered because someone was spying on him?


The showers in question were completely open to anyone.


----------



## MJP

ballz said:


> If we're talking of the same jerking off in the shower guy, then he was promoted to MWO. Surely there was only one in Edmonton? I just had no idea he was a WO when it happened.


Same guy.. The fact they promoted* him was worse made even worse by the fact they were absolutely useless at their job.  We celebrated them being able to manage a single traffic control point during a bde road move.

It was hilarious at best and completely CAF standard

 *EDIT -  Note I was wrong. guy wasn't promoted after, was always a MWO


----------



## Weinie

dapaterson said:


> The mystery pooper in the Carling showers enters the conversation.


I REALLY had to go. Sigh. Now do you understand?


----------



## dapaterson

Weinie said:


> I REALLY had to go. Sigh. Now do you understand?


But twice!


----------



## Weinie

dapaterson said:


> But twice!


Taco Tuesday


----------



## brihard

MJP said:


> The showers in question were completely open to anyone.


How do people _still _not have “put your dick away at work” figured out?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

MJP said:


> The showers in question were completely open to anyone.



Jesus.


----------



## Halifax Tar

brihard said:


> How do people _still _not have “put your dick away at work” figured out?



It's shocking the amount of people who don't understand this.


----------



## MilEME09

brihard said:


> How do people _still _not have “put your dick away at work” figured out?


Needs a DLN course, and signage clearly


----------



## dimsum

MilEME09 said:


> Needs a DLN course, and signage clearly


I can see some pretty good signs coming out of that.  I support just for the memes.


----------



## dapaterson

We obviously need a "no masturbation in the showers" pictogram.


----------



## kev994

dimsum said:


> I can see some pretty good signs coming out of that.  I support just for the memes.


The only way to solve this is to make a rule that doesn’t address the real source, and then vigorously enforce that rule.


----------



## dapaterson

Excess vigor is what got us here in the first place.


----------



## brihard

kev994 said:


> The only way to solve this is to make a rule that doesn’t address the real source, and then vigorously enforce that rule.


Vigorously something, anyway.


----------



## daftandbarmy

dapaterson said:


> Excess vigor self-righteousness is what got us here in the first place.



There, FTFY


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

brihard said:


> How do people _still _not have “put your dick away at work” figured out?


Maybe the member has prostate issues and was recommended to conduct pressure relieving exercises a few times a day by a medical professional?









						Role of ejaculation in the treatment of chronic non-bacterial prostatitis - PubMed
					

Young men who are single and suffering from NBP must be informed about their illness in detail and, if they are not doing so, they should be encouraged to ejaculate regularly, for example by masturbation in the absence of a sexual relationship with a partner. We believe that normal sexual...




					pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov


----------



## KevinB

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Maybe the member has prostate issues and was recommended to conduct pressure relieving exercises a few times a day by a medical professional?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Role of ejaculation in the treatment of chronic non-bacterial prostatitis - PubMed
> 
> 
> Young men who are single and suffering from NBP must be informed about their illness in detail and, if they are not doing so, they should be encouraged to ejaculate regularly, for example by masturbation in the absence of a sexual relationship with a partner. We believe that normal sexual...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 75202


I must have missed the ‘fact’ that public display of such activities helped…


----------



## Kat Stevens

Hey man, my soap, my dick. I’ll wash it as long and as vigorously as I want.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

KevinB said:


> I must have missed the ‘fact’ that public display of such activities helped…


It's only public if you're looking 😉


----------



## Journeyman

Avoided "extramarital sexual intercourse for personal and/or religious beliefs."  I can't wait to show my wife (and a few 'non-marital' women) that prescription. "sorry hun, I can't be avoiding those women; it's for my health."


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Journeyman said:


> Avoided "extramarital sexual intercourse for personal and/or religious beliefs."  I can't wait to show my wife (and a few 'non-marital' women) that prescription. "sorry hun, I can't be avoiding those women; it's for my health."


I have some professional acquaintances from some of our "foreign partner" nations that explained to me that their wife understood that they "needed comfort" while they were away for extended periods.  It was important for their mental health.  

We shouldn't judge, it's 2022 and that would be culturally insensitive.  😄😄


----------



## GK .Dundas

QV said:


> That’s a bit of legal advice many could/should have used over the years.





Humphrey Bogart said:


> Maybe the member has prostate issues and was recommended to conduct pressure relieving exercises a few times a day by a medical professional?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Role of ejaculation in the treatment of chronic non-bacterial prostatitis - PubMed
> 
> 
> Young men who are single and suffering from NBP must be informed about their illness in detail and, if they are not doing so, they should be encouraged to ejaculate regularly, for example by masturbation in the absence of a sexual relationship with a partner. We believe that normal sexual...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 75202


Uh-huh and that's his story and he's sticking to it.


----------



## Kilted

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Maybe the member has prostate issues and was recommended to conduct pressure relieving exercises a few times a day by a medical professional?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Role of ejaculation in the treatment of chronic non-bacterial prostatitis - PubMed
> 
> 
> Young men who are single and suffering from NBP must be informed about their illness in detail and, if they are not doing so, they should be encouraged to ejaculate regularly, for example by masturbation in the absence of a sexual relationship with a partner. We believe that normal sexual...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 75202


I know of someone who had a medical chit for that.


----------



## Kilted

kev994 said:


> The only way to solve this is to make a rule that doesn’t address the real source, and then vigorously enforce that rule.


We clearly need duty officers in every shower to ensure strict professionalism.


----------



## The Bread Guy

GK .Dundas said:


> Uh-huh and that's his story and he's sticking to it.


_"It's not what it looks like."_


----------



## Good2Golf

GK .Dundas said:


> Uh-huh and that's his story and he's sticking to it.


…so is his Happy Sock.


----------



## Weinie

GK .Dundas said:


> Uh-huh and that's his story and he's sticking to it.


As long as he doesn't _stick t_o anything else.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Kilted said:


> I know of someone who had a medical chit for that.



I know someone who had a chit to go have sex with his wife on her demand.


----------



## Ostrozac

Halifax Tar said:


> I know someone who had a chit to go have sex with his wife on her demand.


That is the top MEL I have ever heard of. 2nd best is a member who had an ‘unlimited naps’ chit — who could just crash out whenever he wanted. 3rd best was very specific to TD — member couldn’t fly economy class because they needed room to stretch, and so flew business class only.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Ostrozac said:


> That is the top MEL I have ever heard of. 2nd best is a member who had an ‘unlimited naps’ chit — who could just crash out whenever he wanted. 3rd best was very specific to TD — member couldn’t fly economy class because they needed room to stretch, and so flew business class only.



They were having some trouble conceiving child, so the chit was when wifie called and said the oven was warmed up, he had to rush home and put a bun in it.  Dude was my CSM.  One of the best I have ever worked for.  I tried to learn a lot from his leadership and replicate it.


----------



## Journeyman

Halifax Tar said:


> They were having some trouble conceiving child, so the chit was when wifie called and said the oven was warmed up, he had to rush home and put a bun in it.  Dude was my CSM.  One of the best I have ever worked for.  I tried to learn a lot from his leadership and replicate it.


Was his wife OK with that?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Journeyman said:


> Was his wife OK with that?



Perhaps that did present they I meant it lol hahaha


----------



## lenaitch

Ostrozac said:


> That is the top MEL I have ever heard of. 2nd best is a member who had an ‘unlimited naps’ chit — who could just crash out whenever he wanted. 3rd best was very specific to TD — member couldn’t fly economy class because they needed room to stretch, and so flew business class only.


I know a member who is 7' and may have the same accommodation.


----------



## MilEME09

Get the popcorn ready for this











						Maj.-Gen. Dany Fortin acquitted on 1988 sexual assault charge
					

A Quebec civilian judge has acquitted Maj.-Gen. Dany Fortin of sexual assault over an allegation that dates back to 1988. Judge Richard Meredith said he believes the complainant was sexually assaulted, but said the Crown did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that it was Fortin who had...




					www.ctvnews.ca


----------



## PuckChaser

Ouch. Reasonable doubt that it was even him. The witchhunt probably should have nailed that detail down before laying charges.


----------



## FormerHorseGuard

so what happens to his career now? back on track or ruined for life?


----------



## Navy_Pete

MilEME09 said:


> Get the popcorn ready for this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maj.-Gen. Dany Fortin acquitted on 1988 sexual assault charge
> 
> 
> A Quebec civilian judge has acquitted Maj.-Gen. Dany Fortin of sexual assault over an allegation that dates back to 1988. Judge Richard Meredith said he believes the complainant was sexually assaulted, but said the Crown did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that it was Fortin who had...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ctvnews.ca


Will be interested to see if this one goes for an AR, despite the fact that his career is basically foxed anyway.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

PuckChaser said:


> Ouch. Reasonable doubt that it was even him. The witchhunt probably should have nailed that detail down before laying charges.


I hope he wore his uniform to Court.


----------



## Remius

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I hope he wore his uniform to Court.


Looks like no.



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/judge-delivers-verdict-maj-gen-dany-fortin-case-1.6673070


----------



## Zoomie

L3/L4 town hall with CDS tomorrow for CT - anybody gonna ask him about Fortin?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Zoomie said:


> L3/L4 town hall with CDS tomorrow for CT - anybody gonna ask him about Fortin?



Uh... maybe not


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Zoomie said:


> L3/L4 town hall with CDS tomorrow for CT - anybody gonna ask him about Fortin?



I think you'll find that most folks are fools, not idiots. Timing and all that....


----------



## Jarnhamar

Zoomie said:


> L3/L4 town hall with CDS tomorrow for CT - anybody gonna ask him about Fortin?


While anyone is at it ask about a gang rape survivor being belittled about their mental health during a "healing symposium". 

And a Navy Chief Petty Officer1 "overstepping" her boundaries.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Jarnhamar said:


> While anyone is at it ask about a gang rape survivor being belittled about their mental health during a "healing symposium".
> 
> And a Navy Chief Petty Officer1 "overstepping" her boundaries.


Pardon??


----------



## Lumber

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Pardon??


I'd share the article, but it's by he who shall not be named, and we're not allowed to share his articles drivel.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Jarnhamar said:


> While anyone is at it ask about a gang rape survivor being belittled about their mental health during a "healing symposium".
> 
> And a Navy Chief Petty Officer1 "overstepping" her boundaries.



And, to be exact, a MARLANT Formation CPO.   I’ll assume she will be removed from that post, as would happen if it was a male who overstepped the mark.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Eye In The Sky said:


> And, to be exact, a MARLANT Formation CPO.   I’ll assume she will be removed from that post, as would happen if it was a male who overstepped the mark.


She probably just didn't know better, and will do better in the future.

I'm not sure if it's due to a guilty conscience or just because she knew she was caught but at least she came forward to apologize (and leave the symposium). Seems like a bunch others stayed under the radar.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Maybe she was just using her courage and power…









						CPO1 Alena Mondelli named Woman of Courage, receiving national award
					

The award may have her name on it, but for Chief Petty Officer First Class (CPO1) Alena Mondelli, Base Chief at CFB Halifax, being named one of Canada’s top 100 most powerful women is a win for all women who work as non-commissioned members (NCM) in the military.




					www.lookoutnewspaper.com


----------



## daftandbarmy

Eye In The Sky said:


> Maybe she was just using her courage and power…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CPO1 Alena Mondelli named Woman of Courage, receiving national award
> 
> 
> The award may have her name on it, but for Chief Petty Officer First Class (CPO1) Alena Mondelli, Base Chief at CFB Halifax, being named one of Canada’s top 100 most powerful women is a win for all women who work as non-commissioned members (NCM) in the military.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.lookoutnewspaper.com



oops...


----------



## Jarnhamar

Eye In The Sky said:


> Maybe she was just using her courage and power…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CPO1 Alena Mondelli named Woman of Courage, receiving national award
> 
> 
> The award may have her name on it, but for Chief Petty Officer First Class (CPO1) Alena Mondelli, Base Chief at CFB Halifax, being named one of Canada’s top 100 most powerful women is a win for all women who work as non-commissioned members (NCM) in the military.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.lookoutnewspaper.com



This quote from the  article stuck out.



> “In my 30-year career, I’ve experienced inappropriate sexual behaviour. I’ve experienced the jokes, a lot of that was in my early career. But after a certain rank it became sexism, misogyny, and hate. What that looks like is malicious rumours; it’s defamation of character; it’s lying.”


----------



## Remius

Jarnhamar said:


> This quote from the  article stuck out.


Or this one…

“I decided that I would just be who I am, that I would be authentic and see what comes of that.”


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I guess being authentic isn’t so good if it equals having to leave healing groups and stuff.


----------



## OldSolduer

Jarnhamar said:


> While anyone is at it ask about a gang rape survivor being belittled about their mental health during a "healing symposium".
> 
> And a Navy Chief Petty Officer1 "overstepping" her boundaries.


Ok can I get in on this? what was said or done? Remember - infantry. Small words please.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Google articles by he who shall not be named here.


----------



## OldSolduer

Is the witch hunt now over?


----------



## KevinB

OldSolduer said:


> Is the witch hunt now over?


Surely you jest.


----------



## Halifax Tar

daftandbarmy said:


> oops...



lol you owe DND a new keyboard lol 

Just like the CCFR is never ceases to amaze me how our people are so capable of own goals...  Jesus H Christ know your audience.


----------



## Lumber

OldSolduer said:


> Ok can I get in on this? what was said or done? Remember - infantry. Small words please.


In a nut shell, during "Restoring Hearts and Minds Symposium**", a woman named Diane Rose asked a question. The question she asked is not shared.

Apparently, sometime shortly after, during a short break in the symposium, several other attendees started talking smack about Diane Rose, questioning why she was allowed to ask a question, they began discussing her mental health, and they made statements indicating they believe she is one who creates problems.

The thing is, those making these statements/having these discussions still had their microphones on, including that of the MARLANT Formation CPO1, and many people over heard the conversation, including Diane Rose.

**the event was promoted by INJ20K, an group that advocates for a few sexual misconduct survivors, and was sponsored by the department of defence in concert with McMaster University and organization such as True Patriot Love


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Lumber said:


> In a nut shell, during "Restoring Hearts and Minds Symposium**", a woman named Diane Rose asked a question. The question she asked is not shared.
> 
> Apparently, sometime shortly after, during a short break in the symposium, several other attendees started talking smack about Diane Rose, questioning why she was allowed to ask a question, they began discussing her mental health, and they made statements indicating they believe she is one who creates problems.
> 
> The thing is, those making these statements/having these discussions still had their microphones on, including that of the MARLANT Formation CPO1, and many people over heard the conversation, including Diane Rose.
> 
> **the event was promoted by INJ20K, an group that advocates for a few sexual misconduct survivors, and was sponsored by the department of defence in concert with McMaster University and organization such as True Patriot Love


I do enjoy when they begin to eat their own 😄


----------



## OldSolduer

KevinB said:


> Surely you jest.


I’m not jesting. And stop calling me Shirley 😉


----------



## Halifax Tar

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I do enjoy when they begin to eat their own 😄



Humans be humans I guess.


----------



## markppcli

Lumber said:


> I'd share the article, but it's by he who shall not be named, and we're not allowed to share his articles drivel.


Bit awkward when he’s one of one reporters who actually covers the CAF, are we afraid of the fact his articles have been critical of an organization that produces a senior memeber who can’t even understand to turn their mic off when they talk shit about a rape survivor in a public setting ?


----------



## Good2Golf

markppcli said:


> Bit awkward when he’s one of one reporters who actually covers the CAF, are we afraid of the fact his articles have been critical of an organization that produces a senior memeber who can’t even understand to turn their mic off when they talk shit about a rape survivor in a public setting ?


That’s not why that reporter is not referred to here.  It is a legal liability issue resulting in a restriction within the Site Guidelines.









						Letter from David ******** in regard to Defamation/Libel by Mike Bobbitt/Army.ca
					

All,  I have received the following letter today:    Letter from David ******** in regard to Defamation/Libel by Mike Bobbitt, Army.ca, Milnet.ca, et al against David ********  Mr. Bobbitt,   I have consulted my lawyer today and she has advised that I email you and your other associates in...




					army.ca


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

markppcli said:


> Bit awkward when he’s one of one reporters who actually covers the CAF, are we afraid of the fact his articles have been critical of an organization that produces a senior memeber who can’t even understand to turn their mic off when they talk shit about a rape survivor in a public setting ?


Read the site guidelines and the following thread for an answer to your question:









						Letter from David ******** in regard to Defamation/Libel by Mike Bobbitt/Army.ca
					

All,  I have received the following letter today:    Letter from David ******** in regard to Defamation/Libel by Mike Bobbitt, Army.ca, Milnet.ca, et al against David ********  Mr. Bobbitt,   I have consulted my lawyer today and she has advised that I email you and your other associates in...




					army.ca


----------



## markppcli

Ack tracking will adjust behaviours


----------



## Grimey

daftandbarmy said:


> Uh... maybe not


Off topic.  That was a great movie.


----------



## TacticalTea

MilEME09 said:


> Get the popcorn ready for this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maj.-Gen. Dany Fortin acquitted on 1988 sexual assault charge
> 
> 
> A Quebec civilian judge has acquitted Maj.-Gen. Dany Fortin of sexual assault over an allegation that dates back to 1988. Judge Richard Meredith said he believes the complainant was sexually assaulted, but said the Crown did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that it was Fortin who had...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ctvnews.ca


I've known nothing quite as infuriating as being falsely accused of something you didn't do.

This is its worst form, that which leads to prosecution for sexual offences.

But there is a wide range of damaging false allegations lobbed every day at normal people just trying to get by in life.

The inevitable outcome of a system and society that incentivize victimhood and clout-chasing without providing the slightest negative consequence for dishonesty. Hell, this speaks to a greater ill in our society: deceit seems to permeate its every facet.


----------



## dapaterson

Did you read the verdict, or just decide to launch your salvo untainted by knowledge?  There is nothing from the court that suggests deceit on the part of the accuser; rather, the judge acknowledges that there was nothing properly before the court offering proof beyond a reasonable doubt.


----------



## Navy_Pete

dapaterson said:


> Did you read the verdict, or just decide to launch your salvo untainted by knowledge?  There is nothing from the court that suggests deceit on the part of the accuser; rather, the judge acknowledges that there was nothing properly before the court offering proof beyond a reasonable doubt.


Still not sure how this one got to trial, I don't think it would have happened if he wasn't a high profile person. I don't think there was external political pressure on the prosecutors, but I'm sure the 'optics' factored into their decision to bring this to trial.

It was a pretty interesting, as the judge agreed that the victim had been assaulted, but didn't think it was actually Fortin (within the burden of proof). That seems like a pretty basic thing to nail down before you go to trial, but I can't see how they'll somehow roll that into any administrative punishment.


----------



## KevinB

dapaterson said:


> Did you read the verdict, or just decide to launch your salvo untainted by knowledge?  There is nothing from the court that suggests deceit on the part of the accuser; rather, the judge acknowledges that there was nothing properly before the court offering proof beyond a reasonable doubt.


I would say that while some may not doubt the accusers testimony, it seems very strange given the conflicting testimony to believe she was actually in full belief it was in fact MGen Fortin.
  Some of her facts didn't jive with him being the one, and it is unfortunate that it even went as far as it did.

This isn't to say she wasn't assaulted - but that in looking at the facts, it appears she latched on to a visible persona who was simply in the "right place" at the "right time".


----------



## Journeyman

The silver lining for the CAF is that it went to civie trial.  Had it been military, the torch & pitchfork crowd would be out screaming "cover up!!! GOFO protecting their own!!"


----------



## KevinB

Journeyman said:


> The silver lining for the CAF is that it went to civie trial.  Had it been military, the torch & pitchfork crowd would be out screaming "cover up!!! GOFO protecting their own!!"


I'm sure there will still be a lot of that...


----------



## TacticalTea

dapaterson said:


> Did you read the verdict, or just decide to launch your salvo untainted by knowledge?  There is nothing from the court that suggests deceit on the part of the accuser; rather, the judge acknowledges that there was nothing properly before the court offering proof beyond a reasonable doubt.


I'm mostly talking about the government's response. Of course I read about the judgment itself.


----------



## Good2Golf

KevinB said:


> I'm sure there will still be a lot of that...


And already plenty of “not guilty doesn’t mean he didn’t do it” out there…


----------



## OldSolduer

KevinB said:


> I'm sure there will still be a lot of that...


And what do we burn besides witches??

MORE WITCHES!!!

This saga is not over. I suspect we will see more situations of this nature in the future.


----------



## ModlrMike

The public wanted the trial in open court. Don't like the outcome... TFB!


----------



## OldSolduer

ModlrMike said:


> The public wanted the trial in open court. Don't like the outcome... TFB!


You and I both know that will not satisfy the people who have an agenda.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

OldSolduer said:


> You and I both know that will not satisfy the people who have an agenda.


I love reading and listening to the mental gymnastics certain individuals are playing with this.  My Linkedin feed was real interesting 😄

For MGen Fortin, he can savour that sweet taste of victory.


----------



## Remius

Humphrey Bogart said:


> For MGen Fortin, he can savour that sweet taste of victory.


This is definitely a relief for him and his family I am sure.

The ball now is in the CAF’s court.  I will be interested to see how they handle this and MGen Fortin’s career.  There is an opportunity here to show institutional leadership in how they handle this.


----------



## Good2Golf

Remius said:


> The ball now is in the CAF’s court.  I will be interested to see how they handle this and MGen Fortin’s career.  There is an opportunity here to show institutional leadership in how they handle this.


…low expectations…


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Good2Golf said:


> …low expectations…


----------



## Good2Golf

I wish there would be a deep dive on how this all came to be…there is an element of nefarious convenience (a 1988 event that pops up in 2021, during a burnt ground surge through DND) that seems difficult to not consider.  What really makes it difficult to blindly accept as just the way things unfolded, is that you have someone at the top of the pyramid who, to qualify with the word ‘allegedly,’ paid hush money to a woman/family whom he was allegedly reported to have inappropriately treated respectfully.  Yes, there are other cases out there of CAF leaders conducting themselves inappropriately and being dealt with, but there seems something off about this one.


----------



## Lumber

Good2Golf said:


> I wish there would be a deep dive on how this all came to be…there is an element of nefarious convenience (a 1988 event that pops up in 2021, during a burnt ground surge through DND) that seems difficult to not consider.  What really makes it difficult to blindly accept as just the way things unfolded, is that you have someone at the top of the pyramid who, to qualify with the word ‘allegedly,’ paid hush money to a woman/family whom he was allegedly reported to have inappropriately treated respectfully.  Yes, there are other cases out there of CAF leaders conducting themselves inappropriately and being dealt with, but there seems something off about this one.



I don't know, it seems pretty simple to see how this could have unfolded without assuming anything nefarious.

You have a victim who was never able to come forward because the event happened at a time and place where claiming sexual assault was an extremely difficult thing to do.

Fast forward to the late 2010s, where both the CAF in general, and society writ large, have become a place where bringing forth claims of sexual assault is far easier, with more support and less stigma.

Fast forward a little bit more, and the CAF has demonstrated a willingness and interest in cleaning up all the failings of leadership and justice over the past decades.

So, now you have a world where victims are more able to effectively and comfortably bring forth their accusations, both past and present.

At the same time, a pandemic hits, and Fortin is thrust in the spotlight in a very public role.

So, a victim who never received justice for her assault sees her perpetrator in the limelight, possibly seeing him for the first time in many many years, and she now feels emotionally capable of bringing her claim forward, so she does.

To me, that all makes perfect sense, and nothing nefarious need be included.


----------



## Remius

Good2Golf said:


> I wish there would be a deep dive on how this all came to be…there is an element of nefarious convenience (a 1988 event that pops up in 2021, during a burnt ground surge through DND) that seems difficult to not consider.  What really makes it difficult to blindly accept as just the way things unfolded, is that you have someone at the top of the pyramid who, to qualify with the word ‘allegedly,’ paid hush money to a woman/family whom he was allegedly reported to have inappropriately treated respectfully.  Yes, there are other cases out there of CAF leaders conducting themselves inappropriately and being dealt with, but there seems something off about this one.


I think it’s likely more a case of having several high profile cases plus the fact that culture change is the name of the day.  The victim ( I say victim as she appears to have been assaulted at that time) possibly being triggered by a familiar face and name she associated with that time.  I once had a female Cpl tear into me about her relationship with another uniformed member who was a higher rank than her and rumours being spread.  I had no clue what the heck she was talking about but I was male, wearing a cap badge and uniform that she associated this with and was the same rank as the person she was discussing.  

When people come forward others start to do the same.  It’s unfortunate though that someone else had to pay a price for what I believe is a case of mistaken identity.  (My opinion on this).


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Unfortunate is putting it lightly.  I hope Fortin sues the pants off the Govt.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Good2Golf said:


> I wish there would be a deep dive on how this all came to be…



I don't think it was all that deep... kind of 'shallow' actually.

He was put in a position where he became a high profile, kinda sexy, TV personality. And then someone from his past saw him.

Lesson learned: Hull down, turret down


----------



## Good2Golf

Remius said:


> I think it’s likely more a case of having several high profile cases plus the fact that culture change is the name of the day.  The victim ( I say victim as she appears to have been assaulted at that time) possibly being triggered by a familiar face and name she associated with that time.  I once had a female Cpl tear into me about her relationship with another uniformed member who was a higher rank than her and rumours being spread.  I had no clue what the heck she was talking about but I was male, wearing a cap badge and uniform that she associated this with and was the same rank as the person she was discussing.
> 
> When people come forward others start to do the same.  It’s unfortunate though that someone else had to pay a price for what I believe is a case of mistaken identity.  (My opinion on this).


Possibly, @Remius I have seen that too over my 30+ years in, but…you also know when there’s something that seems off?  You can’t quite describe it precisely, but you sense it?  That’s my feeling on this one.  There’s something behind this that isn’t being told.  There remains no trace back to the original release of the situation HALF A YEAR before Fortin was charged.  At the very least, the leaking of information surrounding Fortin’s suspension from PHAC and the “as yet to be confirmed charges” stinks…there are only so many people who knew what was going on regarding actions/decisions about Fortin.  I have a very hard time believing this was a me too thing.

The unfortunate part here is two people’s lives have been directly impacted negatively: Fortin (and his family) and the unidentified victim, whom I believe did suffer a sexual assault, but that she is unlikely to find any kind of closure with what has unfolded.  I get the feeling that behind closed doors somewhere, she is being described as ‘collateral damage’, and that’s not right either.


----------



## Rifleman62

I was wondering when she retired.? She feared retribution while serving, thus no complaint.



> The ball now is in the CAF’s court. I will be interested to see how they handle this and MGen Fortin’s career.



He could be given the job to revise/reorg/justify/etc the Army Reserve.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Humphrey Bogart said:


>


Total sidenote, but really impressed by the work he's done for the 9/11 first responders that have long term health issues. Shouldn't need a celebrity advocate, but don't think it would have moved forward without his work.

An angry Jon Stewart demands Congress compensate 9/11 responders


----------



## Remius

Navy_Pete said:


> Total sidenote, but really impressed by the work he's done for the 9/11 first responders that have long term health issues. Shouldn't need a celebrity advocate, but don't think it would have moved forward without his work.
> 
> An angry Jon Stewart demands Congress compensate 9/11 responders


A fine example of a celebrity using his time, energy and influence in a positive way without seeking any attention for himself.


----------



## GR66

Rifleman62 said:


> He could be given the job to revise/reorg/justify/etc the Army Reserve.


Hasn't he been punished enough professionally already???


----------



## Rifleman62

> Hasn't he been punished enough professionally already???



Of course. My post was a jest. Can you think of another posting that would be more meaningless with no hope of success? Good way to make him release.


----------



## Remius

Rifleman62 said:


> Of course. My post was a jest. Can you think of another posting that would be more meaningless with no hope of success? Good way to make him release.


DGen ARes.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Remius said:


> DGen ARes.



Kind of like....


----------



## singh1947

Good2Golf said:


> Possibly, @Remius I have seen that too over my 30+ years in, but…you also know when there’s something that seems off?  You can’t quite describe it precisely, but you sense it?  That’s my feeling on this one.  There’s something behind this that isn’t being told.  There remains no trace back to the original release of the situation HALF A YEAR before Fortin was charged.  At the very least, the leaking of information surrounding Fortin’s suspension from PHAC and the “as yet to be confirmed charges” stinks…there are only so many people who knew what was going on regarding actions/decisions about Fortin.  I have a very hard time believing this was a me too thing.
> 
> The unfortunate part here is two people’s lives have been directly impacted negatively: Fortin (and his family) and the unidentified victim, whom I believe did suffer a sexual assault, but that she is unlikely to find any kind of closure with what has unfolded.  I get the feeling that behind closed doors somewhere, she is being described as ‘collateral damage’, and that’s not right either.


I think they just wanted a woman heading the vaccine thing.


----------



## Remius

singh1947 said:


> I think they just wanted a woman heading the vaccine thing.


Then they could have just named one.


----------



## Good2Golf

singh1947 said:


> I think they just wanted a woman heading the vaccine thing.


I disagree.  I believe if that was the case, they would have assigned (then) MGen Jennie Carignan to PHAC first.  BGen Krista Brodie was already a deputy to MGen Fortin, so when he was pulled, she filled in. If a gender point was going to be made, it would have been made with the first secondment to PHAC, not a replacement.


----------



## OldSolduer

Good2Golf said:


> I wish there would be a deep dive on how this all came to be…there is an element of nefarious convenience (a 1988 event that pops up in 2021, during a burnt ground surge through DND) that seems difficult to not consider.  What really makes it difficult to blindly accept as just the way things unfolded, is that you have someone at the top of the pyramid who, to qualify with the word ‘allegedly,’ paid hush money to a woman/family whom he was allegedly reported to have inappropriately treated respectfully.  Yes, there are other cases out there of CAF leaders conducting themselves inappropriately and being dealt with, but there seems something off about this one.


Sir I smelt a rat from the beginning of this sordid affair and I think it originated in the upper echelons of DND, Not the CAF. 

Someone swore revenge a long time ago and the time was ripe.


----------



## futurepensioner

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Unfortunate is putting it lightly.  I hope Fortin sues the pants off the Govt.


Sues them for what??


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

futurepensioner said:


> Sues them for what??


Oh use your imagination.

He is gonna get the Norman treatment 😁


----------



## futurepensioner

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Oh use your imagination.
> 
> He is gonna get the Norman treatment 😁




Well...  let's see.  He was accused of doing something, he was suspended WITH PAY while it was investigated, he was charged, prosecuted and found not guilty.

Unless I am missing something, he has no grounds to sue anyone.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

futurepensioner said:


> Well...  let's see.  He was accused of doing something, he was suspended WITH PAY while it was investigated, he was charged, prosecuted and found not guilty.
> 
> Unless I am missing something, he has no grounds to sue anyone.


Norman was paid while he was investigated  and charged 😉


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

@futurepensioner 

You can read about it here:



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mark-norman-retiring-1.5191111


----------



## futurepensioner

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Norman was paid while he was investigated  and charged 😉



Yes - bu his was a different case.  It was found that people were not truthful in the ways they acted and therefore gave rise to "negligence" in the way things rolled out.

Fortin is no different than anyone else who gets charged with a crime and gets found not guilty.


----------



## OldSolduer

Both these officers were treated shabbily and basically had their careers ended. "Ethics" are only for the rank and file, not the upper echelons of government.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

futurepensioner said:


> Yes - bu his was a different case.  It was found that people were not truthful in the ways they acted and therefore gave rise to "negligence" in the way things rolled out.
> 
> Fortin is no different than anyone else who gets convicted of a crime and gets found not guilty.


Oh?!

I didn't know you were intimately familiar with the disclosure(s) in both cases, I guess I'll exit stage right.

🤣🤣🤣🤣

Being found not guilty is exactly why he can sue 😉.  It's called "Malicious Prosecution".


----------



## btrudy

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Oh?!
> 
> I didn't know you were intimately familiar with the disclosure(s) in both cases, I guess I'll exit stage right.
> 
> 🤣🤣🤣🤣
> 
> Being found not guilty is exactly why he can sue 😉.  It's called "Malicious Prosecution".



My dude, you're the one proposing that Fortin's got something to sue over.

You're the one making the claim that he's got grounds to sue the Crown, you're the one who needs to provide evidence of the wrongdoing in order to support said claim.

The prosecution actually needs to be malicious for that to be the case. Just because someone wasn't found guilty does not mean that the prosecution was malicious. 



OldSolduer said:


> Both these officers were treated shabbily and basically had their careers ended. "Ethics" are only for the rank and file, not the upper echelons of government.



Literally no one at the Flag / General officer level can reasonably be described as "rank and file". They are the upper echelons of government.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Oh?!
> 
> I didn't know you were intimately familiar with the disclosure(s) in both cases, I guess I'll exit stage right.
> 
> 🤣🤣🤣🤣
> 
> Being found not guilty is exactly why he can sue 😉.  It's called "Malicious Prosecution".



I'm not sure you can unless you can prove  some kind of 'malicious" intent.

Where I think he might have sone kind of digging to do is why, when the accuser part way through the trial said that she thought it was him from the French accent, the Judge didn't clear the courtroom, call the prosecution up to the docket, and unabashedly berate them for 30 minutes for wasting the courts time.

No charge, without some kind of juice behind it, is going to court from "the accent".


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

btrudy said:


> My dude, you're the one proposing that Fortin's got something to sue over.
> 
> You're the one making the claim that he's got grounds to sue the Crown, you're the one who needs to provide evidence of the wrongdoing in order to support said claim.
> 
> The prosecution actually needs to be malicious for that to be the case. Just because someone wasn't found guilty does not mean that the prosecution was malicious.
> 
> 
> 
> Literally no one at the Flag / General officer level can reasonably be described as "rank and file". They are the upper echelons of government.


 Time will tell what happens 😉


----------



## lenaitch

There's a fair bit of case law on Malicious Prosecution that has established the four areas that have to be established (tort law, so 'balance of probabilitity'):

1. That the Defendant [Crown in this case] initiated the prosecution.
2. That the criminal proceeding was terminated in favour of the Plaintiff.
3. That there was an absence of reasonable and probable grounds to initiate the charge.
4. That the charge was motivated by malice, or a primary purpose other than that of carrying the criminal law into effect.

I my mind, #4 is the biggie and would be the toughest to prove.  Pretty high bar.

There is also a related area action for 'negligent investigation'.  I don't think there's as much case law on it but the one analysis I read suggested that the bar is equally high.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

futurepensioner said:


> Yes - bu his was a different case.  It was found that people were not truthful in the ways they acted and therefore gave rise to "negligence" in the way things rolled out.
> 
> Fortin is no different than anyone else who gets charged with a crime and gets found not guilty.



So you have no trouble with the guilty until proven innocent treatment?  Getting paid while being treated as guilty is ok as a baseline for you?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Eye In The Sky said:


> So you have no trouble with the guilty until proven innocent treatment?  Getting paid while being treated as guilty is ok as a baseline for you?


Unfortunately it has to be that way......imagine if he was found guilty and also found to have assaulted someone under his charge?

There'd rightfully be hell to pay....

Not saying it's right, just the way it has to be.


----------



## Good2Golf

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Not saying it's right, just the way it has to be.


Unless, of course, you have an aristocratic pedigree and a healthy trust fund to cover up things you have (allegedly) done… 😉


----------



## brihard

One consideration with regards to liability for an unsuccessful prosecution is that in Quebec investigations are reviewed by a provincial prosecutor who decides whether to lay charges or not. This is not the case in all provinces (including Ontario, for sake of comparison to the Norman file). This means that a provincial crown prosecutor in Quebec will have looked at what investigators gleaned, will have determined that reasonable and probable grounds exist to believe the accused committed an offence, believed there was a public interest in proceeding, and believed that there was a reasonable prospect of conviction.

I’m not offering an opinion on the investigation or prosecution itself… Simply saying that the threshold for civil tort may be difficult to meet if the crown acted in good faith.

There may well be a settlement. That may be decided based on a multitude of factors, not only limited to how likely it is that a lawsuit will succeed. This could turn into a ‘pay to go away’ situation.


----------



## FJAG

I do not see this as a malicious prosecution case albeit arguments for one can be made. If a judge finds the evidence questionable then one could assume that a prosecutor might have questioned whether or not there was a reasonable likelihood of conviction but that lays at the feet of the provincial crown prosecutor and not DND.

I think the issue for DND is his suspension. Deciding to suspend him was a small "p" political one taken by people in both the government executive and the military leadership.

The issue is; was a suspension reasonably called for based on a twenty plus year-old allegation and absolutely no evidence of any current issues that he was acting inappropriately and putting anyone at risk. If you can't establish that there was a level of current risk then a suspension was probably inappropriate. A suspension would have carried a risk of foreseeable serious harm i.e. a damaged career both within the military and later civilian life with a very high magnitude of financial loss.

When an employer makes a decision like this, its a gamble. If the individual is convicted then probably, but not assuredly, Bob's your uncle. On the other hand, with a not guilty finding and absolutely nothing to indicate that he posed any sort of risk within his current job, you'll be the goat and need to pony up. Being politically correct has its price.

My guess is this will lead to a big financial settlement. I just can't see the current cabal bringing him back on line and promoting him to where he probably should have been at this point in his career and putting him into the high visibility position he ought to occupy. Besides, its not like any settlement is coming out of the politicians' own pockets, is it?

And I'm not just saying that because he's a gunner. 

🍻


----------



## TacticalTea

FJAG said:


> If you can't establish that there was a level of current risk then a suspension was probably inappropriate.


That's the essence of the problem for me as well. 

It's perfectly reasonable to remove someone who's only accused of a crime, but one that directly pertains to their job. Ie;  an administrator charged with fraud, or even closer to this case, someone charged with sex assault of a current coworker. But I'd expect the accused to first be given the chance to be assigned to a non-insignificant job that still leverages their talent while also mitigating the risk in case they are indeed culpable.



> Besides, its not like any settlement is coming out of the politicians' own pockets, is it?


Perhaps it should... I've never been a fan of prosecuting / suing corporations. At the end of the day, there is a particular human that made the contentious decision and should be held accountable.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Unfortunately it has to be that way......imagine if he was found guilty and also found to have assaulted someone under his charge?
> 
> There'd rightfully be hell to pay....
> 
> Not saying it's right, just the way it has to be.



The Constitution doesn’t seem to agree with this position…


----------



## Eye In The Sky

btrudy said:


> Literally no one at the Flag / General officer level can reasonably be described as "rank and file". They are the upper echelons of government.



Government and the CAF are not one and the same;  we work for the government but we aren’t a part of it, just an instrument of it.  

To the government, this one at least, all mbrs of the CAF are merely “rank and file” and their treatment of a few GOFOs seems to indicate CAF=proletarian regardless of rank or position.

The MND and perhaps Dep MND would be upper ech of government.  But not the CDS on down.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Eye In The Sky said:


> The Constitution doesn’t seem to agree with this position…


So Col Williams should have stayed in his position until his trial was over?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> So Col Williams should have stayed in his position until his trial was over?



Not at all; he confessed to multiple murders and was relieved of his command that next day.  

But, I see your point.   I’m not sure where the middle ground should be, but the current govt demonstrated with Norman they don’t care about that.  I’ll probably lean to favour the accused in any similar case such as case because of that.


----------



## kratz

I understand EITS' point, a temporary suspension is viable, until a risk assessment is completed, including if and where a reassignment is possible. This would be concurrent activity with the investigation,  but not reliant on it as an impediment to RTW.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

To me, the risk was all political risk or political “want” in this case.  The allegations were from multiple decades ago, against a long serving member with an otherwise unblemished record.


----------



## McG

There was also institutional risk. The CAF was under much more of a public microscope than was the political level.

That is not to say the right thing was done, nor that the political risk (or maybe it was seen as a political opportunity) was not the driving factor.


----------



## Lumber

Eye In The Sky said:


> To me, the risk was all political risk or political “want” in this case.  The allegations were from multiple decades ago, against a long serving member with an otherwise unblemished record.


Political "looking" decisions aren't always just political. Part of the "risk" is the potential damage to the morale of the troops. If someone who's been charged with sexual assault, especially a GOFO, is allowed to keep working, it gives the impression that we aren't taking sexual assault claims seriously. The damage to one person's career may be be worth it if the alternative is significant damage to the morale of the troops and the legitimacy of/trust-in the institution.

(Edit: i'm not saying this was the right decision in THIS case)


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Legally (criminal law and admin law), I’m curious where the line of presumption of innocence is crossed by the govt/agents of with an accused.  Genuinely as I haven’t the faintest clue.


----------



## McG

Had he been working for industry, could he have been treated more harshly to protect the corporate brand? Fired or placed on unpaid leave?


----------



## Lumber

McG said:


> Had he been working for industry, could he have been treated more harshly to protect the corporate brand? Fired or placed on unpaid leave?


Depends if the company has a twitter page or not.


----------



## futurepensioner

McG said:


> Had he been working for industry, could he have been treated more harshly to protect the corporate brand? Fired or placed on unpaid leave?



You bet he would have.  I would say that if he worked for a civilian company, in most cases (not all), he would have been fired the second he was charged with no ability to sue his employer for either money or his job back - as long as he was paid what was owed to him when he was fired.

As I have mentioned before, he is no different than any other person who was charged, prosecuted and found to be not guilty.  Does every 'average joe' get to keep his 150k+ salary and then get to take legal action against his employer because he got off?

Being considered innocent until proven guilty, is a matter unto the law, not in public perception or in the reputation of a company or group of people.  Whether he did it or not, I have no clue.  But someone decided, after investigating it, that there was enough evidence to charge and prosecute him.  In the end he was found "not guilty" and acquitted.  There was no pronunciation of him being "innocent".

Lastly, how do you think the accuser/victim in this case would feel if he got a hockey sock full of money for being found "not guilty".


----------



## Good2Golf

futurepensioner said:


> You bet he would have. I would say that if he worked for a civilian company, in most cases (not all), he would have been fired the second he was charged with no ability to sue his employer for either money or his job back - as long as he was paid what was owed to him when he was fired.


And if he was, any decent labour lawyer would have a settlement for wrongful dismissal, at least in Ontario, supported both by the ESA and common labour law.


----------



## futurepensioner

Good2Golf said:


> And if he was, any decent labour lawyer would have a settlement for wrongful dismissal, at least in Ontario, supported both by the ESA and common labour law.



Since you mentioned it, in Ontario (and I would suspect other provinces), anyone can be fired at anytime.  You just have to pay them the money that they are owed - either by the contract they have or by what the law (ie the ESA) says they are owed.


----------



## Good2Golf

futurepensioner said:


> Since you mentioned it, in Ontario (and I would suspect other provinces), anyone can be fired at anytime.  You just have to pay them the money that they are owed - either by the contract they have or by what the law (ie the ESA) says they are owed.


Not just the ESA, but case common law (if they so chose to litigate against the employer).


----------



## futurepensioner

Good2Golf said:


> Not just the ESA, but case common law (if they so chose to litigate against the employer).



Whether or not a common law suit would be successful in this case is a matter for the crystal ball.

If what you are saying is true, then all of the other CAF members who were found "not guilty" of crimes that they were charged with, but then later released form the CAF through an Administrative Review, could all sue the CAF for wrongful dismissal??


----------



## brihard

Eye In The Sky said:


> Legally (criminal law and admin law), I’m curious where the line of presumption of innocence is crossed by the govt/agents of with an accused.  Genuinely as I haven’t the faintest clue.



That’s a bit of a tricky question to make sense of.

Criminally, presumption of innocence is simply that you cannot be sanctioned under criminal law for a criminal offence until and unless convicted. So no jail, no fines, no prohibitions on certain activities until passed as a sentence. (This is distinct from bail conditions which I won’t get into as it’s not material to this case)

Administrative law doesn’t concern itself with offences… A suspension from duty within a federally regulated public employer (which CAF in its own peculiar way is) has to abide by certain administrative law principles; authority to suspend a CAF member stems from certain regulations. I think in a case like this it should be QR&O Vol II, Division 1, 101.09 - relief from performance of military duty pre and post trial. But my understanding (from the judicial review decision) is that MGen Fortin was removed from PHAC secondment, simply not given new duties, and so _de facto_ relieved. I don’t know if a formal relief followed later.

Since this is an administrative measure under a regulatory enactment, the expectation in Canadian law is that internal mechanisms for redress be excavated first. That’s why Fortin was told by the court that he ought to have grieved.

Judicial review of an administrative decision is a step taken after administrative redress mechanisms (grievance, and internal appeals thereof) are exhausted.

‘Presumption of innocence’ isn’t what you look at for reviewing an administrative decision… Rather, judicial review will look at whether the decision made could reasonably have been made by the decision maker, design facts on balance of probabilities. In certain circumstances there can also be review for correctness of application of law, or for procedural fairness… But usually it’s the standard of ‘reasonableness’.

So, long winded and winding it back in- an administrative challenge of this would look at what the law/regulations provide for CAF’s authority to relieve from duty (which they definitely have) and what would be reasonable ground (the inadequacy of other administrative measures for the necessary objective). The latter is what this would turn on. But it would need to go through grievance first.

All of that is distinct from a _civil liability_ for a legal wrong.

Now I’mma shut up and wait for @FJAG


----------



## Good2Golf

futurepensioner said:


> Whether or not a common law suit would be successful in this case is a matter for the crystal ball.



 Not a crystal ball, a recommendation from a good labour lawyer.



futurepensioner said:


> If what you are saying is true, then all of the other CAF members who were found "not guilty" of crimes that they were charged with, but then later released form the CAF through an Administrative Review, could all sue the CAF for wrongful dismissal??



You’re extending my comment to include the CAF; my comment wasn’t framed that way.  Note up thread that my comment was specifically in response to your:



> …I would say that if he worked for a civilian company…



It was specific to working for a civilian/commercial employer.

That said, since the CAF has decided to move much of its pursuit of justice into the public realm, it has concomitantly drawn its employment framework into consideration, and so there is quite reasonably and likely going to be developing case law for CAF members to consider making use of available employment legislation in the space that the CAF has caused to be blurred.  The CAF is beginning to reap the ‘rewards’ of the seeds it has sewn as it eschewed itself of its own responsibility to effect justice within a purely military framework.


----------



## mariomike

McG said:


> Had he been working for industry, could he have been treated more harshly to protect the corporate brand? Fired or placed on unpaid leave?



My former department put anyone facing an internal affairs complaint ( something more serious than simply " attitude questioned "   ) police criminal investigation  / charge, on paid Modified Duty.

ie: For sure, they would not be sending them into people's homes.

If the circumstances were really notorious, they would Work From Home ( WFE ), on full pay, until the matter was resolved. One way or the other.

Even if off-duty, and even if the police were not involved, and even if you are in a public service union, you can be fired for "unprofessional conduct, outside of profession."



> Off-duty meeting with teenage girls involving beer and cigarettes was a serious breach of trust justifying dismissal: Arbitrator



The union took it to arbitration. The Arbitrator sided with the employer:



> Certain jobs require a high level of skill and a high level of trust from both employers and the public. For employees working in those types of positions, it’s possible that off-duty behaviour can call into question that trust, if it demonstrates poor judgment. And if an employer no longer has confidence that an employee has the judgment to perform a job of high skill and responsibility, the result could be dismissal.



I also remember a couple of TFS firefighters fired over inappropriate social media posts.





__





						Termination upheld for firefighter axed over sexist tweets – MacLeod Law Firm
					






					macleodlawfirm.ca


----------



## Sprinting Thistle

For an indication of what the CAF will do for Fortin, one just needs to look back to the Stalker situation in 2017-2018.  Very public accusation, immediately removed from command, publicly vilified, vindicated, the CDS never apologized nor publicly rehabilitated his career.  The member, now a victim, threatens to sue, quietly paid off, promoted and sent out of sight to Europe.  

Norman situation very similar: no apology or public rehabilitation of the members career by the CAF after vindication. 

This is the pattern established by the CAF.


----------



## dapaterson

I assume from your statements that you have sat in on the deliberations of the Litigation Management Committee? Or do you even know what it is?


----------



## lenaitch

Good2Golf said:


> Not a crystal ball, a recommendation from a good labour lawyer.
> 
> 
> 
> You’re extending my comment to include the CAF; my comment wasn’t framed that way.  Note up thread that my comment was specifically in response to your:
> 
> 
> 
> It was specific to working for a civilian/commercial employer.
> 
> That said, since the CAF has decided to move much of its pursuit of justice into the public realm, it has concomitantly drawn its employment framework into consideration, and so there is quite reasonably and likely going to be developing case law for CAF members to consider making use of available employment legislation in the space that the CAF has caused to be blurred.  The CAF is beginning to reap the ‘rewards’ of the seeds it has sewn as it eschewed itself of its own responsibility to effect justice within a purely military framework.


I'm not familiar with the NDA but I don't see a natural connection.  Criminal investigation/prosecution of _some_ cases have been moved into the public realm but I'm not sure I see the courts eroding 'employment law' for CAF members because of it.


----------



## Good2Golf

lenaitch said:


> I'm not familiar with the NDA but I don't see a natural connection.  Criminal investigation/prosecution of _some_ cases have been moved into the public realm but I'm not sure I see the courts eroding 'employment law' for CAF members because of it.


Not sure where you are getting “eroding ‘employment lay’” from?  My point was that if the  CAF continues to redirect sexual misconduct to civilian courts, then the implications of employment-related factors is bound to follow…and that such consideration may well (necessarily) follow the only employment standards that the civilian side has to refer.


----------



## brihard

Good2Golf said:


> Not sure where you are getting “eroding ‘employment lay’” from?  My point was that if the  CAF continues to redirect sexual misconduct to civilian courts, then the implications of employment-related factors is bound to follow…and that such consideration may well (necessarily) follow the only employment standards that the civilian side has to refer.


But it’s not redirecting sexual _misconduct _to civilian courts. It can only redirect prosecutions for sexual _assault._ The courts won’t take up non-criminal employee conduct matters unless It’s a much later in the game judicial review following grievance. Sexual misconduct that doesn’t hit a criminal threshold remains an internal CAF problem.


----------



## Good2Golf

brihard said:


> But it’s not redirecting sexual _misconduct _to civilian courts. It can only redirect prosecutions for sexual _assault._ The courts won’t take up non-criminal employee conduct matters unless It’s a much later in the game judicial review following grievance. Sexual misconduct that doesn’t hit a criminal threshold remains an internal CAF problem.


My bad for wrong term then, whatever is criminal level.


----------



## brihard

Good2Golf said:


> My bad for wrong term then, whatever is criminal level.


Right, but criminal prosecution, and employment law are on two different levels. The one does not necessarily track the other.


----------



## Good2Golf

brihard said:


> Right, but criminal prosecution, and employment law are on two different levels. The one does not necessarily track the other.


Not saying they did/do, but the employment element to the discussion over the last few pages of this thread developed in consideration of MGen Fortin’s situation, where the two elements (criminal charge of sexual assault / employment counter to the NDA and beyond) bled into/over each other.  They don’t track in the sense of being correlated and causal, but in Fortin’s case, the resolution of one element certainly brings the other into light.  Whether the CDS finally takes hold of Fortin’s employment situation himself as the NDA compels him to, remains to be seen.  My references to the Ontario ESA was in response to civil analogues referred to by others.  Personally, I think the CDS was weak at the time when Fortin was removed from his secondment at PHAC and didn’t redirect Fortin to a gainful position, instead leaving him in limbo with no military duties…well before the Quebec Crown’s decision to charge Fortin criminally.  I hope the CDS acts better in the immediate future re: Fortin’s re-employment militarily.  I’m not certain he will, and thus the specter of potential settlement with Fortin in a manner that has some elements of commonality with civil employment wrongful and/or constructive dismissal.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Meanwhile, it's also bad for business:

Workplace Sexual Harassment Is Also Bad for Business​Research suggests that sexual harassment at the workplace leads to a significant loss in productivity and employee turnover, besides creating an atmosphere of fear and intimidation.

My study “Me Too: Does Workplace Sexual Harassment Hurt Firm Value?”, written alongside fellow academics Ming Dong of York University and Andréanne Tremblay of Université Laval, examined data from current and former employees of thousands of North American companies.

We used job reviews from Glassdoor and Indeed, gathering more than 1.65 million reviews of over 1,100 firms to identify reported instances of sexual harassment. We then calculated a sexual harassment incidence rate over the year for each firm in the sample and matched it to profitability and the stock market performance of publicly traded companies.

We’ve determined that workplace sexual harassment significantly impacts the bottom line of the companies where it’s occurring.

The relation between the bottom line and sexual harassment may not be intuitive to CEOs. Some might erroneously believe that workplace sexual harassment episodes are isolated, infrequent or that their rank-and-file employees have no direct impact on their firm’s profitability.

Similarly, a CEO might consider sexual harassment as an unpleasant cost of doing business and that employees will continue in their jobs despite sexual harassment due to better wages or career opportunities.

*Costs thousands per employee*

But one study has found an average damage of US$22,500 per employee in lost productivity and employee turnover due to sexual harassment. Other research has shown that sexual harassment affects bystanders as well by creating an atmosphere of fear and intimidation. For example, one person in our data set said:



> “The best way to handle an issue involving sexual harassment or physical threats by management is not to go to HR. If you point out a problem you will be made to feel badly and your job/career will be put in jeopardy.” _Furniture retail store manager._











						Workplace Sexual Harassment Is Also Bad for Business
					

Research suggests that sexual harassment at the workplace leads to a significant loss in productivity and employee turnover, besides creating an atmosphere of fear and intimidation.




					thewire.in


----------



## futurepensioner

Good2Golf said:


> Not saying they did/do, but the employment element to the discussion over the last few pages of this thread developed in consideration of MGen Fortin’s situation, where the two elements (criminal charge of sexual assault / employment counter to the NDA and beyond) bled into/over each other.  They don’t track in the sense of being correlated and causal, but in Fortin’s case, the resolution of one element certainly brings the other into light.  Whether the CDS finally takes hold of Fortin’s employment situation himself as the NDA compels him to, remains to be seen.  My references to the Ontario ESA was in response to civil analogues referred to by others.  Personally, I think the CDS was weak at the time when Fortin was removed from his secondment at PHAC and didn’t redirect Fortin to a gainful position, instead leaving him in limbo with no military duties…well before the Quebec Crown’s decision to charge Fortin criminally.  I hope the CDS acts better in the immediate future re: Fortin’s re-employment militarily.  I’m not certain he will, and thus the specter of potential settlement with Fortin in a manner that has some elements of commonality with civil employment wrongful and/or constructive dismissal.



Why should MGen Fortin be 'compensated' for his ordeal?  There are many soldiers under the rank of Gen who go through the same process and get nothing.  Why should rank have anything to do with it?  When you look at similar cases of soldiers who are not high ranking, they were released after an AR was completed on them, even though they were also found "not guilty".  Should not be a double standard due to rank.  I guess time will tell.


----------



## daftandbarmy

futurepensioner said:


> Why should MGen Fortin be 'compensated' for his ordeal?  There are many soldiers under the rank of Gen who go through the same process and get nothing.  Why should rank have anything to do with it?  When you look at similar cases of soldiers who are not high ranking, they were released after an AR was completed on them, even though they were also found "not guilty".  Should not be a double standard due to rank.  I guess time will tell.


----------



## futurepensioner

daftandbarmy said:


>




LOL!!  I wish, then I would not know enough to care.

I am one of those who have been around long enough to start to take strong exception with Senior ranks who seem to hold their soldiers more accountable than themselves.  IMHO fairness is one of the main cornerstones of leadership.


----------



## Good2Golf

futurepensioner said:


> Why should MGen Fortin be 'compensated' for his ordeal?  There are many soldiers under the rank of Gen who go through the same process and get nothing.  Why should rank have anything to do with it?  When you look at similar cases of soldiers who are not high ranking, they were released after an AR was completed on them, even though they were also found "not guilty".  Should not be a double standard due to rank.  I guess time will tell.


It’s not about rank other than the fact that one would not likely see a junior NCM seconded into a Federal Agency, with the associated blurred lines of gainful military employment in the context of working fully within a civilian/bureaucratic structure.  One large element of consideration is that the CDS failed to ensure that a CAF member seconded to government was properly administered.  Was that member a MGen? Yes.  Fundamentally should it make a difference if the member in question was of a lower rank?  Not at all.  Are
You saying that higher ranks should accept poor treatment by senior leaders?  Where’s the rank level where such treatment stops becoming unacceptable?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

futurepensioner said:


> LOL!!  I wish, then I would not know enough to care.
> 
> I am one of those who have been around long enough to start to take strong exception with Senior ranks who seem to hold their soldiers more accountable than themselves.  IMHO fairness is one of the main cornerstones of leadership.



Is this a case of not being accountable?  Or fairness?  

Mbr charged.  Mbr found not guilty.


----------



## OldSolduer

Eye In The Sky said:


> Is this a case of not being accountable?  Or fairness?
> 
> Mbr charged.  Mbr found not guilty.


In my mind this is all about fairness.


----------



## TacticalTea

futurepensioner said:


> Why should MGen Fortin be 'compensated' for his ordeal?  There are many soldiers under the rank of Gen who go through the same process and get nothing.  Why should rank have anything to do with it?  When you look at similar cases of soldiers who are not high ranking, they were released after an AR was completed on them, even though they were also found "not guilty".  Should not be a double standard due to rank.  I guess time will tell.


That's a weird angle of attack, to me.

I'm not aware of there being any generals actively and openly contributing to this site, or this conversation in particular. So I don't see why we'd seek any special treatment for someone who is, in fact, not a peer.

For sure, members and officers of every rank get treated poorly in our administrative system. That is a constant struggle that - I'm sure - we all strive to correct here as members and officers in positions of authority. In this case, however, none of us have the power to correct the wrongs, so we resort to the only thing we can do, which is to talk about it, about why it's wrong, and how it should have been handled.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

I will admit I see a double standard in one aspect here.

I can probably dig up many howls of outrage on this site over LEO's  being suspended with pay while awaiting charges to be dealt with.  Mr.Fortin received full pay during this period and yet that's not enough for a lot of people it seems.

To me, he has no complaint with the military, it's whether or not these charges should have even been filed.


----------



## futurepensioner

OldSolduer said:


> In my mind this is all about fairness.


My apologies for not being clear.

I agree that the there was fairness in the process of him being found not guilty.  What I am referring to is the suggestion by some who believe he should be compensated (either through suit or settlement) for the way he was treat throughout the process.

I know he has not sought to be compensated, but there are those that believe he should or is entitled to it.


----------



## brihard

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> I will admit I see a double standard in one aspect here.
> 
> I can probably dig up many howls of outrage on this site over LEO's  being suspended with pay while awaiting charges to be dealt with.  Mr.Fortin received full pay during this period and yet that's not enough for a lot of people it seems.
> 
> To me, he has no complaint with the military, it's whether or not these charges should have even been filed.



This one seemed a bit weird... They removed him from secondment at PHAC, but didn't assign him other duties. It's not clear (there's not a public court record) on whether they followed up with a formal written notification of relief from duties pre-trial (i.e., suspension with pay), which is what _should_ happen.

Suspension with pay in CAF is an administrative measure that needs to be justified; it has to be articulated that lesser administrative means wouldn't be appropriate. Relief from duty is a big deal. In this case, the alleged offence was from over 30 years ago.  There was no argument ot be made that relief was necessary to protect a victim, to curb ongoing behaviour, or for performance reasons (he just got an 'immediate promote' PER). So the only articulable reason for the suspension would basically be preserving confidence in CAF as an institution by being seen to not tolerate someone remaining on duty in the face of those allegations.

Now, any challenge of that relief from duty - whether grievance, judicial review, or a lawsuit - would turn on whether it was reasonable _at the time_ for those measures to be taken, with what was known _at the time_. I can't gauge that... But the QR&O that applies does require written notification and reasons for relief for duty, so there _should_ be something in writing that says why the decision was made, and which would form the basis for CAF's defense of its actions.

And again, all of this may well be true, and CAF may simply decide it's easier to pay to make it go away.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Good, about time. If we are going to keep them, should be a deliberate choice, not just 'because tradition'.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-colleges-sexual-misconduct-anand-arbour-1.6683474



> Government ordering review of military colleges in response to report on sexual misconduct​​Darren Major  · CBC News  · Posted: Dec 13, 2022 10:09 AM ET | Last Updated: 5 minutes ago​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A graduation officer at the Royal Military College of Canada walks on the parade square at the college in Kingston, Ont., on May 17, 2019. (Lars Hagberg/The Canadian Press)
> The federal government is ordering a review of Canada's military colleges that could result in sweeping changes at the two schools, a new report says.
> The report — tabled in Parliament by Defence Minister Anita Anand on Tuesday — is the government's reply to former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour's report calling for major changes to Canada's military in response to a series of sexual misconduct scandals in recent years.
> The government has accepted all 48 of Arbour's recommendations and has ordered the military to move forward on their implementation, the government's report said.
> One of those recommendations called for a review of the military colleges in Kingston, Ont., and in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Que.
> 
> Military should give up control of sexual assault cases permanently: former Supreme Court justice
> Military can't 'lock the doors' and try to fix sexual misconduct alone: Louise Arbour
> In her report, released in May, Arbour called for widespread cultural change at the colleges. The "continued prevalence of sexual misconduct at the military colleges is well documented," she said at a press conference after releasing the report.
> While she didn't call for the colleges to be scrapped altogether, Arbour did suggest that the schools be assessed to determine whether they should carry on in their current form.
> "The military colleges appear as institutions from a different era, with an outdated and problematic leadership model," Arbour wrote in her report.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Minister of National Defence Anita Anand is accepting all of the recommendations made in former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour's report on sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. (Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press)
> The report released by Anand says that by ordering a review of the colleges, the federal government "strongly affirms that the culture in these institutions must change significantly."
> A review board led by an education specialist will be established to evaluate the colleges in 2023, the report says. It does not mention a timeline for completing the work.
> Tuesday's report also says the government will continue moving toward having the civilian justice system investigate and prosecute all cases of sexual offences in the Canadian Armed Forces.
> The military was granted jurisdiction over its own sexual assault cases in 1988. Acting on Arbour's interim report, Anand started transferring such cases to the civilian system last year.
> 
> A rare inside look at how Canada's military handled 2 sexual assault investigations connected by 1 suspect
> Military has tried to transfer 62 sexual offence files to civilian police — but half were rejected
> Tuesday's report says Anand has asked the Armed Forces to present her with options to permanently transfer jurisdiction over such cases to the civilian criminal justice system.
> The military has had trouble transferring sexual misconduct investigations to civilian police bodies over the past year.
> The Canadian Armed Forces has transferred 57 investigations to civilian police services since last December, Col. Vanessa Hanrahan, deputy commander of Canada's military police, said Monday.
> But another 40 cases have been declined by civilian police for a variety of reasons, including jurisdictional and resource concerns, she said.
> Military police are trying to address these concerns by working with civilian police investigators and giving them access to military police records, Hanrahan said.
> ABOUT THE AUTHOR​
> Darren Major
> CBC Journalist
> Darren Major is a senior writer for CBC's Parliamentary Bureau. He can be reached via email darren.major@cbc.ca or by tweeting him @DMajJourno.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Lots more to the report here





						Minister of National Defence’s Report to Parliament on Culture Change Reforms in response to former Supreme Court Justice Arbour’s recommendations - Canada.ca
					

Minister of National Defence’s Report to Parliament on Culture Change Reforms in response to former Supreme Court Justice Arbour’s recommendations




					www.canada.ca
				



This tidbit highlighted in the news release ....


> ... One of Madame Arbour’s recommendations, Recommendation 5, calls for the removal of criminal sexual offences from the jurisdiction of the CAF – both prosecutorial and investigative (with some exceptions) – stating that such cases should be investigated by civilian police forces at the earliest opportunity, and that they should be prosecuted exclusively in civilian criminal courts ... Minister Anand has directed DND/CAF to implement Recommendation 5. As such, the Minister has asked DND/CAF to present options regarding how such jurisdictional change can occur, and to do so in consultation with federal, provincial, and territorial partners and other actors. The Minister has also further directed that the implementation of this recommendation address potential issues such as: the capacity for civilian police services to investigate historical cases; Canada’s obligations under international law; the ability of civilian authorities to investigate cases outside of Canada (including civilian police force capacity to deploy to conflict zones); and discrepancies in providing victims’ services between the civilian and military justice systems, among other things ...


----------



## Jarnhamar

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> I will admit I see a double standard in one aspect here.
> 
> I can probably dig up many howls of outrage on this site over LEO's  being suspended with pay while awaiting charges to be dealt with.  Mr.Fortin received full pay during this period and yet that's not enough for a lot of people it seems.
> 
> To me, he has no complaint with the military, it's whether or not these charges should have even been filed.



Damn, guilty of that bias here. I'm very critical of LEOs suspended with pay but would be less critical of CAF members having their pay withheld. 

It's a good reminder about fairness, though I'd still say the years and years LEOs get suspended with pay is unacceptable. And so is high ranking CAF members who are being paid to sit at home when they're not in the disciplinary process because the government doesn't know what to do with them.


----------



## brihard

The Bread Guy said:


> Lots more to the report here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Minister of National Defence’s Report to Parliament on Culture Change Reforms in response to former Supreme Court Justice Arbour’s recommendations - Canada.ca
> 
> 
> Minister of National Defence’s Report to Parliament on Culture Change Reforms in response to former Supreme Court Justice Arbour’s recommendations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.canada.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This tidbit highlighted in the news release ....


It’s all well and good to remove military jurisdiction from sexual assault cases; that would effectively saddle OPP with the cases from Meaford or Pet; Halifax Regional Police would catch anything at Dockyards, RCMP would get Cold Lake, etc. but that only works within Canada. There would need to be amendment to the criminal code to allow Canadian civilian police to effectively investigate alleged sexual offences that happen in a military context outside of Canada. As it stands if one of our troops in Latvia is accused of sexually assaulting a collleague, there’s nothing in our law that would allow, say, RCMP to swear an information and lay charges in a Canadian civilian court. Similarly, some investigative steps such as warrants for searches or DNA samples would be inaccessible as there is no civilian court that would have authority to grant those warrants.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Jarnhamar said:


> Damn, guilty of that bias here. I'm very critical of LEOs suspended with pay but would be less critical of CAF members having their pay withheld.
> 
> It's a good reminder about fairness, though I'd still say the years and years LEOs get suspended with pay is unacceptable. And so is high ranking CAF members who are being paid to sit at home when they're not in the disciplinary process because the government doesn't know what to do with them.



Me too.  I can fall into your ranks.  Bias recognized.


----------



## lenaitch

brihard said:


> It’s all well and good to remove military jurisdiction from sexual assault cases; that would effectively saddle OPP with the cases from Meaford or Pet; Halifax Regional Police would catch anything at Dockyards, RCMP would get Cold Lake, etc. but that only works within Canada. There would need to be amendment to the criminal code to allow Canadian civilian police to effectively investigate alleged sexual offences that happen in a military context outside of Canada. As it stands if one of our troops in Latvia is accused of sexually assaulting a collleague, there’s nothing in our law that would allow, say, RCMP to swear an information and lay charges in a Canadian civilian court. Similarly, some investigative steps such as warrants for searches or DNA samples would be inaccessible as there is no civilian court that would have authority to grant those warrants.


And what would be the involvement/impact of the host country's justice system?  It's all well and good to say 'we will do this', but what are the implications when 'we' are 'there' and 'there' may have its own thoughts on the matter?  I assume it is clearer in countries where we are deployed agreeably through some kind of visiting forces agreement and where there is an actual functioning justice system.  Further complications likely arise when one of the involved parties is a citizen of said other country, or at least not a Canadian citizen.


----------



## KevinB

I’m personally a big fan of the M67 Stupidity Remover for those incidents…


----------



## brihard

lenaitch said:


> And what would be the involvement/impact of the host country's justice system?  It's all well and good to say 'we will do this', but what are the implications when 'we' are 'there' and 'there' may have its own thoughts on the matter?  I assume it is clearer in countries where we are deployed agreeably through some kind of visiting forces agreement and where there is an actual functioning justice system.  Further complications likely arise when one of the involved parties is a citizen of said other country, or at least not a Canadian citizen.


It would be feasible to fix this legislatively, and to extend the provisions of the Criminal a code to CAF members deployed outside of Canada. Prosecutorial jurisdiction already exists for public service employees.






						Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction of the Courts - Criminal Law Notebook
					






					criminalnotebook.ca
				




There would likely need to be additional provisions for judicial authorizations (warrants, etc), but that’s purely a matter of appropriately legislating, with heavy involvement of criminal litigators in the legislation drafting process.


----------



## Navy_Pete

brihard said:


> It would be feasible to fix this legislatively, and to extend the provisions of the Criminal a code to CAF members deployed outside of Canada. Prosecutorial jurisdiction already exists for public service employees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction of the Courts - Criminal Law Notebook
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> criminalnotebook.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There would likely need to be additional provisions for judicial authorizations (warrants, etc), but that’s purely a matter of appropriately legislating, with heavy involvement of criminal litigators in the legislation drafting process.


It's a good thing they figured all this out before implementing the policy and updated the legislation appropriately!

Oh wait...


----------



## Good2Golf

Navy_Pete said:


> It's a good thing they figured all this out before implementing the policy and updated the legislation appropriately!
> 
> Oh wait...


It probably briefed well in the echo chamber.


----------



## dapaterson

It is a recommendation that will be implemented.  For a project, it's as if it just finished OA and is entering Definition.


----------



## lenaitch

brihard said:


> It would be feasible to fix this legislatively, and to extend the provisions of the Criminal a code to CAF members deployed outside of Canada. Prosecutorial jurisdiction already exists for public service employees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction of the Courts - Criminal Law Notebook
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> criminalnotebook.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There would likely need to be additional provisions for judicial authorizations (warrants, etc), but that’s purely a matter of appropriately legislating, with heavy involvement of criminal litigators in the legislation drafting process.


You are possibly correct, although it seems the extraterritorial application of the Charter has not been extensively tested.  Point 6 of attached discussing Sec 32(1):






						Charterpedia - Section 32(1) – Application of the Charter
					

Department of Justice Canada's Internet site




					www.justice.gc.ca
				




Extra-territorial judicial authorizations would no doubt be easier to legislate into place if it involved a Canadian entity, such as a CF medical facility.  Perhaps not so easy if it involved a foreign entity.

*****
In addition to the legal niceties, funding will be an issue for incidents allegedly occurring on deployment.  I believe earlier discussion suggested that the numbers aren't huge, but the financial impact could be.  For incidents occurring on domestics bases, it was argued that costs should be covered by federal 'in lieu' payments.  Fair enough.   But should the City of North Bay be on the hook for flying a crew overseas to investigate a member of 22 Wing?  Since there is really no 'civilian police service of jurisdiction', would the decision be based on the posting of the victim?  Suspect?  Some other criteria?  Even for the larger services like the RCMP, OPP and SQ, the organizations may be large, but crime is tpically investigated at the local level, and I'm guessing Cold Lake RCMP isn't all that big.

At least these problems can be solved by throwing money around.


----------



## dapaterson

lenaitch said:


> At least these problems can be solved by throwing money around.


Mitigated, perhaps, but likely not "solved".


----------



## daftandbarmy

Meanwhile, MND in the spotlight again today:

Defence minister to implement all Arbour report recommendations to combat sexual misconduct in military​All sexual assault cases will be transferred from the military justice system to civilian courts

Defence Minister Anita Anand on Tuesday committed to implementing all 48 recommendations of a report on sexual misconduct in the military. 

OTTAWA — Defence Minister Anita Anand said Tuesday she will implement all of the recommendations of a report on sexual misconduct in the military, including transferring all sex assault cases out of the military justice system to civilian courts.

Anand was responding to an independent report from former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour, which was released in May. Arbour presented 48 recommendations and Anand immediately agreed to 17 of her proposals, while promising to study the others. In a report to Parliament presented on Tuesday, Anand promised to implement all of the remaining recommendations, but didn’t offer a specific timeline for doing so.

But Arbour said the process is taking too long and accused the government of dragging its feet on tackling sexual misconduct in the military.

Arbour appeared Tuesday at the House of Commons National Defence Committee. She argued there should be no reason for further studies on the issue and that changing the law would give civilian police no choice but to take over the cases from the military justice system.

“I am concerned this issue is now the subject of further discussions and considerations. It makes it very complicated. It’s not complicated. You want to abolish that jurisdiction, put it in an act of Parliament. It’s not hard.”

In her report, Arbour acknowledged it could take years to fully make all the changes she was recommending but said the work to move cases out of the military justice system should start immediately.

Arbour said if Anand disagrees with moving the cases to the civilian system she should just say so, but more reports and more studies will only extend the process.

Anand told MPs implementing that recommendation is complex and she wants to ensure it is done right, not just fast. The military has received and failed to act on several previous reports about sexual misconduct, but she insisted that would not happen again.









						Defence minister to implement all Arbour report recommendations to combat sexual misconduct in military
					

Anita Anand says all sexual assault cases will be transferred from the military justice system to civilian courts.




					nationalpost.com


----------



## FJAG

dapaterson said:


> It is a recommendation that will be implemented.  For a project, it's as if it just finished OA and is entering Definition.


So. How many person years are being added to JAG's/DND&CFLA's establishments to make all this happen. Or has someone finally figured out that they can repurpose a whole hockey sock of mil prosecutors?


----------



## dapaterson

The lack of responsiveness to legislative change by JAG and CFLA is at best problematic.


----------



## FJAG

dapaterson said:


> The lack of responsiveness to legislative change by JAG and CFLA is at best problematic.


Maybe DoJ should be tasked to amend s 9.4 of the NDA to read LCol. That could be done in a day and three readings.

They could also take a closer look at ss 9(2) and 10


----------



## brihard

lenaitch said:


> You are possibly correct, although it seems the extraterritorial application of the Charter has not been extensively tested.  Point 6 of attached discussing Sec 32(1):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charterpedia - Section 32(1) – Application of the Charter
> 
> 
> Department of Justice Canada's Internet site
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.justice.gc.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Extra-territorial judicial authorizations would no doubt be easier to legislate into place if it involved a Canadian entity, such as a CF medical facility.  Perhaps not so easy if it involved a foreign entity.



SCC should rule imminently on a relevant case to this in R. v. McGregor, a court martial appeal. It will shed some light on Charter applicability in military cases originating outside of Canada.






						Supreme Court of Canada - SCC Case Information - Summary - 39543
					






					www.scc-csc.ca


----------



## FJAG

> Military officers handed guilty verdict, reprimanded after inappropriate 'call sign'
> 
> 
> The Royal Canadian Air Force says two military officers have been handed reprimands and minor suspensions of pay for failing to enforce the military's orders on preventing and addressing sexual misconduct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ottawacitizen.com



This was an interesting quote:



> It added that the Air Force “is taking measures to formalize the tradition of call-sign review boards to provide proper oversight, and ensure they are conducted in a manner that is in line with the Air Force’s values.”



I guess having an RCAF colonel and lieutenant-colonel in the room isn't good enough.

Wonder what the new system will be?


----------



## Furniture

FJAG said:


> This was an interesting quote:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess having an RCAF colonel and lieutenant-colonel in the room isn't good enough.
> 
> Wonder what the new system will be?


Appoint a new two star as the callsign authority!


----------



## OldSolduer

FJAG said:


> This was an interesting quote:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess having an RCAF colonel and lieutenant-colonel in the room isn't good enough.
> 
> Wonder what the new system will be?


Hire the Church Lady from SNL?


----------



## TacticalTea

FJAG said:


> This was an interesting quote:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess having an RCAF colonel and lieutenant-colonel in the room isn't good enough.
> 
> Wonder what the new system will be?


Lol.

Typical CAF...

Just because an incident happened doesn't mean anything has to change. Incidents happen, deal with it and move on.


----------



## dimsum

FJAG said:


> This was an interesting quote:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess having an RCAF colonel and lieutenant-colonel in the room isn't good enough.
> 
> Wonder what the new system will be?


3 Cpls in a trenchcoat.

Or "official" c/s and "unofficial" c/s.


----------



## Lumber

FJAG said:


> This was an interesting quote:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess having an RCAF colonel and lieutenant-colonel in the room isn't good enough.
> 
> Wonder what the new system will be?


I can almost guarantee you that the call-signs will now have to be vetted and approved by the CPCC before they can be made official.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Lumber said:


> I can almost guarantee you that the call-signs will now have to be vetted and approved by the CPCC before they can be made official.



lol I had to google that acronym lol  I thought it was some Conservative party lol


----------



## Lumber

Halifax Tar said:


> lol I had to google that acronym lol  I thought it was some Conservative party lol


lol. It's sad to see that someone as senior as you doesn't yet recognize the the name of an organization that is suppose to have its tentacles into every other part of the CAF, slowly guiding the institution toward being a better more inclusive organization. 

Just to be clear. that's not a dig on you at all; that's a dig at the marketing capabilities of the CPCC.


----------



## markppcli

FJAG said:


> This was an interesting quote:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess having an RCAF colonel and lieutenant-colonel in the room isn't good enough.
> 
> Wonder what the new system will be?


Honestly it will probably amount to what the rest of military does with stuff that can easily be photographed, the long established “how will this look in the news” check.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Lumber said:


> lol. It's sad to see that someone as senior as you doesn't yet recognize the the name of an organization that is suppose to have its tentacles into every other part of the CAF, slowly guiding the institution toward being a better more inclusive organization.
> 
> Just to be clear. that's not a dig on you at all; that's a dig at the marketing capabilities of the CPCC.



Its all good... after all this time in the CAF I have so many acronyms rolling around in my noggin its not always easy to sort them out.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Halifax Tar said:


> Its all good... after all this time in the CAF I have so many acronyms rolling around in my noggin its not always easy to sort them out.


I had to look that one up too (_Chief Professional Conduct and Culture_ (_CPCC_)).

But honest, 'F*cked a woman gay' should never have gotten suggested, let alone approved. Now we're all collectively wearing it because the fighter pilots involved were idiot children.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Navy_Pete said:


> I had to look that one up too (_Chief Professional Conduct and Culture_ (_CPCC_)).
> 
> But honest, 'F*cked a woman gay' should never have gotten suggested, let alone approved. Now we're all collectively wearing it because the fighter pilots involved were idiot children.



That was the call sign ?  Jesus Mary and Joseph.  I've got nothing... How did that even get spoken outload, let alone in a professional environment ?


----------



## Lumber

Halifax Tar said:


> That was the call sign ?  Jesus Mary and Joseph.  I've got nothing... How did that even get spoken outload, let alone in a professional environment ?


I asked a non-fighter-pilot pilot buddy of mine how two Colonels in the room could possibly not have the wherewithal to quash that right away, and his response was that fighter-pilots are special breed of "above all others". Maybe @SupersonicMax can collaborate.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Halifax Tar said:


> That was the call sign ?  Jesus Mary and Joseph.  I've got nothing... How did that even get spoken outload, let alone in a professional environment ?


Someone probably thought they would fool everyone because it sounds like 'Fog'.

But I have no idea, that was my general reaction. Maybe as a joke between a few friends (with a plausibly deniable cover story for polite company) you might get nicknames like that, but can't believe that got suggested/accepted as someone's C/S.

That's a level of obliviousness I can't wrap my head around, and even for fighter pilots that is a special kind of stupid. The rest of us should get a free shot for the amount of collective punishment that will result.


----------



## GK .Dundas

I had no idea that you could be a senior officer at the age of 12. And all this time here I thought you had to be at least an adult to get a commission.
I have actually stopped using the phrase of ,"How stupid can you get."Too many people have stopped taking as an insult and are viewing it as a challenge.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Halifax Tar said:


> lol I had to google that acronym lol  I thought it was some Conservative party lol



I thought they were part of the NDP liberal coalition…


----------



## KevinB

GK .Dundas said:


> I had no idea that you could be a senior officer at the age of 12. And all this time here I thought you had to be at least an adult to get a commission.
> I have actually stopped using the phrase of ,"How stupid can you get."Too many people have stopped taking as an insult and are viewing it as a challenge.


When you make something idiot proof, the world simply builds a better idiot.


----------



## Navy_Pete

KevinB said:


> When you make something idiot proof, the world simply builds a better idiot.


It's like a stupidity arms race! Except we're hopelessly outnumbered and the other side sees Idiocracy as a road map to success.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Eye In The Sky said:


> I thought they were part of the NDP liberal coalition…


You're thinking of the Communist Party of the Central Caucasus ...


Navy_Pete said:


> ... 'F*cked a woman gay' should never have gotten suggested, let alone approved. Now we're all collectively wearing it because the fighter pilots involved were idiot children.


If that's the case, no words ...


----------



## Halifax Tar

Navy_Pete said:


> It's like a stupidity arms race! Except we're hopelessly outnumbered and the other side sees Idiocracy as a road map to success.



That movie and the BOOK Starship Troopers have become more and more real for very different reasons in my life.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Halifax Tar said:


> That movie and the BOOK Starship Troopers have become more and more real for very different reasons in my life.



“Man has no moral instinct. He is not born with moral sense. You were not born with it, I was not - and a puppy has none. We acquire moral sense, when we do, through training, experience, and hard sweat of the mind.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, Starship Troopers


----------



## Halifax Tar

daftandbarmy said:


> “Man has no moral instinct. He is not born with moral sense. You were not born with it, I was not - and a puppy has none. We acquire moral sense, when we do, through training, experience, and hard sweat of the mind.”
> ― Robert A. Heinlein, Starship Troopers




"My mother said violence never solves anything." "So?" Mr. Dubois looked at her bleakly. "I'm sure the city fathers of Carthage would be glad to know that."

- Lt. Col. Jean V. Dubois (Ret.), p. 25; exchange between him and a student


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

FJAG said:


> This was an interesting quote:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess having an RCAF *colonel* and *lieutenant-colonel* in the room isn't good enough.
> 
> Wonder what the new system will be?


We truly have become pathetic


----------



## daftandbarmy

The doubt is strong amongst these ones, as it should be 






						Arbour warns against letting her report on sexual misconduct sink into a policy 'graveyard'
					






					www-cbc-ca.cdn.ampproject.org


----------



## Good2Golf

Halifax Tar said:


> That was the call sign ?  Jesus Mary and Joseph.  I've got nothing... How did that even get spoken outload, let alone in a professional environment ?



How?  It’s a culture. 

I was in an intra-government brief, and there was a CF-18 pilot briefing and he didn’t batt an eyelash when he introduced himself using his call-sign, which I kid you not was the name of a female portion of genitalia, to the Senior-level mixed-gender audience.

I recall the aghast looks on ADMs’ and DGs’ faces…and later was asked by an ADM during my brief which followed the CF-18 pilot (pretty sure it was to make a point to DND writ large), what my call-sign was, to which I responded “H21” (aka. Hotel-2-1) with a brief explanation of how it was a purely functional callsign that helped supported army units know I was a helicopter sub-unit team leader and where I fit into the overall operation.

Re: the fighter call-sign, this surprises me not at all, and *detracts from the CAF advancing appropriately when it comes to responsible, respectful conduct. 😔


*Edited: to narrow the brush painting of CAF’s progress in respectful culture


----------



## Navy_Pete

Is that really indicative of the CAF culture writ large, or just the fighter pilot cell in particular continuing to live out their Top Gun fantasies and thinking they are particularly special?

I can't imagine even the biggest caveman I know doing that in that context, unless they were deliberately trying to get charged, and even 30 years ago people had 'polite company' nicknames and actual nicknames with friends.

Just because a small inbred cell of people in the CAF are still living in the 70s, doesn't mean there haven't been significant changes for the bulk of the institution, but expecting this will result in the other 60k+ of us getting dumped on again because a few dozen Maverick wannabes are childish idiots.


----------



## Remius

Navy_Pete said:


> Is that really indicative of the CAF culture writ large, or just the fighter pilot cell in particular continuing to live out their Top Gun fantasies and thinking they are particularly special?
> 
> I can't imagine even the biggest caveman I know doing that in that context, unless they were deliberately trying to get charged, and even 30 years ago people had 'polite company' nicknames and actual nicknames with friends.
> 
> Just because a small inbred cell of people in the CAF are still living in the 70s, doesn't mean there haven't been significant changes for the bulk of the institution, but expecting this will result in the other 60k+ of us getting dumped on again because a few dozen Maverick wannabes are childish idiots.


Did we actually have call signs like that in the 70s?  I may be wrong but maybe they had more class back then?

Agree with your post btw.


----------



## Good2Golf

Navy_Pete said:


> Is that really indicative of the CAF culture writ large, or just the fighter pilot cell in particular continuing to live out their Top Gun fantasies and thinking they are particularly special?
> 
> I can't imagine even the biggest caveman I know doing that in that context, unless they were deliberately trying to get charged, and even 30 years ago people had 'polite company' nicknames and actual nicknames with friends.
> 
> Just because a small inbred cell of people in the CAF are still living in the 70s, doesn't mean there haven't been significant changes for the bulk of the institution, but expecting this will result in the other 60k+ of us getting dumped on again because a few dozen Maverick wannabes are childish idiots.


Fair enough NP, I should have limited my broad brush to such ‘fighter types’ and their contribution to keeping things from improving at the rate they should.


----------



## OldSolduer

Good2Golf said:


> Fair enough NP, I should have limited my broad brush to such ‘fighter types’ and their contribution to keeping things from improving at the rate they should.


So just a thought: Would "CrayonEater" be an appropriate call sign?


----------



## Good2Golf

OldSolduer said:


> So just a thought: Would "CrayonEater" be an appropriate call sign?


It would help with PID… 👍🏼


----------



## daftandbarmy

Good2Golf said:


> How?  It’s a culture.
> 
> I was in an intra-government brief, and there was a CF-18 pilot briefing and h*e didn’t batt an eyelash when he introduced himself using his call-sign, which I kid you not was the name of a female portion of genitalia, to the Senior-level mixed-gender audience.*
> 
> I recall the aghast looks on ADMs’ and DGs’ faces…and later was asked by an ADM during my brief which followed the CF-18 pilot (pretty sure it was to make a point to DND writ large), what my call-sign was, to which I responded “H21” (aka. Hotel-2-1) with a brief explanation of how it was a purely functional callsign that helped supported army units know I was a helicopter sub-unit team leader and where I fit into the overall operation.
> 
> Re: the fighter call-sign, this surprises me not at all, and *detracts from the CAF advancing appropriately when it comes to responsible, respectful conduct. 😔
> 
> 
> *Edited: to narrow the brush painting of CAF’s progress in respectful culture



And there, in a single moment of truth, the scale of the CAF's culture shift challenge has been well defined ....


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

daftandbarmy said:


> And there, in a single moment of truth, the scale of the CAF's culture shift challenge has been well defined ....


----------



## Navy_Pete

Remius said:


> Did we actually have call signs like that in the 70s?  I may be wrong but maybe they had more class back then?
> 
> Agree with your post btw.


I have no idea, I was thinking more of outside the CAF when I was a kid (in the 80s). And it would be less of a nickname and more of a bullying insult.

I don't have enough facepalms for my reaction when I saw the callsign on legitimate news sources that confirmed it was what reddit said it was.


----------



## Eaglelord17

Usually a nickname like that I would assume started out as something innocent and was modified to be that or the person asking for it snuck it by on what the intended meaning was (ex. OP Honour when said with french accent sounds a lot like ‘hop on her’ which is about when they told us to start calling it operation honour). 

If those senior officers knew the intent behind that call sign, it amazes me that they would allow it in this era as it is obviously just trouble waiting to happen.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Navy_Pete said:


> I have no idea, I was thinking more of outside the CAF when I was a kid (in the 80s). And it would be less of a nickname and more of a bullying insult.
> 
> I don't have enough facepalms for my reaction when I saw the callsign on legitimate news sources that confirmed it was what reddit said it was.








I mean people love Top Gun, especially the characters that don't follow the rules 😁.  They were just mimicking the lead act!


----------



## Halifax Tar

We should just replace manned fighter planes with drones and ground based AA defense anyways.

_ducks for cover_


----------



## Good2Golf

Halifax Tar said:


> We should just replaces manned fighter planes with drones and ground based AA defense anyways.
> 
> _ducks for cover_


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Halifax Tar said:


> We should just replaces manned fighter planes with drones and ground based AA defense anyways.
> 
> _ducks for cover_


Just get the Americans to defend us entirely, like Iceland 😆.

The loss of sovereignty would be compensated with increased equalization payments to Québec, some sort of employment equity program to Cape Breton or Newfoundland.

We could also carry on with our favorite pass time of complaining about Americans.  WIN WIN for All Parties!


----------



## Navy_Pete

On the plus side, the fact that the board upgrades included GIFs has been great to relieve a bit of tension when talking about really serious stuff.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Navy_Pete said:


> On the plus side, the fact that the board upgrades included GIFs has been great to relieve a bit of tension when talking about really serious stuff.


----------



## QV

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Just get the Americans to defend us entirely, like Iceland 😆.
> 
> The loss of sovereignty would be compensated with increased equalization payments to Québec, some sort of employment equity program to Cape Breton or Newfoundland.
> 
> We could also carry on with our favorite pass time of complaining about Americans.  WIN WIN for All Parties!


This... is not a _bad _idea... someone should start a thread on this topic.


----------



## dimsum




----------



## Humphrey Bogart

dimsum said:


> View attachment 75473


Sounds like a job that can be done in Florida, preferably on a golf course 😉.


----------



## dimsum

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Sounds like a job that can be done in Florida, preferably on a golf course 😉.


Nope - new TB rules, must be at office 2-3 days a week


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

dimsum said:


> Nope - new TB rules, must be at office 2-3 days a week


The position sounds like "we want you to be the boss but you can't be the boss, so you're going to hang out with the 'boss' and tell the 'boss' exactly what to do!"


----------



## dapaterson

dimsum said:


> Nope - new TB rules, must be at office 2-3 days a week


Except the CAF is not listed in the FAA, so it applies to DND public servants, not CAF.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

dapaterson said:


> Except the CAF is not listed in the FAA, so it applies to DND public servants, not CAF.


----------



## Halifax Tar

dimsum said:


> View attachment 75473



I'm just glad we can continue to find ways to keep GO/FOs gainfully employed.


----------



## dimsum

Halifax Tar said:


> I'm just glad we can continue to find ways to keep GO/FOs gainfully employed.


It's the middle of the posting cycle and he's found not guilty.  The guy has been getting paid the entire time.

The options are:

Punt him anyway
Put him into someone else's job
Make a spot for him
Optically, 1 is bad because he's not guilty.  2 means someone else needs a job.  

I'm not really sure what else could have been done at this point.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Halifax Tar said:


> I'm just glad we can continue to find ways to keep GO/FOs *gainfully *employed.



Can you prove that for us?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Halifax Tar said:


> I'm just glad we can continue to find ways to keep GO/FOs gainfully employed.


How long can General Dawe remain in timeout is my question?  Feels like guy has been marking time for 2 years now.


----------



## Halifax Tar

dimsum said:


> It's the middle of the posting cycle and he's found not guilty.  The guy has been getting paid the entire time.
> 
> The options are:
> 
> Punt him anyway
> Put him into someone else's job
> Make a spot for him
> Optically, 1 is bad because he's not guilty.  2 means someone else needs a job.
> 
> I'm not really sure what else could have been done at this point.



Fair enough and I mean it's not like we have an excess of GO/FOs.  They are definitely in need.


----------



## dimsum

Humphrey Bogart said:


> How long can General Dawe remain in timeout is my question?  Feels like guy has been marking time for 2 years now.


In that pic, he will be a Special Advisor to VCDS.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

dimsum said:


> In that pic, he will be a Special Advisor to VCDS.


That's what I mean.  That's a make believe job 😉

Found a pic of General Dawe at his desk😁


----------



## dimsum

Humphrey Bogart said:


> That's what I mean.  That's a make believe job 😉
> 
> Found a pic of General Dawe at his desk😁


On a separate note, I need one of those cutouts.


----------



## Good2Golf

dimsum said:


> In that pic, he will be a Special Advisor to VCDS.


Wasn’t/isn’t SA to CDS a full-Colonel, or am I showing my over-the-hilledness age?


----------



## dimsum

Good2Golf said:


> Wasn’t/isn’t SA to CDS a full-Colonel, or am I showing my over-the-hilledness age?


You are correct.

I'm also a bit confused at the wording now.  Maybe another SA?  SSA (Senior Special Advisor)?  Supernumerary Special Advisor?


----------



## Good2Golf

5C is always an option for GOFOs.


----------



## kev994

dimsum said:


> Nope - new TB rules, must be at office 2-3 days a week


I anticipate that to be filed in the “rules for thee but not for me” cabinet.


----------



## dapaterson

Good2Golf said:


> 5C is always an option for GOFOs.


So is "unsuccessful man overboard drills".


----------



## kev994

dapaterson said:


> So is "unsuccessful man person living being overboard drills".


----------



## kev994

dimsum said:


> View attachment 75473


I thought we were supposed to be looking for duties that can be cut? This guy’s entire job is to give tips to someone whose actual job is to do things?


----------



## dapaterson

There have been specific duties assigned, to accomplish some work that is necessary but was not previously being pursued due to capacity issues.


----------



## OldSolduer

Humphrey Bogart said:


> How long can General Dawe remain in timeout is my question?  Feels like guy has been marking time for 2 years now.


I don't know if you know Pete but he is one hell of a soldier.


----------



## Takeniteasy

Interesting article from the Canadian Press and their interview with Huddleston. I have posted about my experiences and it follows you. IH is the commander I had in AFG when I had to go through a discriminatory attack. He walked into my workspace and saw that I was preparing to file a Formal Complaint and his response was to I quote "I expect you to divorce yourself from this and let the coc take care of this" he also used his body and language to threaten to send me home. I was not willing to back down and that was troubling the CoC big time (we are talking within 48hrs of incident) . IH should not be mentoring anyone until maybe he addresses his behaviors while in a position of power over someone.
I have posted other remarks made by other senior ranks and you can read them, he is not alone but this article demonstrates many aspects that keeps contexts in the hands of those who have the power.

Article quote: "I can't understand it myself," he said. "It's stupidity. I don't understand it. This is not something that I'm familiar with even in my 33-year career."
 REALLY!!

Add: at no time does he address the junior members in this and how behaviors of seniors affect and effect them, presume and assume authority over them...



			Air Force to add oversight after officers lose pay over 'egregious' pilot call sign


----------



## Lumber

Takeniteasy said:


> Interesting article from the Canadian Press and their interview with Huddleston. I have posted about my experiences and it follows you. IH is the commander I had in AFG when I had to go through a discriminatory attack. He walked into my workspace and saw that I was preparing to file a Formal Complaint and his response was to I quote "I expect you to divorce yourself from this and let the coc take care of this" he also used his body and language to threaten to send me home. I was not willing to back down and that was troubling the CoC big time (we are talking within 48hrs of incident) . IH should not be mentoring anyone until maybe he addresses his behaviors while in a position of power over someone.
> I have posted other remarks made by other senior ranks and you can read them, he is not alone but this article demonstrates many aspects that keeps contexts in the hands of those who have the power.
> 
> 
> 
> Air Force to add oversight after officers lose pay over 'egregious' pilot call sign


I didn't know Huddleston's first name was also Iain, so when I saw "*IH* is the commander I had in AFG", I thought you were referring to LCol Ian Hope. :S


----------



## Good2Golf

> Describing the call sign assigned on June 22 as "egregious," Huddleston said the nickname and review board clearly crossed the line and "had nothing to do with esprit de corps, it had nothing to do with teamwork."
> 
> Yet he also said that he does not want to change the basic structure of such review boards, adding: "They’re still going to be social events, because it is about esprit de corps. ... And I feel that it is still a tradition that we want to support, but with structure."
> 
> Exactly what form that structure will take remains uncertain, but Huddleston said one idea is to have a senior member in the room who will not drink and whose job is to control the group.
> 
> "Someone has to be there to be able to say: 'Hey, this is stupid, knock it off,'" he said.



Yeah, if only there had been a senior member in the room to control the group…oh wait…

It was a deep-rooted culturally-entrained failure that only with the retrospective lens was identified as being entirely inappropriate.  It reinforces reasonable questioning of the continued attitudes that appear to many in the moment to be entirely acceptable…when they aren’t. 

@Takeniteasy, your treatment previously was wrong, both the details of the verbal/written harassment and on the CoC trying to influence you to not report it.


----------



## OldSolduer

Good2Golf said:


> Yeah, if only there had been a senior member in the room to control the group…oh wait…
> 
> It was a deep-rooted culturally-entrained failure that only with the retrospective lens was identified as being entirely inappropriate.  It reinforces reasonable questioning of the continued attitudes that appear to many in the moment to be entirely acceptable…when they aren’t.
> 
> @Takeniteasy, your treatment previously was wrong, both the details of the verbal/written harassment and on the CoC trying to influence you to not report it.


You mean the RCAF needs a designated call sign driver? Are there any adults in the CAF anymore?


----------



## Good2Golf

OldSolduer said:


> You mean the RCAF needs a designated call sign driver? Are there any adults in the CAF anymore?


Don’t get me wrong, OS.  I don’t think it’s needs anyone else at all, just a responsible leader.  

There was a full-bull Wing Commander there FFS!  

What’s the solution, send a BGen out of 1 CAD on TD to oversee callsign review boards? 🤦🏻


----------



## OldSolduer

Good2Golf said:


> Don’t get me wrong, OS.  I don’t think it’s needs anyone else at all, just a responsible leader.
> 
> There was a full-bull Wing Commander there FFS!
> 
> What’s the solution, send a BGen out of 1 CAD on TD to oversee callsign review boards? 🤦🏻


A retired Army CWO? with common sense?


----------



## Good2Golf

OldSolduer said:


> A retired Army CWO? with common sense?



“Awww FFS, sir! Really?”

I’d be up for that, OS. 👍🏼


----------



## KevinB

OldSolduer said:


> A retired Army CWO? with common sense?


With an aluminum bat…


Got to ensure the negative reinforcement is carried out thoroughly.


----------



## Halifax Tar

I always surprised at the sense of entitlement and disconnected mentality many of our Snr Leadership has.


----------



## dimsum

Halifax Tar said:


> I always surprised at the sense of entitlement and disconnected mentality many of our Snr Leadership has.


Something something fighter pilot culture, heritage, history...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Takeniteasy said:


> Article quote: "I can't understand it myself," he said. "It's stupidity. I don't understand it. This is not something that I'm familiar with even in my 33-year career."



It’s more appropriate to quote the entire part for context:

Asked how a roomful of fighter pilots would assign such a name at a time when military members are supposed to have been warned about inappropriate sexual behaviour, Huddleston said he was at a loss.

"I can't understand it myself," he said. "It's stupidity. I don't understand it. This is not something that I'm familiar with even in my 33-year career."

He also couldn't say why Col. Colin Marks and Lt.-Col. Corey Mask, who were the senior officers in the room, didn’t intervene.

—————————


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Good2Golf said:


> Don’t get me wrong, OS.  I don’t think it’s needs anyone else at all, just a responsible leader.
> 
> There was a full-bull Wing Commander there FFS!
> 
> What’s the solution, send a BGen out of 1 CAD on TD to oversee callsign review boards? 🤦🏻



No, just have a sober Col…according to the article.   Isn’t drunkenness an offence/infraction?


----------



## Furniture

Halifax Tar said:


> I always surprised at the sense of entitlement and disconnected mentality many of our Snr Leadership has.


There is a push to get Snr. leaders to make the right mouth noises, but at the top there still seems to occasionally* be a lingering element of "Who is going to charge me?".  

*I think we need to be careful to not paint all Snr. NCMs/Officers with too broad a brush. There are genuinely good people doing the best they can, they just don't make the papers.


----------



## Takeniteasy

Eye In The Sky said:


> It’s more appropriate to quote the entire part for context:
> 
> Asked how a roomful of fighter pilots would assign such a name at a time when military members are supposed to have been warned about inappropriate sexual behaviour, Huddleston said he was at a loss.
> 
> "I can't understand it myself," he said. "It's stupidity. I don't understand it. This is not something that I'm familiar with even in my 33-year career."
> 
> He also couldn't say why Col. Colin Marks and Lt.-Col. Corey Mask, who were the senior officers in the room, didn’t intervene.
> 
> —————————



Not at all, for context his reflection and comments are based on his career as he states. And the part about senior officers not intervening, well his actions with me as a senior officer were to threaten me with the reprisal of sending me home due to me moving forward with a formal complaint. 
These types of incidents do not happen in a vacuum and the never ending excuses are no surprise.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Takeniteasy said:


> Not at all, for context his reflection and comments are based on his career as he states.



Ok, it’s to the detriment of your position to steer people to a conclusion you want, as opposed to getting there on their own.

I don’t know you, or the situation you allege and therefore have no comment or opinion on what did/did not happen.  I’ve had limited interactions with him and all were favourable and professional.


----------



## Takeniteasy

Eye In The Sky said:


> Ok, it’s to the detriment of your position to steer people to a conclusion you want, as opposed to getting there on their own.
> 
> I don’t know you, or the situation you allege and therefore have no comment or opinion on what did/did not happen.  I’ve had limited interactions with him and all were favourable and professional.


You seem to be someone who has it all figured out.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Takeniteasy said:


> You seem to be someone who has it all figured out.



Nope.  Don’t get your knickers in a knot.  I don’t know the MGen personally and am not advocating for him.  He was the WComd when we kicked off IMPACT and I was line Sqn operator.  He was the type that would come
and give the crews some face time before we left, etc.  He later spoke honestly and publicly about the burn out IMPACT had on the fleet; credit where due for that.


----------



## Good2Golf

Eye In The Sky said:


> Ok, it’s to the detriment of your position to steer people to a conclusion you want, as opposed to getting there on their own.
> 
> I don’t know you, or the situation you allege and therefore have no comment or opinion on what did/did not happen.  I’ve had limited interactions with him and all were favourable and professional.


In fairness to Takeniteasy, EITS, for those who tracked his situation, it made the national news just over a decade ago.  It was a shameful situation and IMO, wasn’t addressed properly. I know MGen Huddleston, but his statement in the recent article and Takeniteasy’s perspective noted earlier gives me cause to think critically about people’s words and positions, present and past.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Good2Golf said:


> In fairness to Takeniteasy, EITS, for those who tracked his situation, it made the national news just over a decade ago.  It was a shameful situation and IMO, wasn’t addressed properly. I know MGen Huddleston, but his statement in the recent article and Takeniteasy’s perspective noted earlier gives me cause to think critically about people’s words and positions, present and past.
> 
> Regards
> G2G



Then I’ll have to ask for forgiveness for my lack of insight on that situation;  if someone wants to provide, I’ll welcome a link to the info.

Takeniteasy, my apologies for not knowing of your situation.


----------



## Takeniteasy

Eye In The Sky said:


> Nope.  Don’t get your knickers in a knot.  I don’t know the MGen personally and am not advocating for him.  He was the WComd when we kicked off IMPACT and I was line Sqn operator.  He was the type that would come
> and give the crews some face time before we left, etc.  He later spoke honestly and publicly about the burn out IMPACT had on the fleet; credit where due for that.


I spent close to 22 years in the CAF and aside from stepping up when others were harmed while in I was only able to step up covertly for myself when it came to homophobic jokes and attitudes, believe me as an infanteer who won Iron and Mountain mans (blah blah blah I know) and then a Sar Tech I was in the prime grounds for hypermasculinity with lazy behaviors and attitudes. All that phobia was simple thinking and a perverse idea of what it takes to be employed or do the job in the CAF.

The second part of your comment regarding how he was a  front and centre leader giving of his time is what makes these types of situations even more devastating to those who have had the courage to come forward (the PDawe situation as a recent example). And believe me I have done all the military type courage things and there is no comparison to when you have to confront your own families behaviors/attitudes. I thought he was a nice guy then and would not object to saying he is most likely a very nice guy now. But that does not excuse how actions have consequences. I lost my career... further senior ranks comments after coming home were "this is a sensitive topic", and " you need to know your place." Both Command CWOs. I can go on but it just gets me more angry. The CoC actions are born from somewhere and without understanding and pure hard truths and realities then you simply just play the profession game with no real change.

Everything I have stated on army.ca (search would bring the threads up) are in the formal complaint and notice to grieve. I am not making anything up and still have my pad notes I made during the first few days of this incident in AFG. The result of the grievance from Lawson was predictable, the CAF did not have the faculties to deal with these types of situations, and until the Deschamps report came out, I and many others had very little support or foundation to press forward. Now 10 years on and look where the CAF is.

As for a link, you can search here and I am sure the thread is still viewable.

No need to apologize, but I do wear boxers.


----------



## Lumber

Eye In The Sky said:


> Then I’ll have to ask for forgiveness for my lack of insight on that situation;  if someone wants to provide, I’ll welcome a link to the info.
> 
> Takeniteasy, my apologies for not knowing of your situation.


_EITS,  _you want to hear something crazy? YOU actually wrote a long post/shared someone else's letter in support of @Takeniteasy's situation back in 2012. This isn't to call you out for having forgotten, merely to highlight how fallible memory can be.

https://milnet.ca/forums/threads/the-merged-thread-on-gay-homosexual-topics-and-the-cf.899/page-24


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Lumber said:


> _EITS,  _you want to hear something crazy? YOU actually wrote a long post/shared someone else's letter in support of @Takeniteasy's situation back in 2012. This isn't to call you out for having forgotten, merely to highlight how fallible memory can be.
> 
> https://milnet.ca/forums/threads/the-merged-thread-on-gay-homosexual-topics-and-the-cf.899/page-24



I do feel fairly addle-brained at this particular time.   I just connected the dots after reading Takeniteasy’s reply before yours.

I’ll take a moment and thank you both for the gentle replies while my brain was off chasing butterflies in the meadow…


----------



## Takeniteasy

Lumber said:


> _EITS,  _you want to hear something crazy? YOU actually wrote a long post/shared someone else's letter in support of @Takeniteasy's situation back in 2012. This isn't to call you out for having forgotten, merely to highlight how fallible memory can be.
> 
> https://milnet.ca/forums/threads/the-merged-thread-on-gay-homosexual-topics-and-the-cf.899/page-24


The last paragraph in Holly's article was me being covert in blasting back at those senior leaders around me during my time of release. It was a positive article but I was still in complete shock and had no idea how to move forward other then to release. I would have been charged for insubordination within the year if not.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Takeniteasy said:


> I spent close to 22 years in the CAF and aside from stepping up when others were harmed while in I was only able to step up covertly for myself when it came to homophobic jokes and attitudes, believe me as an infanteer who won Iron and Mountain mans (blah blah blah I know) and then a Sar Tech I was in the prime grounds for hypermasculinity with lazy behaviors and attitudes. All that phobia was simple thinking and a perverse idea of what it takes to be employed or do the job in the CAF.
> 
> The second part of your comment regarding how he was a  front and centre leader giving of his time is what makes these types of situations even more devastating to those who have had the courage to come forward (the PDawe situation as a recent example). And believe me I have done all the military type courage things and there is no comparison to when you have to confront your own families behaviors/attitudes. I thought he was a nice guy then and would not object to saying he is most likely a very nice guy now. But that does not excuse how actions have consequences. I lost my career... further senior ranks comments after coming home were "this is a sensitive topic", and " you need to know your place." Both Command CWOs. I can go on but it just gets me more angry. The CoC actions are born from somewhere and without understanding and pure hard truths and realities then you simply just play the profession game with no real change.
> 
> Everything I have stated on army.ca (search would bring the threads up) are in the formal complaint and notice to grieve. I am not making anything up and still have my pad notes I made during the first few days of this incident in AFG. The result of the grievance from Lawson was predictable, the CAF did not have the faculties to deal with these types of situations, and until the Deschamps report came out, I and many others had very little support or foundation to press forward. Now 10 years on and look where the CAF is.
> 
> As for a link, you can search here and I am sure the thread is still viewable.
> 
> No need to apologize, but I do wear boxers.



There is a need to apologize and I’m happy to; I only wish I would have recalled sooner who I had replied to and your travesty I’d known about but somehow completely forgotten about.  

I honestly don’t recall his name being a part of what you endured and wrote about but it certainly makes me pause and question how much credit I gave him minutes ago.  My personal thoughts of him are significantly different now after connecting dots and clearing cobwebs. 

Again, sincerely, my apologies for forgetting who I was replying to.


----------



## Takeniteasy

Eye In The Sky said:


> There is a need to apologize and I’m happy to; I only wish I would have recalled sooner who I had replied to and your travesty I’d known about but somehow completely forgotten about.
> 
> I honestly don’t recall his name being a part of what you endured and wrote about but it certainly makes me pause and question how much credit I gave him minutes ago.  My personal thoughts of him are significantly different now after connecting dots and clearing cobwebs.
> 
> Again, sincerely, my apologies for forgetting who I was replying to.





Eye In The Sky said:


> There is a need to apologize and I’m happy to; I only wish I would have recalled sooner who I had replied to and your travesty I’d known about but somehow completely forgotten about.
> 
> I honestly don’t recall his name being a part of what you endured and wrote about but it certainly makes me pause and question how much credit I gave him minutes ago.  My personal thoughts of him are significantly different now after connecting dots and clearing cobwebs.
> 
> Again, sincerely, my apologies for forgetting who I was replying to.


All good, I never did mention names back then as I was walking a tight rope with regards to what I could and could not say(still in uniform...). Imagine being called into CMPs office to discuss the CBC news interview request, this is when the "this is a sensitive topic" quote came up. You would have liked to be a fly on the wall when my retort was immediate, "I can do this interview now while in uniform or when I am out." CMP public affairs officer then offered to run me through a questions and answer practice! LOL( I did actually laugh a little) I said after all the positive media I have brought to the CAF over the years and now you want me to go through a PA practice/advice session? I told them no thanks, I think I am the SME on this topic and the CDS has said that CAF members can comment on issues/operations they are directly involved with. As a side note the interview was on my post deployment leave and at the same time I was participating as a Medal Bearer for the Rick Hansen's 25th anniversary wheels in motion world tour. So CAF seniors got a very watered down interview (good for them) and at the same time more positive news from a CAF member who did not need baby sitting or inspiration from them. And when I got back from Winnipeg I had the MSM ceremony at Rideau Halll for guess what "Soldier On." I exited immediately after the official ceremony and by passed the reception but that was not unnoticed. When I got back to work from leave I was called into the office, that result ended with the senior rank speechless and red faced without any further discussion until the CDS/CFCWO showed up to my so called DWD lunch saying sorry and things need to change.

You can see I am still dealing with this but until recently have kept it all to myself except some VAC CMs and the psychologist I see on a regular bases. The tipping point with regards to IH was when someone who knows my situation closely sent me a link to a SAR TECH graduation ceremony where IH was the presenting officer!!! That was infuriating. Its on the AF facebook page.

And my last bit for this is that this was not the first note that I had received at work. During my first ST posting on the east coast 98,99 cant remember the actual date, a note was left in my personal squadron mail slot regarding my personal affectionate orientation (no need to type the words here). This note was crumpled up and I threw it in the garbage immediately (you can imagine the feelings I had), its a wonder I lasted close to 22 years and I almost released in fall of 2001 but we all know what happened to change my mind and give it a little more time.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I’m speechless;  and hope I didn’t cause things to come to the surface for you today.


----------



## Takeniteasy

Eye In The Sky said:


> I’m speechless;  and hope I didn’t cause things to come to the surface for you today.


Not at all, its what restorative engagement is and I am getting my notes ready for when I get the call. But once again as Arbour has recently stated the CAF is dragging its heals. I am looking forward to when they do finally call because my conditions will be that they need to fly me to Ottawa and that the ranks need to be MWO/CWO and COL to Gen ranks.  How do you think that will be received? I am done with being dictated to but am realistic and will be surprised if they accept...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I’m hopeful it is received humbly and fully supported.


----------



## daftandbarmy

I vote for more callsigns like this


----------



## The Bread Guy

Apologies if this has already been shared - feel free to nuke this if it has ....








						Air Force reinstates officers disciplined for 'egregious' fighter pilot call sign
					

The Royal Canadian Air Force is reinstating two officers disciplined over a homophobic nickname given to a fighter pilot.




					www.ctvnews.ca
				





> The Royal Canadian Air Force is reinstating two officers disciplined over a homophobic nickname given to a fighter pilot.
> 
> Maj.-Gen. Iain Huddleston announced the decision to reinstate Col. Colin Marks and Lt.-Col. Casey Mask in a message to Air Force members today.
> 
> The two officers pleaded guilty at a hearing last week after failing to stop a group of fighter pilots from assigning an inappropriate call sign to another pilot in June.
> 
> Huddleston says Marks and Mask have demonstrated humility, and that he and Air Force commander Lt.-Gen. Eric Kenny believe the two officers can learn from their mistake.
> 
> He says that is why Marks will be allowed to assume command of Canada's fighter base in Bagotville, Que., and Mask is returning to his post as commander of a CF-18 squadron in Cold Lake, Alta. ....


----------



## Jarnhamar

Maj.-Gen. Iain Huddleston said:
			
		

> Marks and Mask have demonstrated humility



They just didn't know better. It's plausible that a Col and Lt-Col wouldn't realize that a callsign based on sex and homophobia is inappropriate in 2022.


----------



## Lumber

Jarnhamar said:


> They just didn't know better. It's plausible that a Col and Lt-Col wouldn't realize that a callsign based on sex and homophobia is inappropriate in 2022.


Is it possible the jr. officers sold it by presenting a different meaning at the callsign selection, but "secretly" to each other understood their real meaning for it? It wouldn't be hard to come up with an alternative meaning behind the acronym FAWG, and hearing "Fog" certainly doesn't appear derogatory... but maybe I'm giving these two officers too much credit... I just can't believe they wouldn't have this sense.


----------



## dimsum

Lumber said:


> Is it possible the jr. officers sold it by presenting a different meaning at the callsign selection, but "secretly" to each other understood their real meaning for it? It wouldn't be hard to come up with an alternative meaning behind the acronym FAWG, and hearing "Fog" certainly doesn't appear derogatory... but maybe I'm giving these two officers too much credit... I just can't believe they wouldn't have this sense.


Following on, do they actually explain the meaning at the Review Boards?  

But then again, I'd be asking why someone was c/s "Fog" too - like they were lost all the time or something.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Lumber said:


> Is it possible the jr. officers sold it by presenting a different meaning at the callsign selection, but "secretly" to each other understood their real meaning for it? It wouldn't be hard to come up with an alternative meaning behind the acronym FAWG, and hearing "Fog" certainly doesn't appear derogatory... but maybe I'm giving these two officers too much credit... I just can't believe they wouldn't have this sense.


That's a possibility. In that scenario should those jr officers be released from the CAF for a clear attempt to deceive their chain of command and make light of sexual misconduct and homophobia? Or do we give them a pass because they're good guys that didn't know better and we don't want to hurt their career.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Nothing to see here, just officers being officers, move along.


----------



## Lumber

Jarnhamar said:


> That's a possibility. In that scenario should those jr officers be released from the CAF for a clear attempt to deceive their chain of command and make light of sexual misconduct and homophobia? Or do we give them a pass because they're good guys that didn't know better and we don't want to hurt their career.


No. They get punished, reprimanded, and sent back to work.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Halifax Tar said:


> Nothing to see here, just officers being officers, move along.


----------



## dapaterson

Lumber said:


> No. They get punished, reprimanded, and sent back to work.


Plenty of vacant staff positions they could fill, and put someone else in command.

Or are ethics and integrity not needed for command positions?


----------



## Lumber

dapaterson said:


> Plenty of vacant staff positions they could fill, and put someone else in command.
> 
> Or are ethics and integrity not needed for command positions?


We were referring to the junior pilots themselves. If my hypothesis is correct and they lied about what FAWG really meant, should they be kicked out or just reprimanded?


----------



## The Bread Guy

Jarnhamar said:


> .... should those jr officers be released from the CAF for a clear attempt to deceive their chain of command and make light of sexual misconduct and homophobia? Or do we give them a pass because they're good guys that didn't know better and we don't want to hurt their career.


Well, as long as they can "learn from their mistake", I believe the precedent's been set, right?


----------



## OldSolduer

Jarnhamar said:


> That's a possibility. In that scenario should those jr officers be released from the CAF for a clear attempt to deceive their chain of command and make light of sexual misconduct and homophobia? Or do we give them a pass because they're good guys that didn't know better and we don't want to hurt their career.


Be careful. IMO when it comes to pers matters its a balancing act. As commissioned officers should they have known better? Yes I think they should have. Should they be released for their stupid transgression? No. 
Give them the admin equivalent of a cast iron frying pan upside the head, reassess, and move on. They didn't murder anyone did they? Or snort coke off the ready room table before flying did they? 

Another thing - this will follow them their entire career, however long it may be. The CAF has a long institutional memory.


----------



## dimsum

OldSolduer said:


> Another thing - this will follow them their entire career, however long it may be. The CAF has a long institutional memory.


Yep.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

The Bread Guy said:


> Apologies if this has already been shared - feel free to nuke this if it has ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Air Force reinstates officers disciplined for 'egregious' fighter pilot call sign
> 
> 
> The Royal Canadian Air Force is reinstating two officers disciplined over a homophobic nickname given to a fighter pilot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ctvnews.ca



A message to Air Force members today; while many of us have departed Sqn lines on leave…timing likely coincidental.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Eye In The Sky said:


> A message to Air Force members today; while many of us have departed Sqn lines on leave…timing likely coincidental.


Surprised they didn't wait until Friday PM, if that's the case ...


----------



## Jarnhamar

Editing for brevity


----------



## TacticalTea

Military launches probe to decide fate of Maj.-Gen. Fortin's career after sexual assault acquittal
		


No surprise there, but I'm not sure that this process has its place, even less so if, as per the article, more hoops are added in accordance with Arbour's recommendations.

If there was a risk of interpersonal conflict then a plan should be designed to manage that, but in this case the alleged victim is not a serving member anymore, and the matter is exceedingly dated. There is nothing an administrative process could do to correct any current behavioural issue.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Eye In The Sky said:


> A message to Air Force members today; while many of us have departed Sqn lines on leave…timing likely coincidental.



Because some pigs are more equal than others


----------



## dapaterson

RCAF needs a strong enema right now.

Fire all fighter pilots Col and above.

Then look at LCol and below.

But keeping Col and LCol who thought that was OK, and not removing them from command?

What the absolute fuck?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

dapaterson said:


> RCAF needs a strong enema right now.
> 
> Fire all fighter pilots Col and above.
> 
> Then look at LCol and below.
> 
> But keeping Col and LCol who thought that was OK, and not removing them from command?
> 
> What the absolute fuck?


Imagine them being the signature on a "this is the expectations we demand from you" email you receive??


----------



## Navy_Pete

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Imagine them being the signature on a "this is the expectations we demand from you" email you receive??


Like finding out the guy pushing Op Honour for years was a deadbeat dad, serial adulterer who had at best, inappropriate relationships with subordinates? And then threatened them so they would lie to the investigators? No credibility issue at all.

Kind of mind blowing though, not sure how they would have any credibility as a Wing Commander or unit CO right away, I guess penance is for the peons and they learned their lessons right away.

I'd probably have to be close to black out drunk before thinking that's a good idea, but probably also a really bad example at a professional social event with all the subordinates in the trade. Which I'm not sure why it wasn't a factor in the charges, but maybe they had no evidence to support they were drunk as well as idiot children when they stood by and let that go to a 'vote'.


----------



## Takeniteasy

Navy_Pete said:


> Kind of mind blowing though, not sure how they would have any credibility as a Wing Commander or unit CO right away, I guess penance is for the peons and they learned their lessons right away.


Reading through the articles I am wondering if Huddleston is in some way verbalizing some self atonement. He sure knows about being on their side of the situation.


----------



## brihard

Wait, so LCol and Col are basically culpable as commanders for not stopping this from happening, but the former is allowed to resume squadron command, and the latter is allowed to _begin_ wing command?

That’s, uh… Well, that’s certainly one approach to assert CAF’s determination to accomplish culture change.


----------



## Jarnhamar

brihard said:


> That’s, uh… Well, that’s certainly one approach to assert CAF’s determination to accomplish culture change.



We're instructed to call it a culture evolution now. Not a culture change.

The name change is a pretty big deal and will probably solve a lot of these issues.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Takeniteasy said:


> Reading through the articles I am wondering if Huddleston is in some way verbalizing some self atonement. He sure knows about being on their side of the situation.


I would hope so, but maybe too cynical to think this isn't a 'good guys who made a mistake' kind of thing where they are hoping to sweep it under the rug.

I don't know either of them, but would really have a hard time taking anyone seriously as a boss in an ethics casecade, psychological safety cascade etc though that didn't think they should stomp pretty hard on someone nominating 'Fucked a Woman Gay (FAWG)' as an official callsign, especially given the reported backstory behind it involving a fellow trainee in a same sex relationship.

It's offensive for all kinds of reasons, and really wish they wouldn't self censor it in the news articles as it kind of lets them off the hook for how bad they shit the bed here. Just brutal.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Meanwhile, let the probing commence:


Military launches probe to decide fate of Maj.-Gen. Fortin's career after sexual assault acquitted​Military to determine likelihood that sexual assault occurred based on balance of probabilities​
The Department of National Defence (DND) says Maj.-Gen. Dany Fortin, the senior military commander who once led Canada's vaccine rollout, still has a job after being acquitted of sexual assault.

A Quebec judge ruled earlier this month that while he believed the complainant was sexually assaulted in 1988 at the Royal Military College Saint-Jean in Quebec, he wasn't convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the assailant was Fortin. 

"Major-General D. Fortin was appointed to a new position as senior adviser to Commander Canadian Joint Operations Command, in Ottawa," the Canadian Forces stated on Dec.15, more than a week after Fortin's acquittal.

That position is the same one Fortin was given after he was dropped from his job leading Canada's national vaccine delivery operation at the Public Health Agency of Canada in the spring of 2021, shortly after the sexual assault allegation came to light.

The military says the new message is meant to formalize that position.

According to Fortin's spokesperson, he remains in "limbo" with no assigned work and is now the subject of a mandatory administrative review to determine his fate in the Canadian Armed Forces.

That administrative review is based on a burden of proof easier to meet than the one employed in criminal trials, says an expert in military law.

The military's administrative review process will decide — based on what the military calls a "balance of probabilities" — if it's more likely than not that the alleged sexual assault took place.

The Canadian Armed Forces also must decide if anything Fortin has done violates "professional standards" or calls into question "the viability of a CAF member's continued service," says a military order on the DND website.

Conviction in criminal court requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was committed.




			https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/military-administrative-review-underway-major-general-dany-fortin-case-1.6692181


----------



## kev994

Hmmm, when I look up reprimand for DoD It looks pretty serious. That doesn’t look like what happened here.


----------



## kratz

Reference: CTV.ca

Why is this a CAF question? 

Government mandate these charges are civilian, the CAF responsibility is hands off for tracking.



> Military can't - or won't - reveal outcomes of criminal sexual cases passed to civilians​
> Military police don't know -- or won't say -- how many of the dozens of cases involving criminal sexual behaviour referred to civilian counterparts over the past year have resulted in charges.
> 
> 
> That has sparked criticism from some experts, who say such information is critical to knowing whether sending such cases to civilian authorities is having the intended effect.
> 
> Defence Minister Anita Anand first directed military police and prosecutors to start handing cases to civilian authorities in November 2021, following a recommendation to that effect from retired Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour.
> 
> ...more at source.



Administrative actions have always been separate. Generally, this is held in reserve until other outcomes are resolved.

As frustrating as the system is, with due course and proper procedure...the system is functional.


----------



## ModlrMike

> The military's administrative review process will decide — based on what the military calls a "balance of probabilities" — if it's more likely than not that the alleged sexual assault took place.
> The Canadian Armed Forces also must decide if anything Fortin has done violates "professional standards" or calls into question "the viability of a CAF member's continued service," says a military order on the DND website.
> Conviction in criminal court requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was committed.



Hasn't that ship already sailed? He's been acquitted at trial... there is no balance of probabilities to consider IMHO. Arguably, if there had been an AR proceeding the trial, then there might be an argument regarding balance of probabilities. Does not the higher burden of proof prevail?


----------



## brihard

ModlrMike said:


> Hasn't that ship already sailed? He's been acquitted at trial... there is no balance of probabilities to consider IMHO. Arguably, if there had been an AR proceeding the trial, then there might be an argument regarding balance of probabilities. Does not the higher burden of proof prevail?


No, those would be two entirely different processes.

The criminal burden of proof as being on the crown, and beyond a reasonable doubt, sets a very high threshold for conviction with resultant penal sanction. And rightly so. Conviction for criminal offences can result in derivation of liberty backed by the states monopoly on lawful coercive force. So, it’s proper to have that necessitate proof to a high degree.

An administrative measure is generally balance of probabilities, or sometimes BoP+. So, a matter can very easily be found in an administrative tribunal or civil court to be likely true on a BoP or even the higher standard of a preponderance of evidence, but still be subject to reasonable doubt that could prevent a criminal conviction. In plainer terms, if a criminal court has to believe something is 99% likely to be true, and doesn’t find that, it doesn’t mean they have excluded that same thing being 51% likely to be true.



kratz said:


> Reference: CTV.ca
> 
> Why is this a CAF question?
> 
> Government mandate these charges are civilian, the CAF responsibility is hands off for tracking.



Civil courts who have tried a member subject to the Code of Service Discipline are obligated on request of a CAF officer to advise what the member was tried for and the outcome. And, for that matter, all trials are open to the public. CAF could send a member to observe and report on the outcome of any trial.



			
				National Defense Act said:
			
		

> *255. *Where any person subject to the Code of Service Discipline has at any time been tried by a civil court, the clerk of that court or other authority having custody of the records of the court shall, if required by any officer of the Canadian Forces, transmit to that officer a certificate setting out the offence for which that person was tried, together with the judgment or order of the court thereon…



Prior to trial, my best guess is the onus is on the member to disclose their legal woes to the chain of command.

So, CAF definitely knows the outcomes of any processes that have concluded (or bloody well should); not disclosing same is a choice. As for matters underway, that would depend on any particular police service’s legislative, regulatory, and policy structure for information sharing. I wouldn’t expect police to share investigative details or progress directly with CAF. Crown, JAG, and DOJ can hash it out.


----------



## FJAG

Just to add to that, DAOD 7006-1 at 3.1 requires the entry of a criminal conviction by any court in Canada (as well as matters before foreign courts) in a person's Conduct Sheet. At article 7 are responsibilities but there is no specific one for an individual to report their conviction to the CoC - it would have been nice if it had. OTOH article 6 talks about compliance and failure of compliance hints that they must report. It's a weak part of the DAOD, IMHO.

I'm too far retired to know if there is any other policy or regulation that mandates a member reporting their civil convictions. I can't recall if the old CFAO 26-16 had the requirement. I have the vague memory that there used to be something. If someone still has access to it they might want to look it up.

🍻


----------



## brihard

On the flip side, a member catching a criminal charge and conviction and slipping the entire matter quietly past their chain of command would be impressive bullshittery. I’m sure it’s happened.


----------



## McG

A member not disclosing that they have been criminally charged can result in service charge.


			https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6379921


----------



## brihard

McG said:


> A member not disclosing that they have been criminally charged can result in service charge.
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6379921


Oh hey, yeah, I forgot about that one.


----------



## Haggis

McG said:


> A member not disclosing that they have been criminally charged can result in service charge.
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6379921


Q(K)R&O 19.56 reads: Where an officer or non-commissioned member has been arrested by a civil authority, *the member shall cause the arrest to be reported to the member's commanding officer.*


----------



## FJAG

Not to belabour a fine point but QR&O 19.56 deals with arrests and not charges without arrest. Law is about fine points.

That said, JAG has the responsibility and system in place to track all service offence statistics. One would think that where the system has been rejigged to cater to these classes of offences that it would be of interest to JAG and the CAF to track their progress if, for nothing else, statistical purposes. In fact the interest should go far beyond mere statistics.

One thing, It's a National Post article and, like CBC, they're prone to jumping to a conclusion if it suits their preconceptions.

🍻


----------



## Eye In The Sky

brihard said:


> No, those would be two entirely different processes.
> 
> The criminal burden of proof as being on the crown, and beyond a reasonable doubt, sets a very high threshold for conviction with resultant penal sanction. And rightly so. Conviction for criminal offences can result in derivation of liberty backed by the states monopoly on lawful coercive force. So, it’s proper to have that necessitate proof to a high degree.
> 
> An administrative measure is generally balance of probabilities, or sometimes BoP+. So, a matter can very easily be found in an administrative tribunal or civil court to be likely true on a BoP or even the higher standard of a preponderance of evidence, but still be subject to reasonable doubt that could prevent a criminal conviction. In plainer terms, if a criminal court has to believe something is 99% likely to be true, and doesn’t find that, it doesn’t mean they have excluded that same thing being 51% likely to be true.
> 
> 
> 
> Civil courts who have tried a member subject to the Code of Service Discipline are obligated on request of a CAF officer to advise what the member was tried for and the outcome. And, for that matter, all trials are open to the public. CAF could send a member to observe and report on the outcome of any trial.
> 
> 
> 
> Prior to trial, my best guess is the onus is on the member to disclose their legal woes to the chain of command.
> 
> So, CAF definitely knows the outcomes of any processes that have concluded (or bloody well should); not disclosing same is a choice. As for matters underway, that would depend on any particular police service’s legislative, regulatory, and policy structure for information sharing. I wouldn’t expect police to share investigative details or progress directly with CAF. Crown, JAG, and DOJ can hash it out.



Admin law and decisions in the CAF are (should always) be based on what you call the BoP+ level (direction found in the CAF Admin Law Manual).


----------



## brihard

FJAG said:


> Not to belabour a fine point but QR&O 19.56 deals with arrests and not charges without arrest. Law is about fine points.
> 
> That said, JAG has the responsibility and system in place to track all service offence statistics. One would think that where the system has been rejigged to cater to these classes of offences that it would be of interest to JAG and the CAF to track their progress if, for nothing else, statistical purposes. In fact the interest should go far beyond mere statistics.
> 
> One thing, It's a National Post article and, like CBC, they're prone to jumping to a conclusion if it suits their preconceptions.
> 
> 🍻


A good point. An accused could easily be compelled to court via summons.


----------



## ModlrMike

Shades of OJ then where he was acquitted in one court, and found guilty in another I suppose. It would be an interesting argument to make before a judge that an acquittal at trial has no bearing on an administrative process. Of course we risk the "everyone knows he did it, he just got lucky. Let's hang him with this other process" way of managing cases.


----------



## brihard

ModlrMike said:


> Shades of OJ then where he was acquitted in one court, and found guilty in another I suppose. It would be an interesting argument to make before a judge that an acquittal at trial has no bearing on an administrative process. Of course we risk the "everyone knows he did it, he just got lucky. Let's hang him with this other process" way of managing cases.


The verdict doesn’t have any bearing. The evidence itself may. Also there’s a different thing being adjudicated; elements of a specific criminal offence in the one case versus a more general administrative determination of misconduct befitting termination of employment on the other. Overlapping? Sure. But also distinct and distinguishable.


----------



## FJAG

The evidence is critical here and particularly in light of the fact that a trained jurist watched and heard all the testimony and found Fortin's to be clear and consistent and the complainant's to have significant contradictions. 

I would think it would be difficult for an administrative process to reject any of that to find even on a balance of probabilities that there is sufficient proof against him. Effectively this is one of those classic "he said; she said" situations and the analysis, even on a balance, favours him.

🍻


----------



## brihard

FJAG said:


> The evidence is critical here and particularly in light of the fact that a trained jurist watched and heard all the testimony and found Fortin's to be clear and consistent and the complainant's to have significant contradictions.
> 
> I would think it would be difficult for an administrative process to reject any of that to find even on a balance of probabilities that there is sufficient proof against him. Effectively this is one of those classic "he said; she said" situations and the analysis, even on a balance, favours him.
> 
> 🍻


Yup. I should have clarified I was speaking to process generally, not trying to predict proceedings or outcomes in this particular case.

My WAG? CAF will try to pay him to go away.


----------



## FJAG

brihard said:


> Yup. I should have clarified I was speaking to process generally, not trying to predict proceedings or outcomes in this particular case.
> 
> My WAG? CAF will try to pay him to go away.


Oh for sure. They're between a rock and a hard place but too arrogant to know it. I expect their attitude is: its not our fault that a complainant came forward.

Calculating his losses as a serving officer is the easy part. Its the very substantial "after retirement" damage that has been done. The lost promotions and prestige and the earnings lost as a result of those is massive.

The problem with being woke is that you throw all your eggs into one side of the basket and forget about fundamental fairness and the presumption of innocence. In one's scramble to be supportive of a victim one loses sight of the fact that you might very well be creating a new victim.

🍻


----------



## brihard

FJAG said:


> Oh for sure. They're between a rock and a hard place but too arrogant to know it. I expect their attitude is: its not our fault that a complainant came forward.



Ok, but that much is completely true. What I can’t pick out of this situation (and granted, I don’t at all have full info) is any instance where anyone in CAF didn’t do what they were supposed to do; what they’ve been getting told to do. Do we _not_ want historical sex assault victims to come forward? Do we not want those complaints to be taken seriously? Do we not want police to refer matters to crown if there’s enough evidence to merit charge consideration? If a pendulum is being seen here as having swung to far, how far back should it swing?

Even with sexual offences handed off completely to civilian services, we’ll see analogous sets of facts repeat in future. Will it still be CAF’s fault? If so, why, and if not, then whose?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

As far as I'm concerned the CAF did exactly what they should have done....


----------



## FJAG

I don't know enough about the inner workings of the investigation to question it.

It's the suspension for a historic allegation that troubles me. I would see it differently if it was a recent complaint by, especially by a serving employee. QR&O 19.75 is broad (and IMHO overbroad) but nonetheless requires a balancing act. It is no longer balancing when every allegation leads to suspension. It becomes a systemic approach that concludes from the get go that the forces' public image to be seen to do right to a putative victim must result in a suspension from duties notwithstanding whether or not the suspension is truly necessary or the damage it does to an accused who is to be presumed innocent until a fair trial or hearing.

I've always found it disingenuous of a system that can accept that a person accused of stabbing someone, for example, and who denies it can be given a presumption of innocence until convicted at trial. Stabbing is a clear and unambiguous violent act. On the other hand, someone accused of sexual misconduct or assault is immediately vilified even though a sexual act can be either consensual or not and is therefore frequently ambiguous until the evidence is properly tested. In the latter case society now demands that the victim be given immediate credibility regardless of the circumstances.

I think the system needs to be held accountable. The discrepancies in the accusers evidence should have been clear to the investigators and should have formed a vital part of the decision to suspend. The underlying problem is that no senior leader is prepared to go in front of a camera and say "I'm not suspending X because I think the complainant's evidence is contradictory and questionable and the 20 year old allegations have nothing to do with his current job performance." That, IMHO, is systemic, woke gutlessness and needs to be sanctioned when an independent judge says "not guilt because the complainant's evidence was contradictory."

🍻


----------



## brihard

FJAG said:


> The discrepancies in the accusers evidence should have been clear to the investigators and should have formed a vital part of the decision to suspend.



There’s some hazard here. You’re now talking about disclosure of evidence obtained in the course of a criminal investigation outside of those involved in the investigation or prosecution, and before trial. There need to be some very careful boundaries drawn in considering normalizing this.


----------



## TacticalTea

Eye In The Sky said:


> Admin law and decisions in the CAF are (should always) be based on what you call the BoP+ level (direction found in the CAF Admin Law Manual).


Yes. An example, from DAOD 5019-4:

*5.1*_ A remedial measure may be initiated if there is *clear and convincing evidence* that establishes *on a balance of probabilities* that a CAF member has demonstrated..._

However.

Sanctions imposed by commanding officer
NDA 163.1 (2)_ A commanding officer who finds *on a balance of probabilities*, at a summary hearing, that a person has committed one or more service infractions, may impose one or more of the sanctions referred to in paragraphs 162.7(c) to (e)._


FJAG said:


> the 20 year old allegations have nothing to do with his current job performance


This is exactly the heart of my problem with his suspension.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

TacticalTea said:


> Yes. An example, from DAOD 5019-4:
> 
> *5.1*_ A remedial measure may be initiated if there is *clear and convincing evidence* that establishes *on a balance of probabilities* that a CAF member has demonstrated..._
> 
> However.
> 
> Sanctions imposed by commanding officer
> NDA 163.1 (2)_ A commanding officer who finds *on a balance of probabilities*, at a summary hearing, that a person has committed one or more service infractions, may impose one or more of the sanctions referred to in paragraphs 162.7(c) to (e)._



I was thinking more along the line of the way the CF Admin Law Manual lays it out:




During the MJUL course, I was constantly wondering why the course kept referring to the "BoP" without elaborating or referring to the above para's, particularly "*it is something more than a bare balance of probabilities*".


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Serious adverse consequences must be based on clear and convincing evidence?


Nah!!!!!!


----------



## FJAG

brihard said:


> There’s some hazard here. You’re now talking about disclosure of evidence obtained in the course of a criminal investigation outside of those involved in the investigation or prosecution, and before trial. There need to be some very careful boundaries drawn in considering normalizing this.


I'm not talking about the criminal investigation but the investigation conducted by the decision maker respecting the suspension. This must be more than a proforma "oh, yeah. We've got some evidence."

Like everyone else here I'm sitting quite far removed from the action, but in my gut I've got the feeling that the investigation fell far short of the appropriate standard based primarily on the judge's finding of credible evidence. The decision made had enormous consequences for the accused and, again IMHO, the fact that the incident appeared to be a very disputed one-of going back decades did not merit a suspension while the case would it's way through the system. 

Again, based on nothing more than what I read in the papers, this appeared to me to be part of a reactive corporate agenda designed to show that DND supports victims and was not a proper determination of the facts and circumstances that determined if a suspension, especially in light of the severe uncurable consequences to the accused, was necessary. 

I'd really like to be a fly on the wall of this one. My expectation is that we'll never know the truth.

🍻


----------



## brihard

FJAG said:


> I'm not talking about the criminal investigation but the investigation conducted by the decision maker respecting the suspension. This must be more than a proforma "oh, yeah. We've got some evidence."
> 
> Like everyone else here I'm sitting quite far removed from the action, but in my gut I've got the feeling that the investigation fell far short of the appropriate standard based primarily on the judge's finding of credible evidence. The decision made had enormous consequences for the accused and, again IMHO, the fact that the incident appeared to be a very disputed one-of going back decades did not merit a suspension while the case would it's way through the system.
> 
> Again, based on nothing more than what I read in the papers, this appeared to me to be part of a reactive corporate agenda designed to show that DND supports victims and was not a proper determination of the facts and circumstances that determined if a suspension, especially in light of the severe uncurable consequences to the accused, was necessary.
> 
> I'd really like to be a fly on the wall of this one. My expectation is that we'll never know the truth.
> 
> 🍻


If there hadn’t been a crown charge approval I’d lean more that way, but we have a provincial crown prosecutor from Quebec who approved charges- so someone believed there was both a public interest in proceeding, and a reasonable prospect of conviction based on the evidence.

With regards to the suspension- I’m not sure what evidence the decision maker would have beyond the fruits of the criminal investigation. They probably decided without a ton to go on, and probably put considerable weight on the fact that there was charge approval. I’m speculating, of course.


----------



## FJAG

brihard said:


> If there hadn’t been a crown charge approval I’d lean more that way, but we have a provincial crown prosecutor from Quebec who approved charges- so someone believed there was both a public interest in proceeding, and a reasonable prospect of conviction based on the evidence.


Yeah. That's the theory. It's a brave prosecutor that throws one of these out these days. My gut tells me the system, when it comes to sexual assault allegations, works on the theory of "charge them all and let the judge sort it out."

Yup. I'm that cynical.


brihard said:


> With regards to the suspension- I’m not sure what evidence the decision maker would have beyond the fruits of the criminal investigation. They probably decided without a ton to go on, and probably put considerable weight on the fact that there was charge approval. I’m speculating, of course.


Sometime the right thing to do when you don't have enough to go on is: do nothing.

Too many people think that leadership means do something. That might have a place in combat but is very risky when people's reputation and livelihood are at stake. Like I said: Sometimes doing something is consciously deciding to do nothing.

🍻


----------



## brihard

FJAG said:


> Yeah. That's the theory. It's a brave prosecutor that throws one of these out these days. My gut tells me the system, when it comes to sexual assault allegations, works on the theory of "charge them all and let the judge sort it out."
> 
> Yup. I'm that cynical.
> 
> Sometime the right thing to do when you don't have enough to go on is: do nothing.
> 
> Too many people think that leadership means do something. That might have a place in combat but is very risky when people's reputation and livelihood are at stake. Like I said: Sometimes doing something is consciously deciding to do nothing.
> 
> 🍻


I don’t disagree on either. I didn’t follow the trial closely enough to see exactly where it went off the rails or what evidence didn’t work out. I’m curious if things were said in statements that were not later matched by testimony.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

brihard said:


> . I’m curious if things were said in statements that were not later matched by testimony.


And this is were I think the "bingo" light goes on.

I said it earlier in the thread that no way a charge goes through, unless there's some juice somewhere pushing it, on identication because of "the accent".


----------



## TacticalTea

Eye In The Sky said:


> I was thinking more along the line of the way the CF Admin Law Manual lays it out:
> 
> View attachment 75643
> 
> 
> During the MJUL course, I was constantly wondering why the course kept referring to the "BoP" without elaborating or referring to the above para's, particularly "*it is something more than a bare balance of probabilities*".


What you quoted is not irrelevant but cannot be generalized (quoting you: ''should always''). Firstly, the intermediate standard of proof applies to ''decisions that are administrative in nature but, nevertheless, have serious implications for the individual''. I think that would be specifically applicable to Fortin's case, but... #NotALawyer.

Secondly, as you surely know, the POCT was based on the old system of Summary Trials. It is no longer the case that individuals charged with service infractions must have their culpability proved beyond a reasonable doubt.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

TacticalTea said:


> What you quoted is not irrelevant but cannot be generalized (quoting you: ''should always''). Firstly, the intermediate standard of proof applies to ''decisions that are administrative in nature but, nevertheless, have serious implications for the individual''. I think that would be specifically applicable to Fortin's case, but... #NotALawyer.
> 
> Secondly, as you surely know, the POCT was based on the old system of Summary Trials. It is no longer the case that individuals charged with service infractions must have their culpability proved beyond a reasonable doubt.



The important part though is the expectation and duty for CAF admin decisions to be taken using more than the mere BoPs (Para 53 seems clear on that, to me).

I’ll also bet however that most CAF mbrs aren’t familiar with or know of the existence of the Mil Admin Law Manual.

It’s late where I am, but IIRC that is not the case for Summary Hearings/svc infractions re: beyond a reasonable doubt.  It’s been a few months since I did MJUL but I recall the BoP being mentioned over and over to which I thought “no, go to the Mil Law Manual dammit”.

Service Offences/CMs, yes.


----------



## TacticalTea

Eye In The Sky said:


> The important part though is the expectation and duty for CAF admin decisions to be taken using more than the mere BoPs (Para 53 seems clear on that, to me).


Right, so the exact text is this:

_53. There is an intermediate standard of proof, falling between the criminal standard and the civil standard, that *applies to decisions that are administrative in nature but, nevertheless, have serious implications for the individual*: 

The standard of proof required in cases such as this is high. It is not the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But it is something more than a bare balance of probabilities. The authorities establish that the case against a professional person on a disciplinary hearing must be proved by a fair and reasonable preponderance of credible evidence. The evidence must be sufficiently cogent to make it safe to uphold the findings, with all of the consequences for the professional person’s career and status in the community [having been taken into account].60 

*Certain types of CF administrative decisions with serious adverse consequences to a CF member*, such as release for involvement with drugs, must be based on clear and convincing evidence._

Unless, I'm missing something - I don't pretend to be the bearer of the sacred truth - boldened text defines what this standard applies to, and the underlined clearly indicates that it cannot be generalized. It applies only to those decisions that have serious implications/adverse consequences for individuals/CF members.



Eye In The Sky said:


> It’s late where I am, but IIRC that is not the case for Summary Hearings/svc infractions re: beyond a reasonable doubt.  It’s been a few months since I did MJUL but I recall the BoP being mentioned over and over to which I thought “no, go to the Mil Law Manual dammit”.
> 
> Service Offences/CMs, yes.


Strikethrough aside, I think we're saying the same thing here, it's what I highlighted above with article 163.1 NDA.


----------



## brihard

TacticalTea said:


> Right, so the exact text is this:
> 
> _53. There is an intermediate standard of proof, falling between the criminal standard and the civil standard, that *applies to decisions that are administrative in nature but, nevertheless, have serious implications for the individual*:
> 
> The standard of proof required in cases such as this is high. It is not the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But it is something more than a bare balance of probabilities. The authorities establish that the case against a professional person on a disciplinary hearing must be proved by a fair and reasonable preponderance of credible evidence. The evidence must be sufficiently cogent to make it safe to uphold the findings, with all of the consequences for the professional person’s career and status in the community [having been taken into account].60
> 
> *Certain types of CF administrative decisions with serious adverse consequences to a CF member*, such as release for involvement with drugs, must be based on clear and convincing evidence._
> 
> Unless, I'm missing something - I don't pretend to be the bearer of the sacred truth - boldened text defines what this standard applies to, and the underlined clearly indicates that it cannot be generalized. It applies only to those decisions that have serious implications/adverse consequences for individuals/CF members.
> 
> 
> Strikethrough aside, I think we're saying the same thing here, it's what I highlighted above with article 163.1 NDA.


Safe to say that would apply to releases. Anyone know if that same higher ‘BoP+’ applies to relief or suspension from duties?


----------



## KevinB

brihard said:


> Safe to say that would apply to releases. Anyone know if that same higher ‘BoP+’ applies to relief or suspension from duties?


Given that it has serious implications for the individual…


----------



## Eye In The Sky

TacticalTea said:


> Right, so the exact text is this:
> 
> _53. There is an intermediate standard of proof, falling between the criminal standard and the civil standard, that *applies to decisions that are administrative in nature but, nevertheless, have serious implications for the individual*:
> 
> The standard of proof required in cases such as this is high. It is not the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But it is something more than a bare balance of probabilities. The authorities establish that the case against a professional person on a disciplinary hearing must be proved by a fair and reasonable preponderance of credible evidence. The evidence must be sufficiently cogent to make it safe to uphold the findings, with all of the consequences for the professional person’s career and status in the community [having been taken into account].60
> 
> *Certain types of CF administrative decisions with serious adverse consequences to a CF member*, such as release for involvement with drugs, must be based on clear and convincing evidence._
> 
> Unless, I'm missing something - I don't pretend to be the bearer of the sacred truth - boldened text defines what this standard applies to, and the underlined clearly indicates that it cannot be generalized. It applies only to those decisions that have serious implications/adverse consequences for individuals/CF members.
> 
> 
> Strikethrough aside, I think we're saying the same thing here, it's what I highlighted above with article 163.1 NDA.



I'll agree, but just want to add that that 'standard' applies to more than most people would consider, IMO.  Example of when the bare BoP would apply; career management (routine admin decisions).  When the bare BoP should not apply; admin sanction decisions.

In the context of this thread, and for the current GOFO under the microscope after being found not guilty in criminal court, the highest standard should be the one applied.

In ref to my mention of the MJUL and the use of the BoP throughout the trg, I believe that the wording chosen was in error - a SH can have consequences including career, financial and lead to Admin Action that also has potential career-long consequences.  Trg any/all OCSHs that "BoP is the gold standard" is clearly short of the goal line as a SH is 'not punitive but administrative' in the current CAF.

Admin Law/decision making is not something that is done well within the CAF in my experience.  Decision makers 'situating the estimate' and ignoring their own biases is a common issue, as well as the desire to 'appease higher', after higher has influenced the process by making their expectations known, forming the 'agenda'.

I'm speaking from my own experiences in the past and a fair number of other cases I'm aware of.  In my case, it ended in several years of BS and fuckery by several RCAF COs/Cmdts/Senior Officers, several grievances against decision makers - in the end the FA decided in my favour on all adjudications, including the CDS on one file.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

brihard said:


> Safe to say that would apply to releases. Anyone know if that same higher ‘BoP+’ applies to relief or suspension from duties?



The standard of proof I screen captured above comes from Ch 2 of the Admin Law Man (Admin Law in the CAF), Sect 4 - Procedural Fairness in the CAF, Standard of Proof for Decision Makers.

Relief/suspension from duties is covered in Ch 14 - Admin Action.

Ch 14, Sect 1, Para 2

The application of the principles of procedural fairness will vary depending on the type of administrative sanction utilized. In general, as the potential consequences of an administrative action become more severe, the member’s entitlement to procedural fairness increases.

Para 7

Common examples of administrative sanctions that do require procedural fairness measures (i.e., notice, disclosure, representations, fair unbiased decisions with reasons) include:
a. remedial measures;
b. relief from the performance of military duty; and
c. removal from command;.

It's a little long, but I'll post Ch 14, Sect 3 re: 20(a) below in its entirety.

SECTION 3
RELIEF FROM PERFORMANCE OF MILITARY DUTY
20. There are occasions where it may be appropriate for an officer or NCM to be relieved from the performance of their military duties. There is authority to relieve a CF member from the performance of their military duties under two circumstances:
a. pursuant to QR&O 19.75 (Relief from Performance of Military Duty); and
b. pursuant to QR&O 101.08 (Relief from the Performance of Military Duty – Pre and Post Trial).

21. Despite certain similarities, there is no overlap between QR&O 19.75 (Relief from Performance of Military Duty) and QR&O 101.08 (Relief from the Performance of Military Duty – Pre and Post Trial) and the two provisions must be kept conceptually and procedurally distinct.
Relief From Performance of Military Duty - General

22. In exceptional circumstances, when other administrative action is insufficient, military authorities may determine it is necessary to relieve a member from performing all military duties for reasons of public interest or because the member’s presence will undermine unit morale or operational effectiveness The following authorities may relieve a member from the performance of military duty:
a. the CDS; and
b. an officer commanding a command.

23. Before deciding that an officer or NCM is to be relieved of duty, the authority shall provide the member with the reasons why relief from duty is being considered.  These reasons should set out, in sufficient detail, the basis for contemplating the relief from military duty so that the member’s representations in response can be relevant and meaningful.

24. The member is entitled to “a reasonable opportunity to make representations.”  However, the regulations are silent as to what period of time constitutes a ‘reasonable opportunity.’ That determination must be based on all of the circumstances prevailing at the time. In the absence of an emergency, what will be considered a reasonable opportunity to make representations may require a longer period than would be otherwise reasonable when time is of the essence. Representations should be in writing and they must be considered before a final decision is reached.

25. The authority that orders the relief of an officer or NCM from military duty is required to provide to the member written reasons for their decision within 24 hours of relieving the member.  The CDS must be informed of the reasons in writing if an officer commanding a command makes such a decision.

Considerations When Deciding Whether to Relieve From Military Duty
26. As with all administrative actions, a decision to relieve an officer or NCM from military duty must be made with due consideration. When determining whether to relieve a member from military duty, authorities must consider:
a. the public interest (including maintaining discipline, good morale and the operational effectiveness of the CF); and
b. the interests of the member.

27. The public interest in relieving a CF member from military duty may arise for reasons that are external to the CF, internal to the CF, or a combination of both. This public interest includes the effect a member has on operational effectiveness and morale, and the confidence that a CO or commander has in the CF member.

28. The ramifications of being relieved of military duty may be substantial or negligible, depending in part on the individual circumstances of the member concerned. For a junior CF member, early in their military career and not yet having established a reputation within the military community, the repercussions of being relieved from military duty can be overcome by service rendered in later years. For a senior officer, approaching the end of a career, or who is being considered for higher command, the stigma that could be associated with that officer’s abilities or character may be irreparable. In both cases, the authority that considers relieving a member from military duty must give careful consideration to any representations made by the member.

29. It may be readily apparent that relieving a CF member of their military responsibilities and removing them from the unit would benefit the CF or the community in some way and, thereby, constitute a course of action that is considered to be ‘in the public interest.’ However, it must also be remembered that the public interest includes the maintenance of Canadian societal values and respect for the Rule of Law. Societal values include the importance of protecting individual rights. In Canada, ‘respect for the rule of law’ means that state action against individuals must be carried out in accordance with the law. In the case of relieving a CF member from military duty, the law requires a balancing of both the public interest and the member’s interests. Before an authority can decide to order the relief of a member, that authority must decide:
a. that no other administrative means of employing the subject (i.e., attach posting, leave, re-assignment of duties) are adequate in the circumstances; and
b. any prejudice to the member is clearly outweighed by the benefits to the public and the CF.

30. The officer who is responsible for ordering a CF member relieved of military duty shall return the member to duty as soon as the circumstances that originally required the administrative action no longer exist. The CDS must be informed, in writing, of this change of circumstances and the decision to return the member to duty.


* how to sidestep all this dribble-drabble in our policy?  Use the words "clear and convincing" in your decision, even if it isn't clear, or convincing.  ta-da.

** disclaimer ** my copy of the Admin Law Manual could be outdated, it's the one on my pers laptop and my DVPNI one was left in the office for XMas leave.


----------



## Takeniteasy

The article that came out in December has a few different writings and this one was posted today in BC. I have a lot to say about the comments regarding LGBT groups and the two offenders participation, I think that should extend to a certain other person before they continue to soap box their position.








						Air Force reinstates officers disciplined for 'egregious' fighter pilot call sign
					

OTTAWA - The Royal Canadian Air Force announced on Tuesday that it would reinstate two officers recently disciplined over a homophobic nickname given to a fighter pilot.




					www.kelownadailycourier.ca


----------

