# "Canadian Forces warns members affiliated with radical groups"



## gryphonv

The protest in question:
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/nova-scotia/cornwallis-protest-chief-grizzly-mama-canada-day-1.4187445

This involves 5 guys in Halifax ( I think 3 or 4 are in the military). In the videos they never identified themselves as military but the 'protesters' have started outing them on Facebook, trying to raise hell.

There was a short video posted on facebook I can't seem to link. In it they only giver their names and then the people who posted it attached a big story which is impossible to prove or disprove from the video.

Longer video with a little more context.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4eBFo3Hx0U


It don't seem to be covered currently by the media except for a side note, but this has blown up locally on Facebook. And as usual many people joined the bandwagon with pitchforks and torches. I wouldn't be surprised to see it in the local news tomorrow, with a negative spin towards the military.

I'm not condemning or condoning anything this group may have done but from the video I don't see much. The protesters took exception to the Red Ensign. I've seen a few military superiors on Facebook comment on the ones who are members saying things like 'they are idiots' etc. Which I feel is wrong for a superior to do it publicly, especially without giving the people a chance to defend themselves. 

Social media has been quick to label these guys 'white supremacists' though from the video I don't see anything that suggests that. Now there are some questionable behavior that can look bad going forward they are all wearing the same shirt which gives them the image of being part of a group. Apparently they admit they are part of 'Proud Boys' something I don't know much about but this is the official shirt it seems. 

I imagine a great deal of crap is going to hit these guys at work tomorrow. I'm curious what they could be charged with as the videos don't show them being aggressive at all, more so the 'protesters'.

Some side context, a lot of the same 'protesters' in the video have shown up over the years here in Halifax at different protests like Occupy from a few years back. It seems they keep looking for things to post videos off to try to start a firestorm, unfortunately these guys gave them something. 


Edit:

Here is the original video which sparked the firestorm.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9gEAHukudk


----------



## Stoker

gryphonv said:
			
		

> The protest in question:
> http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/nova-scotia/cornwallis-protest-chief-grizzly-mama-canada-day-1.4187445
> 
> This involves 5 guys in Halifax ( I think 3 or 4 are in the military). In the videos they never identified themselves as military but the 'protesters' have started outing them on Facebook, trying to raise hell.
> 
> There was a short video posted on facebook I can't seem to link. In it they only giver their names and then the people who posted it attached a big story which is impossible to prove or disprove from the video.
> 
> Longer video with a little more context.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4eBFo3Hx0U
> 
> 
> It don't seem to be covered currently by the media except for a side note, but this has blown up locally on Facebook. And as usual many people joined the bandwagon with pitchforks and torches. I wouldn't be surprised to see it in the local news tomorrow, with a negative spin towards the military.
> 
> I'm not condemning or condoning anything this group may have done but from the video I don't see much. The protesters took exception to the Red Ensign. I've seen a few military superiors on Facebook comment on the ones who are members saying things like 'they are idiots' etc. Which I feel is wrong for a superior to do it publicly, especially without giving the people a chance to defend themselves.
> 
> Social media has been quick to label these guys 'white supremacists' though from the video I don't see anything that suggests that. Now there are some questionable behavior that can look bad going forward they are all wearing the same shirt which gives them the image of being part of a group. Apparently they admit they are part of 'Proud Boys' something I don't know much about but this is the official shirt it seems.
> 
> I imagine a great deal of crap is going to hit these guys at work tomorrow. I'm curious what they could be charged with as the videos don't show them being aggressive at all, more so the 'protesters'.
> 
> Some side context, a lot of the same 'protesters' in the video have shown up over the years here in Halifax at different protests like Occupy from a few years back. It seems they keep looking for things to post videos off to try to start a firestorm, unfortunately these guys gave them something.
> 
> 
> Edit:
> 
> Here is the original video which sparked the firestorm.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9gEAHukudk



They are all members of the RCN , with two members who are apparently in the release process. From what I have seen they showed up at an aboriginal protest on Canada day waving the red ensign. I believe the aboriginals are protesting Edward Cornwallis as someone who committed genocide against their ancestors. From what I have seen on the video it was pretty tame. The commander of MARLANT has been informed and I suspect an investigation will be conducted into their membership of the Proud Boys and actions, which is a right wing group based in the US.


----------



## PuckChaser

Saw this on Facebook, and someone had linked to an "anti-racist Canada" Blog. In it, they stated the Red Ensign was the Canadian equivalent of the Confederate flag. They also stated that the ceremony was to remember MMIWG that were "murdered by the Canadian state". :facepalm:

Poor choice to go stir up crap with those crowd, but they were threatened with assault after just standing there. Despite the social media outcry, I really don't see how they'll get anything other than a talking-to about appropriate life choices. They didn't even identify as CAF members.

Also, one of them is a member of the CA, they all show up in the GAL on Outlook if the names are correct.


----------



## Stoker

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Saw this on Facebook, and someone had linked to an "anti-racist Canada" Blog. In it, they stated the Red Ensign was the Canadian equivalent of the Confederate flag. They also stated that the ceremony was to remember MMIWG that were "murdered by the Canadian state". :facepalm:
> 
> Poor choice to go stir up crap with those crowd, but they were threatened with assault after just standing there. Despite the social media outcry, I really don't see how they'll get anything other than a talking-to about appropriate life choices. They didn't even identify as CAF members.
> 
> Also, one of them is a member of the CA, they all show up in the GAL on Outlook if the names are correct.



I agree however in this day and age, I suspect the consequences for them will be great.


----------



## ballz

Remedial measures for conduct are easy on this one (to what level is a matter of judgement), beyond that I am unsure what else could be done.

Why are remedial measures for conduct easy? Because their conduct was not what was expected of a professional member of the Canadian Armed Forces. In other words, deliberately trolling a (apparently) peaceful protest. Their actions shine a negative light on the Canadian Armed Forces, which is very easy to see / prove on the balance of probabilities. Therefore, their conduct was below standard.

This is not much different from Lauren Southern trolling Slutwalks, which was a negative reflection on the LPoC.

In any case, I don't think it's unfair to call them a bunch of idiots without a trial.


----------



## gryphonv

ballz said:
			
		

> Remedial measures for conduct are easy on this one (to what level is a matter of judgement), beyond that I am unsure what else could be done.
> 
> Why are remedial measures for conduct easy? Because their conduct was not what was expected of a professional member of the Canadian Armed Forces. In other words, deliberately trolling a (apparently) peaceful protest. Their actions shine a negative light on the Canadian Armed Forces, which is very easy to see / prove on the balance of probabilities. Therefore, their conduct was below standard.
> 
> This is not much different from Lauren Southern trolling Slutwalks, which was a negative reflection on the LPoC.
> 
> In any case, I don't think it's unfair to call them a bunch of idiots without a trial.



Yeah I was thinking Conduct Unbecoming, but couldn't see much else. 

I'm pretty sure this will fade away as soon as those 'protesters' get the next 'travesty' to catch on film. It's sad the state of the world we live in when people like them can threaten another person life/livelihood with little to no context. 

Say what you want about them, they get away with a lot of stuff because people think ignoring them is better than calling out things you don't agree with.


----------



## PuckChaser

Conduct unbecoming is an American charge. NDA 129 or QR&O 130.60 is Conduct prejudice of good order and discipline.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-queens-regulations-orders-vol-02/ch-103.page#cha-103-60


----------



## gryphonv

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Conduct unbecoming is an American charge. NDA 129 or QR&O 130.60 is Conduct prejudice of good order and discipline.
> 
> http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-queens-regulations-orders-vol-02/ch-103.page#cha-103-60



I suck at baseball, but at least I was in the same ball park.


----------



## ModlrMike

I'm not sure 129 is a valid option here as I don't fully see the military nexus. That being said, Remedial Measures are absolutely the way to go.


----------



## PuckChaser

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I'm not sure 129 is a valid option here as I don't fully see the military nexus. That being said, Remedial Measures are absolutely the way to go.



If there's a dubious military nexus, how does an IC stand up to a redress of grievance? If you're dead set on making an example of them, a few extras should be plenty sufficient.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

At this point, nothing they did in public identified them as members of the Canadian Armed Forces. Like every other Canadian, they have freedom of expression, and from what I saw in the videos, they did not cross the line into either hate speech or libel. I am not convinced anything would stick against them.

Anyone here ever heard that the old Canadian flag (which still flies in many places, BTW) is considered the "equivalent to the Confederate flag? I've never heard that before. On the other hand, I am saddened to see that the young person holding that flag (who has never lived in the country while it was still the official flag of Canada) is ignorant of the history of its replacement. Contrary to his claim, it was not replaced by Trudeau (by which, I took him to mean Trudeau senior). It was actually replaced by Lester B. Pearson a few years before he left to be replaced by Trudeau - the whole to the great chagrin of ol' Diefenbaker (who was probably too prudish to drown his sorrow with alcohol  [ ). Moreover, I truly don't appreciate young Canadians going around claiming that Canada is (present tense) a British colony. Personally, I swore an oath to the Queen of Canada, not the crown of England.


----------



## gryphonv

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Personally, I swore an oath to the Queen of Canada, not the crown of England.



I love that distinction, unfortunately too many people can't see the difference. 



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Anyone here ever heard that the old Canadian flag (which still flies in many places, BTW) is considered the "equivalent to the Confederate flag?



First I've seen it was today on that facebook. I look at it as someone who is ignorant on history, and the claim itself is a pretty big stretch. But hey protesters don't need to be right about history, just right about what parts they pick and choose ... or make up.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Curious:  blue golf shirts with gold collar/sleeve trim - an RCN thing or something else?

According to some of "the usual suspect" antifa social media sites, the Navy's been asked about this - see attached.


----------



## gryphonv

The sad thing I see coming out of this, is another 'click through' web course that everyone will have to complete by a date.


----------



## Scuba_Dave

So from what I have seen via the same links, and a story CBC did, it's not so much that the old Dominion flag is being compared to the Confederate flag, it's that under the Dominion flag many atrocities were conducted against native populations. Thus dragging it out during a native protest and expecting nothing to happen is ridiculous. It would be like dragging out the German flag at a Jewish protest. So they knew they were stirring the pot etc etc. And as has been mentioned they were not identifying themselves as members of the military, however you must conduct yourself to a level expected of the CAF at all times. If the Admiral wouldnt condone the actions in uniform, you can easily expect that it will not be condoned in civilian attire. As for the 'Proud Boys' part, I've read up on them after seeing it in this article, and I'm not quite sure this will be good for their case either. The "Alt-Right" this organization is representing is fairly close if not crossing the line of racism and white supremacy. This is however going to be a real good read when the charges are wrote up. If I were a betting man I would go with NDA 129 for starters...Probably a few more tacked on...


----------



## George Wallace

The Red Ensign has only been Canada's flag from 1922–1965 (in two iterations - changed in 1957).  If you want to blame anything on the "Flag" for events prior to 1922, perhaps you would best refer to the Union Jack.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Their venue sucked, but standing around with a Red Ensign, in a park is not illegal. If the videos are true and they did nothing, CAF shouldn't even get involved.

How do you discipline someone for upholding their Charter Rights.

The Red Ensign is not equivalent to the Stars and Bars. Anyone saying otherwise is ignorant of history and/ or an idiot.

I have trouble understanding why they blame Europeans. Probably because they are available and it is de rigueur to blame everything on 'whitey'

Trying to remember my history. If I'm historically wrong, I'm sure a correction will be forthcoming. _I think_, before the 'white man', the Five Nations (mohawk, etc), invaded, enslaved, pillaged,  killed and occupied territory of other peaceful tribes all though Central and eastern Canada and the States. They were merciless in their actions to other tribes. The Five Nations were made up of a confederacy of tribes that practiced genocide long before Europeans showed up. When they did, they did exactly the same thing and took the land from the Five Nations, who had stolen it originally from others. All of a sudden the rules changed and we're supposed to just give everything back and then pay them besides? Why? Something like ANTIFA, they scream, yell and demand but pay no attention to history or how they abuse it, except for the cherry picked parts.

My personal feeling is that we'll never sort out the native problem until we close the reservations and integrate everyone into a single society that is fair for all and everyone has the same chance at success, with no exceptions. One final leg up, one final gratis payment, training if they wish and job hunting help. Then that's it. No more handouts, for anyone, native or immigrant. We can't allow any more second and third generation welfare families, anywhere.

That's my :2c: on the subject.


----------



## George Wallace

When one of the guys identifies himself as being Cree and had a grandfather who fought in WW I and relatives who fought in WW II and Korea, he is shot down by the belligerent girl for not respecting their rights and history, while she is not respecting his rights and history.  Only her views mattered (Sounds familiar).  Hopefully some day she learns that "respect" is a two way street.  

From what I saw, it was not the gentlemen in the 'golf shirts' who were being belligerent, but the protesters who were blocking access to any wanting to walk through the park.  

As an aside; I have never seen a 'Black' Mi'kmaw before. :dunno:  A first for me.


----------



## gryphonv

recceguy said:
			
		

> My personal feeling is that we'll never sort out the native problem until we close the reservations and integrate everyone into a single society that is fair for all and everyone has the same chance at success, with no exceptions. One final leg up, one final gratis payment, training if they wish and job hunting help. Then that's it. No more handouts, for anyone, native or immigrant. We can't allow any more second and third generation welfare families, anywhere.



Most people(myself included) will see this as the only logical fix. But unfortunately it'll never happen. Well at least not peacefully. 

Look at the outrage when the government tried to make them report on where they were spending money, many refused, of the ones that did many were shown to overpaying certain band members (which wasn't a surprise if you ever been to a reserve). One of my good native friends once told me, if you want to find the Chief in a reserve, "look for the nicest house". Reserves are essentially little fiefdoms with the Chief and who they deem getting the most benefit.

And to force them en mass to integrate, well that will conjure specters of the residential schools. Something which Canada is trying to move on from. 

Another problem is the divisiveness within Native populations. Ones that do well living in the main society are usually ostracized from their band. In some cases bands will banish them from their reserves, treat them as traitors and such.

I'm metis myself, but you will be hard stretched to find many with roots back to the colonial days, that couldn't claim as much. 

We all know what it'll take to fix this, but we'll never have a politician with the fortitude to even attempt it. Cash handouts and apologizing only exasperates things in the end.


----------



## gryphonv

George Wallace said:
			
		

> When one of the guys identifies himself as being Cree and had a grandfather who fought in WW I and relatives who fought in WW II and Korea, he is shot down by the belligerent girl for not respecting their rights and history, while she is not respecting his rights and history.  Only her views mattered (Sounds familiar).  Hopefully some day she learns that "respect" is a two way street.



That part annoyed me, typical protester pushing peoples space trying to get a violent confrontation to have captured on video. 

Of the whole video she was the only one who was really being aggressive. The guy made the right move by turning his back to her.


----------



## George Wallace

gryphonv said:
			
		

> We all know what it'll take to fix this, but we'll never have a politician with the fortitude to even attempt it. Cash handouts and apologizing only exasperates things in the end.



Actually, there have been a few; some of them 'Indigenous' Members of Parliament or the Senate.  There were proposals to do away with the Indian Act, but all attempts were shot down.


On that note:  How many 'Indigenous' Members of Parliament and Senators have we seen over the years?  Quite a few.  Elijah Harper played a prominent role as a Member of Parliament.


----------



## jollyjacktar

George Wallace said:
			
		

> As an aside; I have never seen a 'Black' Mi'kmaw before. :dunno:  A first for me.



I  grew up in Southern Alberta, between the Peigan and Blood tribes.  These folks looked as one would expect First Nations peoples to be. It wasn't until I was posted to NS that I have come across numerous times, men and women who identify as Mi'kmaw but are as fair skinned etc as I am.   :stars:  I also know some fine gentlemen who also identify as Mi'kmaw, they do look as one would expect a First Nations member to appear with respect to skin tone, facial features etc.  :dunno:


----------



## Kat Stevens

i have a friend, full status from Ontario.  He's as ginger as my neighbour's cat, and if he was any paler, he'd be transparent.  SPF 3000 is his skin lotion of choice.


----------



## Jarnhamar

recceguy said:
			
		

> Their venue sucked, but standing around with a Red Ensign, in a park is not illegal. If the videos are true and they did nothing, CAF shouldn't even get involved.



Inclined to agree. 

If they didn't identify themselves as members of the CAF and they didn't break any laws then why would th CAF be involved?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

recceguy said:
			
		

> Their venue sucked, but standing around with a Red Ensign, in a park is not illegal. If the videos are true and they did nothing, CAF shouldn't even get involved.
> 
> How do you discipline someone for upholding their Charter Rights.



I agree with RG on this one.  I also think it applies to trying to nail someone in the CAF for what they post on their FB page too.  We are, afterall, Canadian citizens too right??

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html

Fundamental freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;


(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;


(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and


(d) freedom of association.

I'd like to see someone other than the police, let's say, tell me I can't walk thru a public area in Halifax etc.  Good luck.


----------



## The Bread Guy

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ... How many 'Indigenous' Members of Parliament and Senators have we seen over the years?  Quite a few.  Elijah Harper played a prominent role as a Member of Parliament.


Yup on both, for sure, but on the bit in orange, his most prominent role (like it or not) was his voting against the Meech Lake Accord as a Manitoba legislator, just before he was an MP.


			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> ... I have never seen a 'Black' Mi'kmaw before ...


I see lots of Cree & Ojibway in northern Ontario who look like what one might expect Aboriginals look like, but I've also seen First Nation folks here and in southern Ontario who look lighter than olive-skinned me.  Drive into Minnesota, and (because of the history of the area), some are even fairer with Scandanavian family names.  It's almost like saying what an Italian looks like - depends on where they're from & what the history of the area is.


			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> ... Anyone here ever heard that the old Canadian flag ... is considered the "equivalent to the Confederate flag? I've never heard that before ...


First I've heard of that specific comparison, too.  That said, based on the narrative of "we've been screwed over by the old bosses over the years" (more on that in this book - links to Amazon), one interpretation of that narrative is that a flag from those older days could be seen to represent the old bosses and their screwing over.  Your read/mileage may vary ...


----------



## armyvern

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I'm not sure 129 is a valid option here as I don't fully see the military nexus. That being said, Remedial Measures are absolutely the way to go.



Hmmmm, I'm thinking that the pics screen-capped from their facebook pages prior to them battening down their hatches wearing that alt-right hate group shirt may cause them to have some serious explaining to do.  Belonging to such groups is a sound "nada" for serving members.

Having visited this groups web-site this morning, all I can say is ugggghhhh. 

Oh - and they also made the alt-right group's main webpage --- they seem quite pleased to see these five out "representing" in their polo shirts.


----------



## McG

The CTV news coverage about the RCN members involved in the protest disruption, with MND's comments.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/this-is-a-british-colony-group-disrupts-mi-kmaq-ceremony-in-halifax-1.3487246


----------



## George Wallace

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Having visited this groups web-site this morning, all I can say is ugggghhhh.



So much wrong with that blog; bordering on hate speech.  It is inciting others to take action against these five persons.  It is slanderous.  It fringes on invasion of privacy.

[Edit:  This is the blog I was referring to:  http://anti-racistcanada.blogspot.ca/2017/07/military-proud-boys-disrupt-mikmaw.html ]


----------



## armyvern

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So much wrong with that blog; bordering on hate speech.  It is inciting others to take action against these five persons.  It is slanderous.  It fringes on invasion of privacy.



I'm talking about the hate group's website ... they are pretty proud of their 5 proud boys representing in  their colours.

Both sides are wrong here, but it doesn't excuse these five as possibly serving CAF members.  NDA is only applicable to them (if serving, if RegF).


----------



## Stoker

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So much wrong with that blog; bordering on hate speech.  It is inciting others to take action against these five persons.  It is slanderous.  It fringes on invasion of privacy.




No one seems to care about that George, they're out for blood. If the protesters were burning a Canadian Flag and the five members did the same thing, no one would be saying anything. I also noticed the protestors are using the publicity of this to garner donations. :


----------



## Kirkhill

http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/le_loutre_jean_louis_4E.html

http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/mascarene_paul_3E.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ligonier,_1st_Earl_Ligonier


----------



## Fishbone Jones

I've been looking up Proud Boys. There is no consensus out there. Far left call them alt-right, others say they are centrist on western values and it goes on and on. Nobody is quite sure of what they are. They are an enigma, per se.

I don't think their site is anything special. It's not full of hate speech and confederate banter. They appear to have members of most ethnic and political stripes.

They are right of centre, but the site appears only to counter the bullshit from the left.

They certainly appear NOT to be an alt-right hate group.

A fraternal organisation based on western values (as they see them). There is nothing wrong with that.

Let's remember who controls the MSM and pushes the leftist agenda, that is pigeon holing the group, before we clamour over ourselves to be first in line to condemn them.


----------



## armyvern

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> No one seems to care about that George, they're out for blood. If the protesters were burning a Canadian Flag and the five members did the same thing, no one would be saying anything. I also noticed the protestors are using the publicity of this to garner donations. :



Difference is that one group is not subject to the provisions of the NDA while others within the group of 5 may be. The NDA-liable folk don't get a walk or a bye because both groups happen to be moronic idiots.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I'm talking about the hate group's blog ... they are pretty proud of their 5 proud boys representing.



I don't usually even venture into, on, around sites like that...ever.  I don't want them in my History or them to have my IP, that kinda stuff.  I've never heard of this group Proud Boys before...however, watching the majority of the 8 minute video that is on the web about this, the female with the glasses was the one I felt was being the most...ignorant, racist-leaning talker, whatever the right term is.

I don't know about Proud Boys and all that stupid kind of stuff, I stay away from that crap.  I don't agree with protestors, of any kind, for any reason, telling other Canadians they can't go here or there, you have to be quiet, get rid of your flag, etc because it is the opposite of their message.  Something about double standards...

If the citizens protesting the treatment of natives from XXX years ago have the freedom of association, peaceful protest, speech etc then everyone else should have it, too.  Serving members included.

I was also not fuckin' impressed to see an upside down Canadian flag with writing or drawing or whatever was on it.  I think you're asking for trouble when you do stupid shit like that, and I don't care one rats ass what the reason is.


----------



## armyvern

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> ... Serving members included ...



Yet, you know that is not the case.  We are expected to hold, and are held, to a higher standard.


----------



## Stoker

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Difference is that one group is not subject to the provisions of the NDA while others within the group of 5 may be. The NDA-liable folk don't get a walk or a bye because both groups happen to be moronic idiots.



True, it was stupid. If I was walking by and saw the Canada flag being burned or in this case it was being flown upside down, I may of intervened and been stupid as well. From the video footage I have seen there were more words being thrown on the protest side then on the other, still they were in the wrong and must reap the consequences.


----------



## armyvern

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> True, it was stupid. If I was walking by and saw the Canada flag being burned or in this case it was being flown upside down, I may of intervened and been stupid as well. From the video footage I have seen there were more words being thrown on the protest side then on the other, still they were in the wrong and must reap the consequences.



I think it's the hate group bit that's the difference between you and them and  the bit that will eventually cause the greatest fallout from this.  Many of us who serve would be pissed to see disrespect to the Flag we serve under and would really think about intervening.  But, thank fuck, I don't think many of us - ideally none of us - would belong to hate groups either.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Yet, you know that is not the case.  We are expected to hold, and are held, to a higher standard.



According to the Charter, that is the case.  Mark my words...someone, sooner or later, will challenge this is a court (CAF rules contrary to the Charter) and they'll win.  Why should my rights and freedoms be less than any other citizen?  

*I don't agree with racist crap and association with racist crap groups...that's not my argument.


----------



## armyvern

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> According to the Charter, that is the case.  Mark my words...someone, sooner or later, will challenge this is a court (CAF rules contrary to the Charter) and they'll win.  Why should my rights and freedoms be less than any other citizen?
> 
> *I don't agree with racist crap and association with racist crap groups...that's not my argument.



And yet the Supreme Court continues to rule that the NDA is acceptable as it applies to CAF members and our "unique" requirements of service when Charter Challenges have been brought before it.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> And yet the Supreme Court continues to rule that the NDA is acceptable as it applies to CAF members and our "unique" requirements of service when Charter Challenges have been brought before it.



If they are CAF members, what they did was very stupid and they should be charged.

"Pour encourager les autres"


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Proud Boys are a hate group simply because that's what the lefties and the press are calling them. Please stop reinforcing the false narrative.

Unfortunately, it is not illegal to desecrate the Canadian flag. If you get into a physical altercation with the idiot with the match, you run the chance of being charged. Don't expect the CoC to have any sympathy for being patriotic. Years ago, there was a fellow in a bar that was talking down the military including a certain Regiment I was with. I took his glasses off, put them in his pocket and drove him in the face. That was it. One punch. When the RSM marched me into the old man, I was asked why I did it. Straight out told him the guy was insulting the CAF and Regiment. That just seemed to make matters worse with the boss. That was back in the '70's. The CoC is much more CYA than it was then. If they have to hang a few sailors to save themselves, they will.


----------



## ballz

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is designed to limit the government's powers. It guarantees that the *government* will not infringe upon your freedom of speech / expression etc... in other words, creating a law that could put you in jail for expressing yourself. It does *not* guarantee you against the social consequences of your actions.

These members, whether on duty or not, whether in uniform or not, whether they identified themselves as CAF members or not, conducted themselves in a manner that is below the standard of our profession. It's the same reason we put people on remedial measures for conduct when they commit a crime. Just like in the civilian world, this can have consequences.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/man-fired-over-fck-her-right-in-the-pssy-tv-confrontation/

Let's see, if one of these members were in the above article, would we be defending their "right" to go out and be and idiot? If it was one of my troops and they were identified as CAF members and it was on the news bringing the CAF into disrepute, I'd put them on a remedial measures in a heartbeat. Grievance? Go ahead. It's administrative law and there is video evidence of you doing said act. It's not hard to justify that this is below the standard expected of a CAF member conducting themselves outside of work. This is an easy win for the CoC.


----------



## mariomike

ballz said:
			
		

> http://www.mediaite.com/online/man-fired-over-fck-her-right-in-the-pssy-tv-confrontation/



Hydro One rehires man fired after FHRITP incident
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/hydro-one-rehires-man-fired-after-fhritp-incident-1.3300059

See also,

Harrasment in public..Hydro One fires "jerk" for reporter prank  
https://army.ca/forums/threads/119361.25
8 pages.


----------



## McG

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> If they are CAF members ...


The CAF has confirmed that two are RCN members.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/canada-day-halifax-indigenous-ceremony-proud-boys-1.4189020


----------



## George Wallace

recceguy said:
			
		

> Proud Boys are a hate group simply because that's what the lefties and the press are calling them. Please stop reinforcing the false narrative.



Agreed.  One of the individuals identified himself as being Cree.  Metis was also brought up.  Labeling these guys as members of a "far-right ultra-nationalist group" is really grasping at straws.  

[Edit.....Lost connection and had to resubmit.]


----------



## gryphonv

In the end these guys are mostly guilty of annoying/offending people who are professional crap disturbers. 

I'm actually surprised they had as much restraint that I know I wouldn't of had seeing the protesters defacing the Canadian Flag, on Canada day no less. They claim the group of 5 'proud boys' were being inflammatory, intimidating, etc. To me what they did the flag is all of that and more. 

If they(protesters) never went and DOX the 5 guys (which is illegal in Canada), this would of probably blown over. But again I go back to my point of them being  professional crap disturbers.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> And yet the Supreme Court continues to rule that the NDA is acceptable as it applies to CAF members and our "unique" requirements of service when Charter Challenges have been brought before it.



If this particular one has been challenged (freedom of speech, or association or peaceful assembly...whichever this would be...I am not a LawOp so...), I'd be very interested to read the ruling.  (Seriously)

Maybe FJAG will stumble into this one... 8)

I, for one, am getting tired of all the double-standard in this country lately, this one included.


----------



## ballz

mariomike said:
			
		

> Hydro One rehires man fired after FHRITP incident
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/hydro-one-rehires-man-fired-after-fhritp-incident-1.3300059
> 
> See also,
> 
> Harrasment in public..Hydro One fires "jerk" for reporter prank
> https://army.ca/forums/threads/119361.25
> 8 pages.



He may have been rehired while the arbitration was ongoing, he may have even won arbitration, but that doesn't mean he didn't face social consequences of his actions despite not facing *legal* consequences (which is what the Charter protects your from... which was my point). 

Regardless, you can be held accountable by your employer for your off-duty conduct. This website amplifies and provides a list of real examples...

http://www.hrreporter.com/columnist/canadian-hr-law/archive/2015/05/19/whats-the-deal-with-off-duty-conduct/



> A Toronto Symphony Orchestra performance by a Ukrainian-born pianist cancelled due to comments she made on Twitter regarding the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.
> Two Toronto firefighters dismissed due to inappropriate comments and Twitter, and a third due to FaceBook comments.
> Jian Ghomeshi, star radio host of our national broadcaster, fired due to harassment and sexual assault which came to light after his miscalculated FaceBook post.
> An Ontario Hockey League referee suspended after posting insulting comments about the women of Sault Ste. Marie on Twitter.
> Two Ontario Hockey League players also suspended due to offensive comments about women on Twitter.
> Perhaps most offensive of all, an individual who wrote “Thank God the b*tch is dead” on a Facebook wall created in memory of a 15-year-old girl who committed suicide after years of bullying.



People often forget that "freedom of association" is also a right for a very good reason.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I won't be surprised to hear these guys get hung, drawn and quartered by the system.  At any rate, they're in for a few one way conversations come tomorrow, no doubt.


----------



## mariomike

ballz said:
			
		

> Regardless, you can be held accountable by your employer for your off-duty conduct.



Accountable? Our mayor was on crack. But, they couldn't get rid of him.

Meanwhile, guys where I worked were getting fired over juvenile stuff they posted on social media. 

Another guy I knew was let go for an off-duty meeting with teenage girls involving beer and cigarettes. 
http://www.hrreporter.com/sharedwidgets/systools/_printpost_.aspx?articleid=853
"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."

They call it, "Professional conduct outside of profession".

I believe what saved the FHRITP guy was that his job was not one of "those types of positions". 
He had some sort of technical engineering job with the power company.

ie: As long as the lights go on, electricity comes out of the wall sockets, and the elevators, air-conditioners and subways remain powered, are customers likely to complain? 

That seems to be the way the arbitrator saw it.

That could apply to other employers and employees, _depending on the type of position they hold._


----------



## Lightguns

Pfftt, 5 guys walking around with an old flag.  Stern talking too, carry on.  Charter rights are foundation law.  As for this whole "we are a profession" thing, we don't punish people for on duty violations let alone have the time to go after folks for thought crimes.  

I am more worried about you guys who think that being part of a racial group requires you to look the part, is ancestry not the primary determinate of race?

Just SJW fakenews media feeding frenzy?  Imagine call folks names long enough and they start to push back...........


----------



## The Bread Guy

recceguy said:
			
		

> I've been looking up Proud Boys. There is no consensus out there. Far left call them alt-right, others say they are centrist on western values and it goes on and on. Nobody is quite sure of what they are. They are an enigma, per se ...


I've seen _no_ shortage of the "they're alt-right" narrative, but where are you seeing the "centrist/western values" read of the group?  Honestly not poking, but interested.  

I've only been able to find that sort of narrative on the U.S. PB FB page ...


> The Proud Boys are a fraternal organization founded on a system of beliefs and values of minimal government, maximum freedom, anti-political correctness, anti-racial guilt, pro-gun rights, anti-Drug War, closed borders, anti-masturbation, venerating entrepreneurs, venerating housewives, and reinstating a spirit of Western chauvinism during an age of globalism and multiculturalism.


... and the Canadian PB FB page:


> The Proud Boys are a fraternal organization of Western Chauvinists who will no longer apologize for creating the modern world. Our values centre on the following tenets:
> 
> Minimal Government
> Maximum Freedom
> Anti-Political Correctness
> Anti-Drug War
> *Anti-Masturbation
> Closed Borders
> Anti-Racial Guilt
> Anti-Racism
> Pro-Free Speech (1st Amendment)
> Pro-Gun Rights (2nd Amendment)
> Glorifying the Entrepreneur
> Venerating the Housewife
> Reinstating a Spirit of Western Chauvinism
> 
> We do not discriminate based upon race or sexuality. We are not an “ism”, “ist”, or “phobic”. We truly believe that the West Is The Best and welcome those who believe in the same tenets as us.
> 
> *We are by no means prudish Victorians. We merely believe that this energy is better spent going out, meeting women, getting married, and having children.


----------



## Lightguns

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I've seen _no_ shortage of the "they're alt-right" narrative, but where are you seeing the "centrist/western values" read of the group?  Honestly not poking, but interested.
> 
> I've only been able to find that sort of narrative on the U.S. PB FB page ...... and the Canadian PB FB page:



Someone might tell them the 1A and 2A are Yank things and never existed in constitutional monarchies.  Drug war is a waste of money beyond border security which is itself a joke, it's harder to get salami into Canada than an illegal.  Everything else is quite agreeable in my personal opinion.  Certainly better than the smash a NAZI ANTIFA crowd who seems to define Nazi as everyone who is not them and are willing to use violence first rather than last.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Lightguns said:
			
		

> ... Certainly better than the smash a NAZI ANTIFA crowd who seems to define Nazi as everyone who is not them and are willing to use violence first rather than last.


And that end of the political spectrum continues to get scarier over time ...


----------



## Lightguns

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And that end of the political spectrum continues to get scarier over time ...



That is quite the set of principles, sorta individual-socialist-liberty bordering on anarchy based around small communities of mutual defense.  Someone has been reading too many survivalist novels.


----------



## Altair

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I've seen _no_ shortage of the "they're alt-right" narrative, but where are you seeing the "centrist/western values" read of the group?  Honestly not poking, but interested.
> 
> I've only been able to find that sort of narrative on the U.S. PB FB page ...... and the Canadian PB FB page:


Anti Masturbation?

Count me out.


----------



## mariomike

Altair said:
			
		

> Anti Masturbation?
> 
> Count me out.



Master of your domain?  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oi68hPMinAI


----------



## Blackadder1916

And now it seems that all five of the "Proud Boys" are military.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/proud-boys-canadian-military-indigenous-protest-disrupted-1.4189615


> National Defence has confirmed five men who disrupted an Indigenous ceremony on Canada Day in Halifax are members of the Armed Forces.


----------



## Lightguns

Once again I have under estimated the capacity of the military bureaucrat to blow something minor up into a national scandal.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

What boggles me more is how everyone is ignoring the conduct of the other party and the whole upside down flag deal.  I know some people might not care about that, I sure do.

I guess only white people can do anything wrong in Canada these days.


----------



## Remius

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> What boggles me more is how everyone is ignoring the conduct of the other party and the whole upside down flag deal.  I know some people might not care about that, I sure do.
> 
> I guess only white people can do anything wrong in Canada these days.



Correct me if I am wrong but the Upside down flag thing, is not an international symbol of distress?  I'm pretty sure that is the meaning.


----------



## mariomike

Remius said:
			
		

> Correct me if I am wrong but the Upside down flag thing, is not an international symbol of distress?



It is in America,

"The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property."
http://www.webcitation.org/6OJaMkhtM?url=http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-1996-title36/html/USCODE-1996-title36-chap10-sec176.htm


----------



## PuckChaser

Remius said:
			
		

> Correct me if I am wrong but the Upside down flag thing, is not an international symbol of distress?  I'm pretty sure that is the meaning.



So the CAF members were coming to render assistance.  >


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Remius said:
			
		

> Correct me if I am wrong but the Upside down flag thing, is not an international symbol of distress?  I'm pretty sure that is the meaning.



Could be...but in Halifax on Canada Day?  That's more than a little stretch of the imagination.


----------



## Remius

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Could be...but in Halifax on Canada Day?  That's more than a little stretch of the imagination.



Actually it isn't that far of a stretch given the current climate.  Aboriginal groups have been using that for a bit now to highlight their plight and given the current political climate with the 150 stuff it does not seem to be that far of a stretch to be honest. 

That group is from the region.  They're not too found of who they consider to be a genocidal murderer (if you read his history he seems to have a habit of using genocide as a tactic), so they go to have what by all accounts is a quiet ceremony to mourn the past on a day they aren't too keen to commemorate with fondness. 

Now I also see a group of guys who thought that this was an anti Canada protest and showed up to obviously disrupt it and when they saw what it really was after a few minutes left the scene.  As far as I can see they didn't incite violence or spew any real hate.  It was pretty insensitive sure but I fail to see anything legally wrong with what they did.  Just like the flag, Nothing wrong with that as far as I can tell.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Remius said:
			
		

> Correct me if I am wrong but the Upside down flag thing, is not an international symbol of distress?  I'm pretty sure that is the meaning.



I'll correct you: It is not repeat not an international distress signal. It is in fact not a distress signal at all. Even the American regulation quoted is in the respect for the flag section and I am pretty sure it is not listed anywhere in the US Coast Guard list of recognized distress signals.

The whole thing is actually urban folklore. Think about it, just to name a few, how would you know that the French flag, the Japanese flag, the Belgian or Italian flags, etc. are flown upside down?

See this American site that confirms that, at least at sea or in US Inland waters, it is not used: http://www.seaflags.us/signals/warning.html


----------



## mariomike

Remius said:
			
		

> Correct me if I am wrong but the Upside down flag thing, is not an international symbol of distress?





			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> The whole thing is actually urban folklore.


----------



## gryphonv

https://www.facebook.com/cbcnews/videos/10155655189734604/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Well, I'm speechless ... which admiral Newton obviously ain't.

I'll just go and crawl under a rock in disbelief.


----------



## ModlrMike

So I guess some questions going forward should be analyzed, without the associated passion:

1. Is membership in the group they belong to unlawful?  No
2. Is the group classically white supremacist?  Not according to their own website, nor according to informal internet research.
3. Were their actions unlawful?  No
4. Did they bring disrepute onto the CF?  Questionable - from the video they don't identify as CF.
5. Did they actually disrupt the event?  Hard to say... the video does not support that contention, but that depends on the viewer's perspective.
6. Did they do something foolish?  Possibly

Much will depend on what action the CF takes. I fear though that these guys will be scapegoated and find their careers finished.

It's easy for us to say "hang the bastards", but they are still entitled to due process.


----------



## Kat Stevens

They're going to get keelhauled.


----------



## gryphonv

The thing that pisses me off mostly about this, is how our military is blowing it up more.

The comment by the Admiral alluding to White Supremacy don't help things at all. 

This would of went away if they dealt with it by simply saying the members are being dealt with internally. 

Yet the people who DOXed the 5 men are getting a pass. Which is illegal last I checked. 

It's sad that the more of this SJW stuff I see every day, the more I feel the world needs another World War to sort out what is really important. Too many people have gotten too comfortable.


----------



## George Wallace

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> What boggles me more is how everyone is ignoring the conduct of the other party and the whole upside down flag deal.  I know some people might not care about that, I sure do.
> 
> I guess only white people can do anything wrong in Canada these days.



Good point.  They are claiming that the Red Ensign is equivalent to the Confederate flag in the US, and displaying it is a sign of disrespect; all the time they have desecrated the national flag with their protest 'slogan' and flown it upside down, not to mention used it as an article of clothing.....Disrespect?  Sadly, we now have a society where we are no longer "democratic"; but instead ruled by a vocal minority.


----------



## Altair

gryphonv said:
			
		

> The thing that pisses me off mostly about this, is how our military is blowing it up more.
> 
> The comment by the Admiral alluding to White Supremacy don't help things at all.
> 
> This would of went away if they dealt with it by simply saying the members are being dealt with internally.
> 
> Yet the people who DOXed the 5 men are getting a pass. Which is illegal last I checked.
> 
> It's sad that the more of this SJW stuff I see every day, the more I feel the world needs another World War to sort out what is really important. Too many people have gotten too comfortable.


If the were going to be doing that kind of stuff they should have covered their faces.

Just saying.


----------



## gryphonv

Altair said:
			
		

> If the were going to be doing that kind of stuff they should have covered their faces.
> 
> Just saying.



Who? The protesters, or the Admiral?


----------



## daftandbarmy

I hate Illinois Nazis: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ukFAvYP3UU


----------



## George Wallace

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Well, I'm speechless ... which admiral Newton obviously ain't.
> 
> I'll just go and crawl under a rock in disbelief.



Interesting that he finds Twitter and Reddit as reliable sources.   >


----------



## FSTO

The Navy and CAF are falling over themselves to ensure the outrage is properly dealt with. Right now the mob wants those guys heads and it looks like they are going to be handed over.

If they are released 5F the military can reasonably cover their arses. But if they go the route the mob wants them to go (1A 1 Sentenced to Dismissal. where sentenced by court martial to dismissal or dismissal with disgrace from Her Majesty's service then first place I would go is to Marie Henein Law Office and have her sue the arse off the Government of Canada.

http://torontolife.com/city/crime/marie-henein-jian-ghomeshi-lawyer/

In the end, those young servicemen should have just stayed away. 
Oh well, we all make choices, some are poorer than other.


----------



## mariomike

FSTO said:
			
		

> But if they go the route the mob wants them to go (1A 1 Sentenced to Dismissal. where sentenced by court martial to dismissal or dismissal with disgrace from Her Majesty's service then first place I would go is to Marie Henein Law Office and have her sue the arse off the Government of Canada.
> http://torontolife.com/city/crime/marie-henein-jian-ghomeshi-lawyer/


----------



## Jarnhamar

FSTO said:
			
		

> The Navy and CAF are falling over themselves to ensure the outrage is properly dealt with. Right now the mob wants those guys heads and it looks like they are going to be handed over.



It's good that we're placating the SJW mobs now. 
Proud Canadian moment for sure.


----------



## Lightguns

I am absolutely shocked at the handling of this and the response by some CF members to this.  Talk about situating the court outcomes.  Did the possible convening authority really used the term "white supremacists" in a public forum about subordinates?  Even more funny is that one of these white supremacists is a Cree.  There is no way that the SJW will accept anything less than full public destruction of the lives of these men.  Poorly handled.  

Now to the members of the Canadian Forces on the Proud Boys Facebook page, and the fleet Comdr page, especially the three commissioned officers, including one major, who are not serving the cause of justice or even giving the impression of military justice impartiality.  The Sub Lt who used his social media accounts to release the names of the individuals on the SJW webpages is extremely disturbing.   The Lt(N) contacting people by messenger and threatening to "Expose" them to their chain of command as racists was interesting, especially since I have no chain of command and arguing what place the charter of rights has here is not racism.  Given the leadership of the navy I observed in the last 24 hours, I have to say WOW!  I thought we army types were the experts at kicking our own pee pees.  There has been a lot of detoxing back and forth yesterday.

All round you got some serving folks who should know better that need some serious PA training.


----------



## Jarnhamar

[quote author=Lightguns]   The Sub Lt who used his social media accounts to release the names of the individuals on the SJW webpages is extremely disturbing.   The Lt(N) contacting people by messenger and threatening to "Expose" them to their chain of command as racists was interesting, 
[/quote]

That's mind blowing. Will the sub Lt be disciplined?


----------



## Kat Stevens

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> That's mind blowing. Will the sub Lt be disciplined?



Don't talk silly, he/she's a hero.


----------



## gryphonv

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> That's mind blowing. Will the sub Lt be disciplined?



Probably promoted and given a commendation. Or at the very least an Admirals Coin.


----------



## FSTO

Did the officers actually threaten sailors on social media? Totally unsat if true.


----------



## gryphonv

FSTO said:
			
		

> Did the officers actually threaten sailors on social media? Totally unsat if true.



These officers should be exposed to their CoC. Threatening people, especially civilians is actually worse than what the 5 guys done. 

Also DoXing people is illegal , but I doubt any of those involved with that will see any repercussions.


----------



## Lightguns

gryphonv said:
			
		

> These officers should be exposed to their CoC. Threatening people, especially civilians is actually worse than what the 5 guys done.
> 
> Also DoXing people is illegal , but I doubt any of those involved with that will see any repercussions.



I am sure at this point that the MPs are on it.  This is getting too public to be ignored.  

Edit:  that being said there is likely a lot of military folks sanitizing their social media today as a lot of posts on Proud Boys have disappeared since last night.  Kinda looks like the non military are talking to themselves now!


----------



## Jarnhamar

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Don't talk silly, he/she's a hero.



I'd say his or her actions caused me to be harassed and feel my life is in danger. Then I'd sue for 10 million  ;D


----------



## JesseWZ

ballz said:
			
		

> The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is designed to limit the government's powers. It guarantees that the *government* will not infringe upon your freedom of speech / expression etc... in other words, creating a law that could put you in jail for expressing yourself. It does *not* guarantee you against the social consequences of your actions.



The above is easily the most mis-interpreted part of the Charter. People seem to think it protects you against other peoples conduct, but that isn't what it's for. It exists to prevent government over-reach, whether by unlawful detention, search and seizure, or to break up lawful and peaceful protests, just because the government of the day doesn't like the message. That's why Charter arguments aren't present in civil litigation, unless you're suing the government, a private citizen or organization cannot violate your Charter rights.


----------



## Lightguns

ballz said:
			
		

> The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is designed to limit the government's powers. It guarantees that the *government* will not infringe upon your freedom of speech / expression etc... in other words, creating a law that could put you in jail for expressing yourself. It does *not* guarantee you against the social consequences of your actions.
> 
> These members, whether on duty or not, whether in uniform or not, whether they identified themselves as CAF members or not, conducted themselves in a manner that is below the standard of our profession. It's the same reason we put people on remedial measures for conduct when they commit a crime. Just like in the civilian world, this can have consequences.
> 
> http://www.mediaite.com/online/man-fired-over-fck-her-right-in-the-pssy-tv-confrontation/
> 
> Let's see, if one of these members were in the above article, would we be defending their "right" to go out and be and idiot? If it was one of my troops and they were identified as CAF members and it was on the news bringing the CAF into disrepute, I'd put them on a remedial measures in a heartbeat. Grievance? Go ahead. It's administrative law and there is video evidence of you doing said act. It's not hard to justify that this is below the standard expected of a CAF member conducting themselves outside of work. This is an easy win for the CoC.



Yeah he got his job back, the arbiter ruled it off duty conduct not associated or ID'd to the company in anyway.  Back pay and allowances restored.  He is also remorseful.


----------



## trooper142

Lightguns said:
			
		

> I am absolutely shocked at the handling of this and the response by some CF members to this.  Talk about situating the court outcomes.  Did the possible convening authority really used the term "white supremacists" in a public forum about subordinates?  Even more funny is that one of these white supremacists is a Cree.  There is no way that the SJW will accept anything less than full public destruction of the lives of these men.  Poorly handled.
> 
> Now to the members of the Canadian Forces on the Proud Boys Facebook page, and the fleet Comdr page, especially the three commissioned officers, including one major, who are not serving the cause of justice or even giving the impression of military justice impartiality.  The Sub Lt who used his social media accounts to release the names of the individuals on the SJW webpages is extremely disturbing.   The Lt(N) contacting people by messenger and threatening to "Expose" them to their chain of command as racists was interesting, especially since I have no chain of command and arguing what place the charter of rights has here is not racism.  Given the leadership of the navy I observed in the last 24 hours, I have to say WOW!  I thought we army types were the experts at kicking our own pee pees.  There has been a lot of detoxing back and forth yesterday.
> 
> All round you got some serving folks who should know better that need some serious PA training.



I highly, highly encourage you to report what you know to the Military Police Unit at your base.  Officers threatening subordinates is unacceptable regardless of the events that have unfolded as of late.

It could also be argued the Sub Lt would released their names placed them, knowingly or ought to know, at risk.

So I will again encourage you to report what you know to the Military Police; just posting on this site is not going to solve anything.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Lightguns said:
			
		

> I am absolutely shocked at the handling of this and the response by some CF members to this.  Talk about situating the court outcomes.  Did the possible convening authority really used the term "white supremacists" in a public forum about subordinates?  Even more funny is that one of these white supremacists is a Cree.  There is no way that the SJW will accept anything less than full public destruction of the lives of these men.  Poorly handled.
> 
> Now to the members of the Canadian Forces on the Proud Boys Facebook page, and the fleet Comdr page, especially the three commissioned officers, including one major, who are not serving the cause of justice or even giving the impression of military justice impartiality.  The Sub Lt who used his social media accounts to release the names of the individuals on the SJW webpages is extremely disturbing.   The Lt(N) contacting people by messenger and threatening to "Expose" them to their chain of command as racists was interesting, especially since I have no chain of command and arguing what place the charter of rights has here is not racism.  Given the leadership of the navy I observed in the last 24 hours, I have to say WOW!  I thought we army types were the experts at kicking our own pee pees.  There has been a lot of detoxing back and forth yesterday.
> 
> All round you got some serving folks who should know better that need some serious PA training.



I'll admit, I am trying to not wade too deep into the fallout over this...but where is this coming from about a Lt(N) contacting people on messenger and threats to expose, the SLt using his social media accounts to release names, etc coming from?


----------



## George Wallace

Lightguns said:
			
		

> I am sure at this point that the MPs are on it.  This is getting too public to be ignored.
> 
> Edit:  that being said there is likely a lot of military folks sanitizing their social media today as a lot of posts on Proud Boys have disappeared since last night.  Kinda looks like the non military are talking to themselves now!



They only think that they are sanitizing their social media.  Once it is posted on the internet, it is there for eternity.  

How many of your quotes have been shared or reposted by others?  How many programs are out there like the "Wayback Machine"?  How many screenshots have been made of posts, or even printed off as hardcopy?  It is too late to clean up once you have posted on the internet.

As for identifying the individuals; that was done within hours by the Maritime Anonymous group and posted on a blog.


----------



## ballz

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Yeah he got his job back, the arbiter ruled it off duty conduct not associated or ID'd to the company in anyway.  Back pay and allowances restored.  He is also remorseful.



You're a little bit late to the party. Read the other posts regarding being held accountable for off-duty conduct in the civilian world.

Regardless, the key point was that it has *nothing* to do with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


----------



## mariomike

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Yeah he got his job back, the arbiter ruled it off duty conduct not associated or ID'd to the company in anyway.  Back pay and allowances restored.  He is also remorseful.



He was a unionized employee. His union grieved his dismissal through arbitration. The arbitrator agreed.

In a non-unionized environment his employment could have been terminated without cause.

The union was able to demonstrate that he was genuinely remorseful for his actions.

34 of his male and female colleagues wrote statements offering their support.

He made a charitable donation.

He apologised to the reporter.

The arbitrators decision was not released to the public, and the employer refused comment.

One wonders if the employer would have been able to justify discipline had he not been publicly identified as an employee? 
It would have been difficult to establish a clear nexus between his off-duty antics and their corporate brand.

Not sure where you read, "off duty conduct not associated or ID'd to the company in anyway. Back pay and allowances restored." ?

The company was ID'd in this discussion,

Harrasment in public..Hydro One fires "jerk" for reporter prank  
https://army.ca/forums/threads/119361.25
8 pages.

I have read no mention of back pay.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

George Wallace said:
			
		

> They only think that they are sanitizing their social media.  Once it is posted on the internet, it is there for eternity.
> 
> How many of your quotes have been shared or reposted by others?  How many programs are out there like the "Wayback Machine"?  How many screenshots have been made of posts, or even printed off as hardcopy?  It is too late to clean up once you have posted on the internet.
> 
> As for identifying the individuals; that was done within hours by the Maritime Anonymous group and posted on a blog.



It's actually possible to partially sanitize yourself but involves spending lots of money paying a professional to do it for you.


----------



## McG

ballz said:
			
		

> You're a little bit late to the party. Read the other posts regarding being held accountable for off-duty conduct in the civilian world.
> 
> Regardless, the key point was that it has *nothing* to do with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


Unless, maybe, your employer is government.  Yes?


----------



## gryphonv

So the same group of Mi'gmaq now are even more empowered and are planning a 'Removing Cornwallis' Event.



> Come Join Us to Peacefully remove Cornwallis statue, a statue that for too long has been representing genocide in Mikmaki. We are calling on our Warriors, Protectors, Allies, Friends and Lovers to join us in this historic event."



https://www.facebook.com/events/1904629933090599/?acontext=%7B%22ref%22%3A%2222%22%2C%22feed_story_type%22%3A%2222%22%2C%22action_history%22%3A%22null%22%7D&pnref=story

Also in a few of the social media posts they are also seeking donations to their cause through e transfers. 

I'm actually curious if they go so far and destroy public property for their cause. I wonder how many of their Supporters on Social Media is going to support them then.


----------



## PuckChaser

Bring the jail bus and throw each and every one of them who touches the statue in the clink for public mischief. There are legal ways to have a statue removed, public vandalism isn't one of them.


----------



## ballz

MCG said:
			
		

> Unless, maybe, your employer is government.  Yes?



No... it's about *legal* protection from the government. Aka a law can't be created that would make it illegal for you to express yourself. Aka the police can't search you without a warrant. If the government is your employer and it fires you, that is not a "legal" consequence of your actions (like being imprisoned would be), that's a social consequence (which the Charter doesn't protect you against).

From an employment perspective, the government is tied to the same regulations as everyone else.

EDIT: Key piece for CAF members here.... it is not the government's employment policies that limit CAF members... its the National Defence Act, a piece of legislation, that ultimately limits us and makes x, y, or z, a chargeable offense. See Section 1 of the Charter, or "the limitations clause," for why the NDA has not been ruled as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

"1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it _subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society_."

In other words...

"When the government has limited an individual's right*, there is an onus upon the Crown to show, on the balance of probabilities, firstly, that the limitation was prescribed by law namely, that the law is attuned to the values of accessibility and intelligibility; and secondly, that it is justified in a free and democratic society, which means that it must have a justifiable purpose and must be proportional."

*like the NDA does in some instances, for example it limits our freedom of association in some ways.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_1_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms#Text


----------



## gryphonv

Have to remember, these group are the same types who protested Bill C51, organize demonstrations while wearing Guy Fawkes Masks, were part of the Occupy movement, among many other discressions that fall under public Mischief. 

Its quite obvious our laws regarding such things don't have sharp enough teeth.


----------



## Kat Stevens

gryphonv said:
			
		

> So the same group of Mi'gmaq now are even more empowered and are planning a 'Removing Cornwallis' Event.
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/events/1904629933090599/?acontext=%7B%22ref%22%3A%2222%22%2C%22feed_story_type%22%3A%2222%22%2C%22action_history%22%3A%22null%22%7D&pnref=story
> 
> Also in a few of the social media posts they are also seeking donations to their cause through e transfers.
> 
> I'm actually curious if they go so far and destroy public property for their cause. I wonder how many of their Supporters on Social Media is going to support them then.



All of them. Public violence and vandalism are part of the acceptable tactics playbook of social activists of all stripes. Smashing this statue will somehow undo all the ills that have befallen FN on the east coat since Cabot came on a two week fishing trip way back when.


----------



## Underway

Few things from the thread.

Being identified as a status Indian is a complicated process that differs depending on province and your local First Nations.  Some First Nations have the treaty ability to decide who is and isn't a member of their Band.  It also relates to family who were status and how far back you go.   Also status was originally granted due to census takers visiting reserves.  If you were around then you got status.  If you weren't you didn't.  This meant historical weirdness that included visiting "white people" or missionaries getting status, while prominent community members who were out hunting and such did not get status.

Also there are plenty of different ethnic groups within First Nations communities.  Some were blonde haired and green eyed (Many Metis), some have complections that wouldn't  be far off the Mediterranean or Eastern European..  It's not just a european thing.  This is all to say that you don't have to "look like" a First Nations to be one.  You could have two generations of marrying into other bloodlines (friend of mine looks first nations like his father who's mother is Sask first nations, his brother looks exactly like his Ukranian mother.  The both have status.).

Moral of the story.  Skin colour and "look" have absolutely nothing to do with your status as First Nations.

Second thing.  The persons in question are probably being investigated by the MP's to see if there are any Code of Service violations.  After that its over to the Divisional system for administrative action if necessary.  My bet is that it will be C&P and that's the end of it.  If we accept people with drug addiction problems, I'm sure they can take a sensitivity course or more importantly some remedial counseling about taking actions that embarrass the CAF in public.

Third thing. Where are you getting that an officer can't threaten their subordinates?  I think this needs to be expanded upon.  Supervisor cursing you out for being a bag of hammers and threatening you with extra duties (sorry training) if you don't sort your crap out happens all the time.  I've done those extra duties (XO to me... so do you want evens or odds Mr. Underway...).


----------



## gryphonv

Underway said:
			
		

> Few things from the thread.
> 
> Being identified as a status Indian is a complicated process that differs depending on province and your local First Nations.  Some First Nations have the treaty ability to decide who is and isn't a member of their Band.  It also relates to family who were status and how far back you go.   Also status was originally granted due to census takers visiting reserves.  If you were around then you got status.  If you weren't you didn't.  This meant historical weirdness that included visiting "white people" or missionaries getting status, while prominent community members who were out hunting and such did not get status.
> 
> Also there are plenty of different ethnic groups within First Nations communities.  Some were blonde haired and green eyed (Many Metis), some have complections that wouldn't  be far off the Mediterranean or Eastern European..  It's not just a european thing.  This is all to say that you don't have to "look like" a First Nations to be one.  You could have two generations of marrying into other bloodlines (friend of mine looks first nations like his father who's mother is Sask first nations, his brother looks exactly like his Ukranian mother.  The both have status.).
> 
> Moral of the story.  Skin colour and "look" have absolutely nothing to do with your status as First Nations.
> 
> Second thing.  The persons in question are currently being investigated by the MP's to see if there are any Code of Service violations.  After that its over to the Divisional system for administrative action if necessary.  My bet is that it will be C&P and that's the end of it.  If we accept people with drug addiction problems, I'm sure they can take a sensitivity course or more importantly some remedial counseling about taking actions that embarrass the CAF in public.
> 
> Third thing. Where are you getting that an officer can't threaten their subordinates?  I think this needs to be expanded upon.  Supervisor cursing you out for being a bag of hammers and threatening you with extra duties (sorry training) if you don't sort your crap out happens all the time.  I've done those extra duties (XO to me... so do you want evens or odds Mr. Underway...).



I have to agree with the skin color thing. I'm Metis with  Mi'kmaq (I always pronouced it MicMac) roots. I'm pasty white with blue eyes. 

One thing I have to disagree on is though a threat of extra duties is one thing, threatening to expose someone as racist is quite a different matter all together, and goes into the territory of giving a person doubt to their personal health and safety. 

Also contacting a person through non military channels with regards to military context is a big unsat especially WRT them facing possible punishments. . There is a reason why facebook can't be used as a recall list. If there really was an officer or any other member for that matter giving threats through social media, I do hope they are exposed internally through the military. As it is beyond their scope of power. 

Also to the Sub Lt who participated in releasing personal details of the 5 men, there is no exception for military members on committing crimes in Canada. It don't matter if some of the details were public before that, adding to it makes matters worse, and still illegal. One thing you may have noticed, any official correspondence from the military haven't listed the names of the Men, even though they are already public knowledge.


----------



## McG

Ack & agree on the majority of your post. I would go farther in one area and note that the Supreme Court has not simply never found the NDA to be unconstitutional; it has in fact specifically found that the NDA is constitutional.

But, I am still confused here:  





			
				ballz said:
			
		

> No... [the Charter of Rights is] about *legal* protection from the government. Aka a law can't be created that would make it illegal for you to express yourself. Aka the police can't search you without a warrant. If the government is your employer and it fires you, that is not a "legal" consequence of your actions (like being imprisoned would be), that's a social consequence (which the Charter doesn't protect you against).


So, the government can't impede freedoms of association or speech through legislation, but it is okay to do so by non-legislated regulations?


----------



## The Bread Guy

Lightguns said:
			
		

> ... The Sub Lt who used his social media accounts to release the names of the individuals on the SJW webpages is extremely disturbing ...


Just catching up and spotted this - ouch!


----------



## gryphonv

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VelZdp5DEAg

Gavin McInnes is now involved. This is getting more interesting by the moment.


----------



## Underway

gryphonv said:
			
		

> One thing I have to disagree on is though a threat of extra duties is one thing, threatening to expose someone as racist is quite a different matter all together, and goes into the territory of giving a person doubt to their personal health and safety.



Just to be clear, I asked that the point I was referring to be expanded upon.  Which you did quite well.  There are few  places for persons outside of your chain of command to contact with you with threats or complaints outside of an immediate correction or safety issue (ie: fix your shirt its untucked... don't stand there you could get hurt).  

However I have seen this many times and when the divisional staff get hold of that info there usually is quite the ahem... discussion between the officers involved (Who the *&&$#@ do you think you are pulling this crap with my people.  You have a problem you contact me first!).


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

gryphonv said:
			
		

> One thing you may have noticed, any official correspondence from the military haven't listed the names of the Men, even though they are already public knowledge.



I did notice. And it's probably  (in my mind) one of the few things that was done right in this case.

What I did notice also, however, is that the Admiral claims that, together with his Fifth Division counterpart (another two maple leaves, or whatever MGens wear these days - I haven't look since last week, so I am not sure), he personally met and gave the five members a "one way" conversation.

I can understand the MP's being involved in determining wether or not infractions, criminal or the NDA/CSD, have been committed here. But, can anyone tell me just what absolutely heinous action against the fabric of humanity these poor seamen and soldiers have committed that warrants involvement, from the start and at the first level, by not only someone else than their own commanding officer, but by a superior commanding officer at least three degrees above?

Wether the Admiral likes it or not, these seamen and soldiers have rights, including one to due process - even in administrative action - and were I their actual commanding officer, I can tell you that the admiral would have had me right in his face for jumping over me and dealing with MY personnel. Some people referred to the Hydro One employee situation above, and one mentioned that many of his co-worker made statements and interventions in his favour that help make the final decision. 

Who is going to stand up for these seamen and soldier and their (possibly - I don't know but assume that absent contrary information it is the case) good conduct otherwise? In a direct one way talk from the admiral to lonely (and probably scared stiff) seamen and soldier, was there anyone there with them on their side? And who would have the guts to take their defence straight before the highest authority on the East Coast?

If that is the type of Navy we have become, I am glad I am retired.



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> But, I am still confused here:  So, the government can't impede freedoms of association or speech through legislation, but it is okay to do so by non-legislated regulations?



Actually, MCG, you are citing on an important distinction, as Ballz position is an oversimplification.

The Supreme Court has found some sections of the NDA to be in conformity with the Charter, and has annulled some others - the whole redesign of the disciplinary process both for summary trials and court martial results from the prior system being found unconstitutional under the Charter.

As for the application to government only, not private parties, it is more complicated than what Ballz makes it to be. If you are interested, check out the Dolphin Delivery case ( [1986] 2 SCR 573. But it is irrelevant in the present case. They fully expressed themselves, as they have the right to, and there is no protection (at least in Canada, yet, contrary to many other nations such as Germany) when in public against being photographed or recorded and using same without consent.

But your main point is of interest. While the Charter, for our purpose here,  does not apply to common law, which includes the law of contract, and in such cases the Government is like any other employers, the Military is in a distinct category, as a very large part of our so called "contract" is actually made of laws and regulations (NDA, QR&O's, etc.), and these laws and regulations are subject to the Charter and the constitution. To the extent that this what is used to "punish" a deportment that constitute the exercise of a Charter right there may be a remedy for a member of the CAF. I say may because I am unaware of such case being brought before any court at this point in time.


----------



## gryphonv

Underway said:
			
		

> Just to be clear, I asked that the point I was referring to be expanded upon.  Which you did quite well.  There are few  places for persons outside of your chain of command to contact with you with threats or complaints outside of an immediate correction or safety issue (ie: fix your shirt its untucked... don't stand there you could get hurt).
> 
> However I have seen this many times and when the divisional staff get hold of that info there usually is quite the ahem... discussion between the officers involved (Who the *&&$#@ do you think you are pulling this crap with my people.  You have a problem you contact me first!).



I apologize as I overlooked the 





> I think this needs to be expanded upon


.

I hope you are right that they only end up with C & P, but somehow I think they are going to be burned at the stake. I have a few friends who are still serving in halifax,  and it seems the witch hunt is in full force, and there are many service members, at least the vocal ones, wanting blood. 

I think in the end its going to be hard for these guys to get a fair shake. A proper punishment, instead of a Socially Appeasing one. I really think its going to end with these members being forced out of the military, either through a 5f or even a 1a. The military seems to already have set precedence in bending over backwards to befriend the extremist views of the SJWs. Like someone said earlier, they will not be suprised if the Navy hangs a few sailors to save face.


----------



## ballz

MCG said:
			
		

> But, I am still confused here:  So, the government can't impede freedoms of association or speech through legislation, but it is okay to do so by non-legislated regulations?



I am not a lawyer, so take this for an "over a beer" explanation from my own personal understanding / reading. 

No, they can't use "un-legislated" regulations to limit someone's freedom, all government "regulations" ultimately come from legislation. Legislation gives the executive branch the authority to do things (like create it's own policies.... they have to be within the scope / constraints of that legislation). If the executive government is found to be violating someone's charter rights through their application of the legislation, then the legislative branch needs to step in and fix the executive's application, or the Supreme Court needs to rule that the legislation is unconstitutional and order that the legislation be changed. That's our "three branches of government" approach with checks and balances working in theory.

However, for what we are talking about... disciplining someone for their off-duty contact.... this is *not* treading on their freedom of speech/expression, it is the other party exercising it's own freedom of association. Individuals and corporations both enjoy this right. Within the existing employment legislation, employers are allowed to do this.. if they weren't allowed (aka they would face legal repercussions for doing so) then the government would be violating the employer's freedom of association. And so they should be allowed... if my employee wants to be a shitty human being, that's his business, the government should stay out of it..... but if I don't want to employ him, that's mine, the government should stay out of it.

The government in this case is just a corporation that is an employer and exercising it's own freedom of association. Now, if the government were charging, convicting, and imprisoning it's employees for off-duty freedom of expression, then that would be violating that individuals freedom.

These two freedoms (expression and association) in particular are yin and yang in my mind. One really doesn't work without the other.

We've also crossed into the legal discussion about whether the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to corporations which is quite an interesting topic.


----------



## ballz

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> As for the application to government only, not private parties, it is more complicated than what Ballz makes it to be. If you are interested, check out the Dolphin Delivery case ( [1986] 2 SCR 573. But it is irrelevant in the present case. They fully expressed themselves, as they have the right to, and there is no protection (at least in Canada, yet, contrary to many other nations such as Germany) when in public against being photographed or recorded and using same without consent.



But the argument being made by some on this thread (not necessarily MCG) is that there is protection because of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. And there is... there is *legal* protection. There is no protection from social consequences (aka being fired).



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> But your main point is of interest. While the Charter, for our purpose here,  does not apply to common law, which includes the law of contract, and in such cases the Government is like any other employers, the Military is in a distinct category, as a very large part of our so called "contract" is actually made of laws and regulations (NDA, QR&O's, etc.), and these laws and regulations are subject to the Charter and the constitution. To the extent that this what is used to "punish" a deportment that constitute the exercise of a Charter right there may be a remedy for a member of the CAF. I say may because I am unaware of such case being brought before any court at this point in time.



There is an important distinction between discipline and administrative measures here. I'd think that using the disciplinary system against these folks might actually be unconstitutional... those are legal repercussions for using your freedom of expression.... but using remedial measures / conducting an administrative review to see if they should be released would not...


----------



## George Wallace

gryphonv said:
			
		

> ......... The military seems to already have set precedence in bending over backwards to befriend the extremist views of the SJWs. Like someone said earlier, they will not be suprised if the Navy hangs a few sailors to save face.



I highly doubt that the Navy or the CAF will in any way save face in the end.  They will become a public embarrassment for a few days, and then the Public will once again forget about the military.  That is one of two things about the Canadian Public, besides believing that everything on internet is true, they soon forget.


----------



## Private_John_Winger

When I first heard about "Racist Canadian military troops disrupting first nations religious ceremony" I cringed, memories of the "Somalia Affair" coming to mind. Then I watched the video. 

As is often the case, the CBC narrative didn't really align with the facts of the case. These troops are being pilloried both in the media and by their own command staff for some pretty innocuous behaviour. That's just plain wrong.

I recognize that, as some members on this board have pointed out, members of the military are held to a higher standard than other members of the public. That's fair and had those guys marched down to the park waving swastikas and hurling racist epithets I'd be one of the first calling for their heads. But that's not what happened. If you watch the video, all these guys did was wander over and politely challenge the participants on some of their more extreme assertions for ten minutes before walking away. They brought with them a flag which a generation of Canadian military personnel fought and died  under to defeat the real Nazis, and after being subjected to a fair bit of verbal abuse which included racist comments from the black protestor on the scene, they turned and walked away.

How is that prejudicial to good order and discipline? People on this thread are getting bogged down with sophistic arguments about the Charter and military regulations. How about the basic right to free expression which has its roots in 800 years of common-law dating back to the Magna Carta? People don't surrender those kind of fundamental rights when they join the military. 

On some mischevious level, I kind of hope that the system does try to make an example of these guys. Gavin McInnes has already started a "Save the Five" campaign with which he hopes to turn them into Alt-Right martyrs:           

https://www.therebel.media/save-the-five

Seeing the whole affair turn into a viral embarrassment for the military would be a just lesson for some of those in the chain of command who seem so quick to dispense with the fundamental freedoms the institution claims to defend when they prove inconvenient. But I don't want to see these guys lose their careers either.

I suspect that won't happen though. More likely the poor guys will be bullied, threatened and ground down by the system until they are forced to attend some Maoist struggle-session where they'll be "re-educated" and forced to apologize. It's quite creepy when you think about it. And totally unfair. But at least they'll keep their jobs.


----------



## George Wallace

And now a different view:

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> Head of Canada's Indigenous veterans group hopes Proud Boys don't lose their CAF jobs
> 'They just showed up there with a flag. They didn't beat up on anybody,' Richard Blackwolf says
> CBC NEWS
> By John Paul Tasker, CBC News Posted: Jul 05, 2017 6:45 PM ET Last Updated: Jul 05, 2017 7:00 PM ET
> 
> The head of Canada's national Indigenous veterans organization hopes the Canadian Armed Forces members who confronted activists at an Indigenous ceremony in Halifax can stay in the military even if they were "silly" to engage in such a confrontation.
> 
> "The whole military has become politicized, we're living in a politically correct era and they [the CAF members] should have realized that this thing would be a media event," Richard Blackwolf, the national president of the Canadian Aboriginal Veterans and Serving Members Association (CAV), said in an interview with CBC News.
> 
> "But, hopefully, it won't affect their overall careers. I mean they just showed up there with a flag. They didn't beat up on anybody, it's not like that."
> 
> Blackwolf, a 77-year old Métis who served in the Navy for 13 years, said the activists assembled at the statue of Edward Cornwallis in Halifax are "point one per cent-ers" who do not adequately represent the country's Indigenous peoples.
> 
> "I saw several races down there [at the statute], it's just a hodgepodge of activists, they're not productive people at all," Blackwolf said.
> 
> Chief Grizzly Mamma, an Indigenous woman originally from B.C., shaved her head on the steps of the statue of the controversial British military officer on Canada Day to symbolize the violence First Nations people faced under colonial rule.
> 
> "These point one per cent-ers, they did some silly stuff, because they know what the hot-button issues for the media are. They're the bottom feeders."
> 
> Gen. Jonathan Vance, Canada's top general, has taken a different tack and said in a statement to CBC News Tuesday night that "their future in the the military is certainly in doubt."
> 
> "What happened in Halifax over the weekend is deplorable, and Canadians should rest assured my senior leadership is seized of the matter," Vance said. "The members involved will be removed from training and duties while we conduct an investigation and review the circumstances."
> 
> 'This is just gobbledygook'
> 
> Chief Grizzly Mamma, and a group of some 50 others, were confronted by five men who said the whole affair was "disrespectful" to Cornwallis, the city's founder. These men, who are members of the Proud Boys, a so-called "Western chauvinist" organization that is associated with the far right, were later revealed to be part of the armed forces.
> 
> The tense but nonviolent confrontation lasted for about 10 minutes, as the men took issue with assertions from organizers that they were interrupting a sacred rite on Mi'kmaq territory.
> 
> "This is Canada," one of the men said, his comments captured on a cellphone video posted on social media. "It might have been Mi'kmaq territory."
> 
> Rebecca Moore, the woman who organized Canada Day event, and a member of Pictou Landing First Nation in Nova Scotia, said people were praying to their ancestors for lives lost since the beginning of colonization.
> 
> After the confrontation, Moore told CBC Nova Scotia she wants the Canadian Armed Forces to acknowledge their operations are on unceded Mi'kmaq lands, urging them to improve education among its members on First Nations issues.
> 
> Blackwolf said demonstrations like this one simply give Indigenous people a bad name.
> 
> "This Chief Grizzly Mamma ... I mean real Native people don't have names like that," Blackwolf said. "This is just gobbledygook. The [servicemen] were silly enough to go there under those circumstances, they should have known better."
> 
> 'We have stabbed our servicemen in the back'
> 
> Gavin McInnes, a co-founder of Proud Boys, who has been the source of controversy for inflammatory — and anti-Semitic — remarks, defended the members of his men's club.
> 
> "I think we have stabbed our servicemen in the back, we should be ashamed of ourselves," he said in an interview with CBC's Power & Politics. "They didn't do anything ... they tried to have a civil discussion."
> 
> He said his group is not restricted to whites, adding two of the CAF members in question actually have Indigenous ancestry, and one of them is gay.
> 
> Blackwolf said he hoped the standoff doesn't have an impact on his organization's efforts to drive recruitment among Indigenous youth.
> 
> He said a career in the military is very rewarding, and there is a proud history of First Nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples serving the armed forces.
> People who identify as Indigenous make up 2.5 per cent of the regular force and primary reserve force.
> 
> Daniel Le Bouthillier, a spokesperson for the Canadian Forces, said Indigenous peoples are "core members of the defence team and deserve to be celebrated as such."
> 
> "The defence team works hard to foster a diverse, inclusive organization and will continue these efforts to ensure a respectful, dignified environment for all Canadians," he said in a statement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard Blackwolf joined the Royal Canadian Navy at 18, completing basic training on the HMCS Cornwallis. (Facebook)
> 
> With files from the CBC's Elizabeth McMillan and Anjuli Patil, and The Canadian Press



More on LINK.


----------



## gryphonv

George Wallace said:
			
		

> And now a different view:
> 
> Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.
> 
> More on LINK.



Probably the most honest and accurate overview of things. I'm glad it was him saying this and not some 'White' person. He hit off on a lot of points, may others were too afraid of saying so.


----------



## The Bread Guy

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I hate Illinois Nazis:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ukFAvYP3UU


I was thinking something more like ...


----------



## Lightguns

gryphonv said:
			
		

> So the same group of Mi'gmaq now are even more empowered and are planning a 'Removing Cornwallis' Event.
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/events/1904629933090599/?acontext=%7B%22ref%22%3A%2222%22%2C%22feed_story_type%22%3A%2222%22%2C%22action_history%22%3A%22null%22%7D&pnref=story
> 
> Also in a few of the social media posts they are also seeking donations to their cause through e transfers.
> 
> I'm actually curious if they go so far and destroy public property for their cause. I wonder how many of their Supporters on Social Media is going to support them then.



That's good, it just makes them look like the point one percenters they are.  Who cares about a silly statue, it's not a hill I would die on.  That damn statue is the funniest part of this whole event.  It's marble, nothing more.  If you fight inanimate objects, you will always lose.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Lightguns said:
			
		

> ... If you fight inanimate objects, you will always lose.


That's true, but it sounds like they're also fighting a narrative - that's a different fight.

Meanwhile, for the record, this from the CDS ...


> “I detest any action by a Canadian Armed Forces member that is intended to show disrespect towards the very people and cultures we value in Canada. We are the nation's protectors, and any member of the Canadian Armed Forces who is not prepared to be the defender we need them to be will face severe consequences, including release from the forces.
> 
> “What happened in Halifax over the weekend is deplorable, and Canadians should rest assured my senior leadership is seized of the matter. The members involved will be removed from training and duties while we conduct an investigation and review the circumstances. Their future in the military is certainly in doubt.
> 
> “On behalf of the Canadian Armed Forces, I apologize to Indigenous Peoples for the behaviour of a few, who certainly do not represent the broader group of proud women and men who serve our country. I expect better.”


----------



## Lightguns

So.....paid vacation.


----------



## jollyjacktar

And no need to worry about merit listings for some years to come either.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Bruce MacKinnon cartoon 6 Jul 17


----------



## mariomike

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> And no need to worry about merit listings for some years to come either.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mY4LGECbjTg


----------



## sandyson

3 points:
	The media once again made a minor event into a 'news' story that is sensational. They repeatedly do this form of exaggeration.

	I cannot understand why the CDS--a full general, even comments on an happening that should be handled by a sergeant-major.

	As to the lesser ranks, the event proved an opportunity for people looking for career promotion, to get much needed attention for themselves. The party line seems to be their theme of 'criticism'. In that other country, Kim Jong-un would certainly be pleased.


----------



## MARS

Sandyson said:
			
		

> 3 points:
> I cannot understand why the CDS--a full general, even comments on an happening that should be handled by a sergeant-major.



I would speculate it is because the CDS understands quite clearly that Indigenous groups 'have the floor', so to speak, in the current public discourse and that the details don't and won't matter - there is no winning move, in terms of the reputation of the CAF, other than to condemn, without reservation, the actions of those sailors/soldier.

I mean, you even have the MND offering apologies, so obviously the entire CoC will follow with their own.

To be charitable, these young men had to be pretty tone deaf to current climate vis-a-vis indigenous issues in Canada, if they seriously thought that their actions weren't going to be pilloried, quite roundly, all over social media, and thus by their superiors.  Lots of discussion here about Charter rights and such.  That is not the water cooler conversations being had about this in the general public.  I wonder how big of a rock you have to be living under to seriously think it would have played out in their favour....


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Perhaps the fact that 1 or 2 of them were also First Nation made the issue personal and perhaps they were fed up with no one wanting to challenge the protesters?


----------



## Lightguns

MARS said:
			
		

> I would speculate it is because the CDS understands quite clearly that Indigenous groups 'have the floor', so to speak, in the current public discourse and that the details don't and won't matter - there is no winning move, in terms of the reputation of the CAF, other than to condemn, without reservation, the actions of those sailors/soldier.
> 
> I mean, you even have the MND offering apologies, so obviously the entire CoC will follow with their own.
> 
> To be charitable, these young men had to be pretty tone deaf to current climate vis-a-vis indigenous issues in Canada, if they seriously thought that their actions weren't going to be pilloried, quite roundly, all over social media, and thus by their superiors.  Lots of discussion here about Charter rights and such.  That is not the water cooler conversations being had about this in the general public.  I wonder how big of a rock you have to be living under to seriously think it would have played out in their favour....



Really!  May I ask how two First Nations men can be "tone deaf" to their own racial issues?  I am half breed, never lived on reserve and am by no means tone deaf.  It is hard to live in the brown skin suit everyday and be tone deaf in Canada.  

I think this protest was silly and not deserving of the status of "sacred ceremony".  It is not like any sacred ceremony I ever attended and there were no elders present which is usually required at sacred ceremonies since they are usually about affirmation of shared community values as defined by elders.  Chief is a sacred position in a community whether elected or appointed by elders or recognized through military deeds.  Chief Grizzly Mama does not appear on the political rolls of any First Nation of any federation.  This was a simple protest that got counter protested.  That being said the counter protest was silly too.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Really!  May I ask how two First Nations men can be "tone deaf" to their own racial issues?  I am half breed, never lived on reserve and am by no means tone deaf.  It is hard to live in the brown skin suit everyday and be tone deaf in Canada.
> 
> I think this protest was silly and not deserving of the status of "sacred ceremony".  It is not like any sacred ceremony I ever attended and there were no elders present which is usually required at sacred ceremonies since they are usually about affirmation of shared community values as defined by elders.  Chief is a sacred position in a community whether elected or appointed by elders or recognized through military deeds.  Chief Grizzly Mama does not appear on the political rolls of any First Nation of any federation.  This was a simple protest that got counter protested.  That being said the counter protest was silly too.



I think the point was that there was zero chance this was going to work out well for them regardless of race, gender, or sexuality. The pers would moat likely have seen the teepee protest and the reaction so should have known how this would look.

That's the poor judgment they showed- regardless of their beliefs, which at best sound outdated, their actions were definately going to make the CAF look bad.

Besides- if this is the level of judgement and decision making they're capable of than they shouldn't be in the military.  We need leaders and soldiers capable of making sound judgment. Also, why would tge CAF put these people in leadership positions when they are clearly aligned with a political movement of dubious quality. Could they be trusted yo lead natives if they can't even be trusted to celebrate Canada Day without looking like idiots?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

MARS said:
			
		

> Lots of discussion here about Charter rights and such.  That is not the water cooler conversations being had about this in the general public.  I wonder how big of a rock you have to be living under to seriously think it would have played out in their favour....



Really MARS?

I hate to disagree, but around here (Montreal), I read two national newspapers and three local ones every day, I monitor public forum radio shows in the morning and watch the CTV and Global newscast at noon and the CBC's National at night. Then I also have numerous conversations with my work colleagues.

Well guess what: Other than CBC trying to make this into a scandal of sorts, the whole matter never made it out of a minor 25 lines article on the back of the national sections around here and absolutely nobody is paying attention or caring about this.

It may be the big thing in the naval world of belly button gazing Halifax but it's no big deal anywhere else in Canada.

I would love to hear from other part of the country to let us know if it is getting any traction where they live.

The only place that overreacted is the Admiral's office as far as I am concerned.


----------



## Altair

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I think the point was that there was zero chance this was going to work out well for them regardless of race, gender, or sexuality. The pers would moat likely have seen the teepee protest and the reaction so should have known how this would look.
> 
> That's the poor judgment they showed- regardless of their beliefs, which at best sound outdated, their actions were definately going to make the CAF look bad.
> 
> Besides- if this is the level of judgement and decision making they're capable of than they shouldn't be in the military.  We need leaders and soldiers capable of making sound judgment. Also, why would tge CAF put these people in leadership positions when they are clearly aligned with a political movement of dubious quality. Could they be trusted yo lead natives if they can't even be trusted to celebrate Canada Day without looking like idiots?


Hat, dark glasses, all visible tattoos covered, something to cover their faces. All that was required to avoid this outcome.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I think the point was that there was zero chance this was going to work out well for them regardless of race, gender, or sexuality. The pers would moat likely have seen the teepee protest and the reaction so should have known how this would look.
> 
> That's the poor judgment they showed- regardless of their beliefs, which at best sound outdated, their actions were definately going to make the CAF look bad.
> 
> Besides- if this is the level of judgement and decision making they're capable of than they shouldn't be in the military.  We need leaders and soldiers capable of making sound judgment. Also, why would tge CAF put these people in leadership positions when they are clearly aligned with a political movement of dubious quality. Could they be trusted yo lead natives if they can't even be trusted to celebrate Canada Day without looking like idiots?



I can bet you that most of the Snr NCO you served with exercised poor judgement as young plug, except there was far less social media and scrutiny by the "New Puritans" back then.


----------



## ModlrMike

Altair said:
			
		

> Hat, dark glasses, all visible tattoos covered, something to cover their faces. All that was required to avoid this outcome.



Except for that pesky Bill C-309, which might then make them subject to CCC Section 351(2). A whole other set of problems.


----------



## MARS

I think Bird-Gunner accurately summarized what I was trying to say.

OGBD, my poor wording...I wasn't implying that there is much of any conversation around the entire affair at all - I agree with you there - simply that any conversation is not going to centre on the Charter rights and freedoms of the individuals, simply their boneheadedness.

Lightguns...I meant tone deaf to the reaction from the media, their superiors, the MND, etc.  I can't fathom what other outcome the sailors would have possibly expected. When you have the PM visiting the tepee erected on Parliament Hill under the guise of "respect and reconciliation', well, what other reaction would anyone expect from the MND, and thus the CDS?  And once the CDS made his statements, is it really any surprise that COMMARLANT would follow with his?

I don't think these folks did anything illegal, immoral or what not.  Poor judgement is all and hopefully no lasting fallout for them.  My point is, currently, today, and likely for the coming generation or more, there is no way to 'win' in a situation like this, not for the CAF at any rate.  

I posit that the Indigenous group in question could have even lit the statue on fire...and there would still be no upside to any folks from the CAF showing up, not even to put the fire out.  That is what I mean by tone deaf.


----------



## PuckChaser

And finally a sober voice of reason: http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/indigenous-veterans-group-proud-boys-1.4191749



> Head of Canada's Indigenous veterans group hopes Proud Boys don't lose their CAF jobs
> 'They just showed up there with a flag. They didn't beat up on anybody,' Richard Blackwolf says
> 
> John Paul Tasker · Parliamentary Bureau · CBC News July 5, 2017
> First Nations veterans honoured in Winnipeg
> 
> Richard Blackwolf, far left, says the Canadian Armed Forces members who confronted Indigenous activists were 'silly' to have gotten involved in a standoff, but should not be forced out of the military. (Michael Fazio/CBC)
> 
> The head of Canada's national Indigenous veterans organization hopes the Canadian Armed Forces members who confronted activists at an Indigenous ceremony in Halifax can stay in the military even if they were "silly" to engage in such a confrontation.
> 
> "The whole military has become politicized, we're living in a politically correct era and they [the CAF members] should have realized that this thing would be a media event," Richard Blackwolf, the national president of the Canadian Aboriginal Veterans and Serving Members Association (CAV), said in an interview with CBC News.
> 
> "But, hopefully, it won't affect their overall careers. I mean they just showed up there with a flag. They didn't beat up on anybody, it's not like that."
> 
> Blackwolf, a 77-year old Métis who served in the navy for 13 years, said the activists assembled at the statue of Edward Cornwallis in Halifax are "point one percenters" who do not adequately represent the country's Indigenous Peoples.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

What I found cringe worthy is the response from the Grownups. It should have been short and curt to the media; “We have heard of the alleged incident, will review any video and interview the members involved to determine if any breech of regulations occurred and we have nothing further to say on the matter until then. Any further inquiries can be made to our Media Relations Officer who will respond at the appropriate time.”


----------



## Eye In The Sky

gryphonv said:
			
		

> One thing I have to disagree on is though a threat of extra duties is one thing, threatening to expose someone as racist is quite a different matter all together, and goes into the territory of giving a person doubt to their personal health and safety.
> 
> Also contacting a person through non military channels with regards to military context is a big unsat especially WRT them facing possible punishments. . There is a reason why facebook can't be used as a recall list. If there really was an officer or any other member for that matter giving threats through social media, I do hope they are exposed internally through the military. As it is beyond their scope of power.
> 
> Also to the Sub Lt who participated in releasing personal details of the 5 men, there is no exception for military members on committing crimes in Canada. It don't matter if some of the details were public before that, adding to it makes matters worse, and still illegal. One thing you may have noticed, any official correspondence from the military haven't listed the names of the Men, even though they are already public knowledge.



I still haven't read or seen anything on this whole Navy Officers threaten to expose names/people/etc stuff...but as devils advocate, couldn't their actions also be considered somewhat in line with this?  (again, not knowing what was actually said/done...more in line with the concept of can an Officer take action to discipline, stop further possible service offences, uphold CAF Ethics and Values...that sort of thing).

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-queens-regulations-orders-vol-01/toc-04.page

4.02 - GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF OFFICERS

(1) An officer shall:
a.become acquainted with, observe and enforce:i.the National Defence Act,
ii.the Security of Information Act,
iii.QR&O, and
iv.all other regulations, rules, orders and instructions that pertain to the performance of the officer's duties;

b.afford to all persons employed in the public service such assistance in the performance of their duties as is practical;
c.promote the welfare, efficiency and good discipline of all subordinates;
d.ensure the proper care and maintenance, and prevent the waste, of all public and non-public property within the officer's control; and
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 when the officer cannot deal adequately with the matter.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Colin P said:
			
		

> What I found cringe worthy is the response from the Grownups. It should have been short and curt to the media; “We have heard of the alleged incident, will review any video and interview the members involved to determine if any breech of regulations occurred and we have nothing further to say on the matter until then. Any further inquiries can be made to our Media Relations Officer who will respond at the appropriate time.”



The adults are risk adverse and running scared nowadays.  I was really disheartened by the situation of the GG recently, who made a positive, truthful, supportive message about FN peoples by saying we're all immigrants, including FN who have been here for thousands of years.   Following some hurt feelings reports from the Grizzly Momma crowd the GG (or someone) felt he needed to walk back to stop the temper tantrums.  Bollocks,  he was correct and it was sad to see even him have to bow down to these people.  I'm getting tired of the hissy fits and finger pointing by the 1%'ers.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Colin P said:
			
		

> I can bet you that most of the Snr NCO you served with exercised poor judgement as young plug, except there was far less social media and scrutiny by the "New Puritans" back then.



I'm not arguing that point and am quite aware that people did all kinds of things in the "bad old days". I'm also in the belief that a lot of what they did would now get them booted from the army.

I think that your point makes my point- in the bad old days you could go downtown and do what you wanted and the worst one could expect was to be put in jail and pulled out by the Adjt. Like it or not, those days are gone forever. And it has nothing to do with "new puritans" but rather with technology and its ability to put out anything you do. Today, a bunch of drunk soldiers fighting university students in Fredericton can be filmed, put on youtube, and seen by the world, hurting the image of the CAF. That's the reality for the soldiers of today, full stop. The world, and the army, has changed.

That, and arguably their world view, is the poor judgment part. They should have known or at least expected that their actions would be filmed and put out for the world to see. Having their facebook pages and everything else was just asking for trouble when they decided to go to that park.


----------



## Underway

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Really MARS?
> 
> I hate to disagree, but around here (Montreal), I read two national newspapers and three local ones every day, I monitor public forum radio shows in the morning and watch the CTV and Global newscast at noon and the CBC's National at night. Then I also have numerous conversations with my work colleagues.
> 
> Well guess what: Other than CBC trying to make this into a scandal of sorts, the whole matter never made it out of a minor 25 lines article on the back of the national sections around here and absolutely nobody is paying attention or caring about this.
> 
> It may be the big thing in the naval world of belly button gazing Halifax but it's no big deal anywhere else in Canada.
> 
> I would love to hear from other part of the country to let us know if it is getting any traction where they live.
> 
> The only place that overreacted is the Admiral's office as far as I am concerned.



I partially agree.  However it's not just Halifax.  This is big news in the Maritimes, all the Maritimes.  Those national newspapers you read, well they have different issues for different places.  Globe and Mail Maritime Issue has had 4-5 stories covering the situation.  Ontario (well Metro TO) has .... zero.  But yes, the rest of the country has already moved on to oil going lower, 5% of houses in TO are foreign buys and whatever The Donald has tweeted lately.

As for the overreaction, I don't think it was an overreaction.  It's the exact proper reaction.  I felt the Admiral (aside from the white supremacy comment) was very balanced, speaking on youth, stupidity and how we need to see if we can salvage the members.  The CDS was more irritated but he's speaking to the Ottawa press and didn't want to give them even the tiniest crack to accuse us of being soft on potential racism etc... 

Our entire organization is under fire for being old boys white bigots and need to go the extra mile to fix these problems, because well, we have historically acted like old boys white bigots for the most part (and in _so_ many cases continue to do so).

As for the repercussions,  I will be surprised if they get anything more than C&P.  That's bad enough, as they are removed from training or ship for the duration of the investigation, and are unable to do any coursing while on C&P or advance their career while on their Probation period (max 6 months though I have in rare cases seen 9 months given under special circumstances).  Their career just got approx a 1-2 year delay in it for advancement, unless the MP's move at lightning speed to investigate this.  The fact that the media blew it out of proportion won't change the repercussions all that much as the violation was not sufficient enough for release, and if that was attempted be prepared to have ALL your ducks in a row because we can't even get rid of real terrible people.

They might catch them on a violation of QR&O 19.44, or Conduct contrary, but I see that as a stretch.  The accused would just ask for a proper trial with a judge and get off the charges (if I was their assisting officer I would advise that).


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Underway said:
			
		

> I partially agree.  However it's not just Halifax.  This is big news in the Maritimes, all the Maritimes.  Those national newspapers you read, well they have different issues for different places.  Globe and Mail Maritime Issue has had 4-5 stories covering the situation.  Ontario (well Metro TO) has .... zero.  But yes, the rest of the country has already moved on to oil going lower, 5% of houses in TO are foreign buys and whatever The Donald has tweeted lately.
> 
> As for the overreaction, I don't think it was an overreaction.  It's the exact proper reaction.  I felt the Admiral (aside from the white supremacy comment) was very balanced, speaking on youth, stupidity and how we need to see if we can salvage the members.  The CDS was more irritated but he's speaking to the Ottawa press and didn't want to give them even the tiniest crack to accuse us of being soft on potential racism etc...
> 
> Our entire organization is under fire for being old boys white bigots and need to go the extra mile to fix these problems, because well, we have historically acted like old boys white bigots for the most part (and in _so_ many cases continue to do so).
> 
> As for the repercussions,  I will be surprised if they get anything more than C&P.  That's bad enough, as they are removed from training or ship for the duration of the investigation, and are unable to do any coursing while on C&P or advance their career while on their Probation period (max 6 months though I have in rare cases seen 9 months given under special circumstances).  Their career just got approx a 1-2 year delay in it for advancement, unless the MP's move at lightning speed to investigate this.  The fact that the media blew it out of proportion won't change the repercussions all that much as the violation was not sufficient enough for release, and if that was attempted be prepared to have ALL your ducks in a row because we can't even get rid of real terrible people.
> 
> They might catch them on a violation of QR&O 19.44, or Conduct contrary, but I see that as a stretch.  The accused would just ask for a proper trial with a judge and get off the charges (if I was their assisting officer I would advise that).



1-2 year career delay is a conservative guess... I'd say that being in an incident that the CDS had to comment on will get them blacklisted for their foreseeable futures.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I know I am not the most eloquent poster here with a Ph D in *anything*, but...

Chief Grizzly Mama and her supporters are upset that General Edward Cornwallis committed genocide against her people's.  Canadians shouldn't be carrying historical flags in Canada, on Canada Day.  Etc.

- General Edward Cornwallis lived from March 1713 to January 1776.  He was appointed as Governor of Halifax  (task - establish a British Settlement to counter France's Fortress Louisberg in what is now Cape Breton), arriving in June 1949.  *Note - he died in 1776.

- Canada, as a nation, was formed in 1867.

Obviously I am not a great historian or a mathematician, but I don't see the Cornwallis = Canada and present day Canadians stuff.

British killed French, French killed British, Natives killed both and were killed by both.  The whole *Cornwallis was bad* thing seems to be just one side of the story, but apparently the only side anyone in the general public acknowledges, because there just isn't enough room for all the facts in Tweets and FB messages.

Now back to (un)reality...I guess we (Canada and Canadians) can go on arguing about who did what, when, and to who for the near future without establishing a basis of facts first; I bet the Vikings love this whole debate.


----------



## Underway

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> 1-2 year career delay is a conservative guess... I'd say that being in an incident that the CDS had to comment on will get them blacklisted for their foreseeable futures.



They are too Jr. to worry about PER's (for the few I know of directly).  Their careers are currently based on getting courses and OJT as far as I understand.    I wouldn't be surprised if the career manager in a year even knows who they are aside from a number, or if they do, actually cares.  If it takes longer than 2 years I would be surprised and probably chock it up to bad scheduling and time on PAT platoon because they are out of the normal coursing stream.


----------



## Lex Justitia

MARS said:
			
		

> I would speculate it is because the CDS understands quite clearly that Indigenous groups 'have the floor', so to speak, in the current public discourse and that the details don't and won't matter - there is no winning move, in terms of the reputation of the CAF, other than to condemn, without reservation, the actions of those sailors/soldier.
> 
> I mean, you even have the MND offering apologies, so obviously the entire CoC will follow with their own.
> 
> To be charitable, these young men had to be pretty tone deaf to current climate vis-a-vis indigenous issues in Canada, if they seriously thought that their actions weren't going to be pilloried, quite roundly, all over social media, and thus by their superiors.  Lots of discussion here about Charter rights and such.  That is not the water cooler conversations being had about this in the general public.  I wonder how big of a rock you have to be living under to seriously think it would have played out in their favour....




Exactly. 

To add to that: the CDS's involvement was important for image. A lack of response could have further hurt the CAF's image. 

Offending and alienating large swaths of Canada's identifiable groups (whether indigenous, LGBQT, Muslim, Jewish, etc) is not in our interests. This will involve _some_ self-censorship and a decency filter, but so does being employed in nearly every other occupation. I don't think anyone is asking that we all entirely self-censor, but just to exercise good judgment and that involves remaining cognizant of the social issues of the day.

For these five, I don't think they should reprimanded with a discharge, but their off-colour standoff surely shows their lack of good judgment.


----------



## George Wallace

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> And finally a sober voice of reason: http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/indigenous-veterans-group-proud-boys-1.4191749



Late to the party....http://army.ca/forums/threads/126080/post-1494901.html#msg1494901...... [Xp


----------



## George Wallace

E. B. Korcz Forrester said:
			
		

> ]
> 
> ...... but their off-colour standoff surely shows their lack of good judgment.



Perhaps poor judgement; but I never saw any signs in any of the videos of them being in a "off-colour standoff".  I did see them having a civil discussion with one lady, before being accosted by another loudmouth, 'in your face' woman and a Black man, and then leaving, still in civil discussion with the lady they were talking to in the first place.


----------



## Private_John_Winger

*Insipid Venture-A Tale of Soldiering in the Age of Culture Wars*​
*Act I*

The morning sun peered through clouds that had finally broken overnight. July 2nd, 2017 looked like any other day initially. The brave men and women manning the Canadian Racism Action Centre (CRAC) were finishing their overnight shifts after spending a particularly soggy Canada Day scanning social media and other open sources for evidence-any evidence-of racism, bigotry or unauthorized opinion among Canadian military members on the internet.

Private John Taylor was just 19 years old. A native of Thornhill Ontario, this was his first operational post. Working on the front line in the war against racism was a daunting task, but an important one-and he knew it. In basic recruit training, many of his infantry colleagues would scoff at his job description. Especially that asshole Ryan McTaggart. “What the fook”? the brash Newfoundlander would chortle in the mess hall, “You call sittin’ behind a computer all day surfing da net solderin’? Get fookin’ real booddy, the RCR is da real soldiers!” Taylor seethed as he recalled the indignities. “Someday, they’re gonna understand” he thought to himself…”someday.”
It was then that he came across it. It seemed like nothing at first. A Youtube video of a bunch of guys in black and gold golf shirts having a polite, if at times irreverent, discussion with some people in a park. The caption indicated the men were sailors from CFB Halifax. Watching the video, it was clear that the men were being quite reasonable and polite while members of a protest group hurled vitriolic abuse at them. “Nothing to see here” Taylor muttered to himself as he prepared to move onto the next video. Still, it warranted a mention to the boss….”Sir, got something here you might want to take a look at.”

Capt (N) Mark Griswold had been promoted to his current position after a decade spent with the fleet. He was a combat veteran, having commanded an anti-submarine frigate in Kandahar during the Afghan war. His new role, as the Canadian Racism Action Centre Commander (CRACC) was on the cutting edge. His highly trained team of internet commandos spent their days utilizing data mining programs to search every corner of the net for armed forces members who might utter a racist, bigoted or unauthorized opinion. “Griswold, this isn’t the sixties anymore” the Admiral told him on his appointment. “We’re not just recruiting out of the jails anymore. The modern military person has to be able to think. But it’s _our_ job to ensure they don’t think too much! The last thing this organization needs is people who think up things that we don’t want them too. It’s your job to catch them when they do so we can put a stop to it immediately.” 

Griswold’s first impression of the video was similar to that of his young charge. The men were polite, and from their appearance and comments, it wasn’t even clear that they were associated with the military. “Why is this even an issue?” he thought to himself. But then something that had been eating at him since the beginning of his appointment occurred to him. “For six God-damned months I’ve been running this command centre, and we haven’t been able to find one skin-head, Nazi or Rush Limbaugh listener in the whole time. If we don’t find something soon, I’m going to have to go back on a ship. Months away from home, sea-sickness and five minute showers. Screw that!” He reviewed the video again. And it was clear, the sailors were very aggressive. In fact, one of them had a red flag. Griswold wasn’t sure, but it might even be a Confederate flag. Yes, that’s it. A Rebel flag!  It was then that he knew it was time to hit the panic button. “We’ve got one!” he exclaimed. He reached for the Racism Alarm and slammed it with his palm. Claxons began sounding and the command centre lighting immediately switched to subdued red. “Petty Officer Morgan” shouted Griswold. “Sir” replied Morgan. “Notify the Admiral we have a Code 1-military personnel arguing with left wing extremists on Youtube.” “Yessir!” barked the petty officer. And the ball began to roll…..

*Act II*
Admiral Newman was cranky. He’d spent the previous day at a ceremony dedicated to recognizing Canada’s tolerant diversification of tolerant diversity, but it degenerated into a fiasco when a group of Antifa activists showed up to protest the Navy’s lack of LGBTQ bathrooms on submarines. His voice betrayed his irritability when he answered the phone call from Capt(N) Griswold. “Admiral Newman” he said gruffly. His stern manner melted when Capt(N) Griswold broke the news. Racist sailors had crashed a solemn First Nations religious ceremony in Halifax, and assaulted a woman while waving a Confederate flag.  “Thank you Captain,” replied the Admiral. “I will address it.”

_The Five lay_ in their bunks at CFB Halifax nursing headaches. It had been a fun night. They’d started off watching Gavin McInness videos on Rebel Media and drinking Jagermiester shots before heading to downtown Halifax for pints. For a laugh, one of them had brought a Red Ensign with him. While downtown, they saw a group of protestors at the Lord Cornwallis statue waving an upside down Canadian flag and defacing the statue with stickers and paint. They had walked over and argued briefly with the group before backing off when the conversation became too heated. After all, they weren’t there to start a brawl. They had a big laugh over it as the day wore on and didn’t give it much more thought until…..*BOOM!* The door crashed in and the flash-bang grenade left each of them stunned. Before any of them could recover their senses a black clad entry team burst into the room dragging each of them out of their bunks in their underwear. “Don’t move! Don’t move!” the team leader screamed. The room filled with the smell of cordite and chemicals as each of The Five were pepper sprayed, hand cuffed and dragged to a waiting black van which peeled out of the parking lot and down the street to oblivion. 

*Act III*
General Prance was elated when the phone rang. He’d been waiting for an update from Admiral Newman all afternoon. “Admiral Newman here sir, we got ‘em!” “Excellent” replied the Chief of Defence Staff who had been on tenterhooks, terrified that the miscreants would escape before Griswold’s Anti-Racism Commandos could bring them into custody. “Now that we’ve got them” instructed the General, “We have to ensure due process.” “I couldn’t agree more” replied Admiral Newman. “We’ll start by marching them before me and I’ll upbraid them all afternoon.  Then we’ll have some underlings release their names publicly via social media so that they can be shamed online. Then we’ll suspend them before holding a show trial. At the end of it, after a fair hearing taking into account all available evidence, we’ll find them guilty and have them drawn and quartered. I believe you can still do that under the National Defence Act.” “Good plan” General Prance offered. “By the way, what is it they did exactly?” “Well” the Admiral sighed, “it seems these bastards attended a solemn native ceremony wearing red suspenders, combat boots and shaved heads with SS lightening bolts tattooed on their necks. They began shouting ‘White Power’, before kicking a pregnant First Nations woman in the stomach and stomp kicking an elderly Sikh. Oh yeah, they had a Nazi flag too. A God-damn Nazi flag. Can you believe it!  It was absolutely appalling behaviour.” “They’re done” intoned the Chief of Defence Staff sharply. “They’re done...” his voice tailed off.

*Act IV*
The court room was tense and sweltering. The crowd had started lining up well before dawn and by the time the court martial opened its doors a throng of stakeholders pushed past the harried security staff to claim their seats. Idle No More was there. So was Black Lives Matter, although after being granted standing at the proceedings they refused to participate claiming it was all an exercise in white supremacy. Antifa activists showed up but refused to enter the room after they decided as a collective that it would be more productive to smash out the windows of a coffee shop located across the street from the court house. 

The murmuring crowed hushed as _The Five_ were led in. Shorn heads bowed, their orange jumpsuits glowing with defeat, none of them dared look up toward the glaring throng. The prosecution called its first witness, Capt(N) Griswold. “Captain” the prosecutor asked, “Can you tell us how you came to be involved with the men now before the court today?” Captain Griswold described the video he’d seen and how horrified he was by it. Not since the Somalia Affair, when Canadian soldiers beat and tortured a bound Somali prisoner to death then joked about it on video had anyone seen anything like it!

Then it was the defence’s turn. The attorney, Atticus Pinch, rose to his feet. “Captain Griswold, can you tell us a little bit about….” his cross-examination immediately truncated by a vituperative protest from the witness box. *“YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!”* Capt(N) Griswold bellowed. “I beg your pardon?” replied Pinch. *“YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!”* retorted Griswold. It was going to be a long day.

The next witness was the Minister of Defence, Harjitt Sayagain. After a cursory examination-in-chief, Pinch began his cross-examination. “Minister, upon learning of the incident, you issued a media release condemning these men for their actions. Did you ever watch the video in question?” “Yes” replied Minister Sayagain. “And what did you see”? the defence continued. “…Well…I saw a group of soldiers…I mean…sailors.. acting inappropriately…waving a racist flag.” “A racist flag you say? Can you describe this flag minister?” replied Pinch.  “Well”, stammered Minister Sayagain “it was red…with a bunch of crosses on it. Totally inappropriate…” “But minister” the defence pressed on, “I’m going to suggest to you that this ‘racist’ flag you decry was actually the same flag that an entire generation of Canadian soldiers, sailors and air force personnel fought and died under during the Second World War, in the great struggle against fascism. Wouldn’t you agree?” “Of…of course I would…maybe not…” sputtered Sayagain. “For God’s sake, I was the architect of the Juno Beach landings and I led the Third Canadian Division into the Falaise Gap. Of course I know that.” With that, a loud harrumph was heard from the spectator’s gallery and Christie Blatchford rolled her eyes in disgust. “This’ll be in the Post tomorrow” she huffed, before storming out in utter disgust.

The verdict was handed down the next day. To no one’s surprise, The Five were sentenced to 51 weeks of First Nations Anti-Islamophobic Pro-Trans Gender Anti-Black Racism Sensitivity Training at the Ministry of Diversity in Ottawa. A dog barked as the prisoner van rolled through the night towards Room 101.

*Post-Script-July 2018*

The Five sat at the café table, reading the Huffington Post on their computers and sipping Victory Gin. The Telescreen blared with news of an impending announcement. A great victory had been achieved by the Canadian Forces in their eternal struggle against the forces of intolerance. It came in the form of a new quota to ensure proper representation of transgender studies graduates among the ranks of the special operations command. _The Five_ cheered the news, along with the rest of the patrons of the café. As they sat enjoying their Victory Gin, they were sure of only one thing. They loved Justin Trudeau.


----------



## George Wallace

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> Christie Blatchford: Proud Boys' behaviour might be goofy, but is hardly ‘deplorable’
> Not a blow was struck. Not a disrespectful word uttered. Then the men were outed as Canadian Forces members and soon were tossed under the bus by their leaders
> The National Post
> Christie Blatchford
> July 6, 2017  7:55 PM EDT
> 
> I do not rise in defence of the Proud Boys, a truly goofy sort of organization, so odd I can’t help but think it’s a joke perpetrated by its founder, Gavin McInnes, the Canadian ex-hipster and comedian who co-started Vice Media and is infamous for what in the United Kingdom is known as taking the piss.
> 
> McInnes started the Proud Boys just last year, and until recently, the group seemed to have been regarded as kooky but benign.
> 
> Two of its weirder tests, for instance, call for the prospective member to be beaten up by at least five guys until he can spit out the names of five breakfast cereals, and, secondly, to stay away from his own member and masturbate no more than once a month (its infamous #NoWanks policy) on the grounds that this gets young men off the couch and talking to actual women.
> 
> (I do rise somewhat in the defence of cereal, which like the Proud Boys I adore and eat at least twice daily, and in defence of the other as well.)
> 
> In any case, the group has been getting a good deal of ink since Canada Day in Halifax, when one of five young men who approached an Indigenous protest — carrying the old Red Ensign flag (Canada’s de facto flag until 1965) and apparently singing God Save the Queen, though the video I saw didn’t capture the latter — identified them all as Proud Boys Maritimes.
> 
> For the record, the protest itself was held at the statue of Edward Cornwallis, the former Nova Scotia governor who founded Halifax and notoriously issued a bounty on Mi’kmaq scalps (the Scalping Proclamation) after Mi’kmaq warriors, objecting to Cornwallis’ chosen site, fought against the English.
> 
> A small crowd was gathered around the statue, one of them carrying an upside-down Canadian flag with the word “decolonize” written on it, there to mark the various atrocities committed against Indigenous people while Chief Grizzly Mamma, who is originally from British Columbia, shaved her head.
> 
> According to what McInnes later told the CBC, the five were in a bar on July 1, heard rumours of an anti-Canada protest, and decided to go check it out.
> 
> Also for the record, the men were well-spoken, polite and respectful; they were met by a young woman, from the protesters, who was equally polite and respectful. The men explained they were curious and wanted to see what was going on; she said they’d be welcome to listen quietly if they didn’t disrupt things.
> 
> But a couple of other protesters were not similarly inclined.
> 
> One snarled, “This is a fucking genocide.” Someone else said, “This is Mi’kmaq territory, to which one of the Proud Boys replied, “This is Canada.” Members of each side tossed about historically inaccurate facts in the manner of the young and unschooled. Another young woman bristling with hostility kept moving closer to one of the men until she was practically touching him. “You don’t seem to like me standing so close,” she said. “You’re very close,” he replied calmly.
> 
> But then the Proud Boys left, having been chastised for their pronunciation of Mi’kmaq and for their disrespectful tone, or, as a protester put it, got “the —- out of here.”
> 
> There were no harsh words from the Proud Boys. There was even some humour; once, told by a protester to speak more softly, one of the men said, in effect, “What? This is a library now?” But he did as he was asked.
> 
> Not a blow was struck. Not a disrespectful word was uttered, unless, of course, one counts the mere questioning of Indigenous protest as disrespectful. Not a gram of cereal was consumed or thrown.
> 
> Then the men were outed on social media as being members of the Canadian Forces. Four, as it turned out, are sailors, one is in the army. (A sixth military person was on the periphery, but not involved.)
> 
> In short order, the men were smartly tossed under the bus by their leaders.



More on LINK.


----------



## FSTO

The mob is getting restless and they want blood. 

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

There’s no room in Canadian forces for racists: Editorial
A group of five men from the Canadian Armed Forces invaded a Mi’kmaq ceremony on Canada Day. They should be dismissed.
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2017/07/05/no-room-in-forces-for-misogynist-racists.html

In the two years since Gen. Jonathan Vance was named Chief of Defence Staff he has spent considerable time and energy trying to change the misogynistic, discriminatory culture of Canada’s Armed Forces.

Now, in one appallingly insensitive and thuggish act, a gang of five members of the military have proven just how deaf they have been to his crystal-clear orders. They don’t belong in the ranks.

It happened on Canada Day when a group of Mi’kmaq women held a ceremony in Halifax to mark the suffering of Indigenous peoples. As their chief cut off her braids and laid them at the foot of a statue of Edward Cornwallis — as a symbol of the scalping and mistreatment of her people that occurred under the Halifax founder’s command — the black-shirted men made their entrance.

They identified themselves as “Proud Boys,” a self-declared “fraternal organization of Western Chauvinists who will no longer apologize for creating the modern world.” One man carrying a Red Ensign declared: “This was Mi’kmaq territory. This is now Canada. This is Halifax, Nova Scotia. This is a British colony.”

So far Vance has called the incident “deplorable,” said the men will be removed from training and duties while the incident is investigated, and apologized to Indigenous peoples. Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan was also quick to condemn them.

That’s all good. But if Vance wants to send an important signal that the forces have no place for people with these odious attitudes, he must dismiss these men immediately.

After all, the military is in the midst of a recruitment drive to attract women, LGBTQ people, and visible minorities. It cannot hope to succeed at that goal if it allows men who disrespect women and racial minorities to remain in its ranks.

The Proud Boys Canadian Chapters Facebook page, which now sports a photo of Cornwallis, says the organization does not discriminate on the basis of race or sexuality. But it’s hard to believe it isn’t anything but a front for a bunch of racists.

There’s no room in Canada, never mind the military, for that kind of thinking. Vance should cut to the chase and dismiss those who not only hold these beliefs, but would head out as a gang to impose them on others.

The CBC gets a West Coast Lawyer (who is first nation) to weigh in as well. 
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/indigenous-lawyer-responds-to-gavin-mcinnes-interview-1.4193748

She calls the Red Ensign the Confederate Flag and CBC does not correct her.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

*invaded*     :


----------



## cavalryman

Another hit piece by the Red Star.  That bird cage liner's mere existence is proof  of the the theory that MPAI.  And said idiots congregate on the left end of the stupidity spectrum.  Jesus wept.


----------



## George Wallace

I really didn't know that Mi’kmaq territory extended all the way to Vancouver, where this Chief Grizzly Mamma is said to be from?


----------



## Loachman

E. B. Korcz Forrester said:
			
		

> that involves remaining cognizant of the social issues of the day.



Many of the "social issues of the day" are simply destructive, divisive, and/or just plain stupid. Ignoring them simply encourages the idiocy.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Yes, EITS, invaded.

Don't think for a moment that these people don't know what they are doing, and that the "West" useful idiots, like the Star editorial board, is doing the hanging for them.

In a reconciliatory mood, acknowledging that you are on x, y or z first nations ancestral territory is one thing. To acknowledge that your are on unceded x, y, or z t's territory is another. And those people know it even if our governments and the media doesn't.

Acknowledging you are on someone else's "unceded" territory makes you an occupier (a bit like the Israeli occupation of "Palestinian" territory [and I put that in quotes because there hasn't been a Palestinian state in human recorded history that would be recognized as a country at any point in time]) and therefore it validates your international claim to assistance in getting rid of the occupier or in claiming mischief from said occupier and questioning any right to the land. This is important because in international law, one of the criteria for a country to be recognized is borders recognized by all or almost all other states and the actual exercise of your sovereignty over such land. The "unceded" territory discourse aims at taking the land away from a mere "colonized" status and making it, an occupied mig'mak land subject to return to them under international law.

Interestingly enough, this means that those five members may actually have been effectively executing one of the primary duties of the CAF: the role of defending Canadian territory.


----------



## TCM621

Ok, I have read the whole thread, a number of articles and I still have one question. What did they do? Honestly, I can't find one single thing that is "deplorable", racist or even rude in this whole thing. I have yet to even hear an  accusation of an offense besides being "racist". It is telling that this group of racist Nazis reportedly had two natives and a gay man present. 

Can our leadership, just once, defend us in public? No wonder we have recruiting issues. This could literally have been anyone of us. I am from the left coast and I run into protests a lot (although not as much now as when I was in Esquimalt/Victoria) and I have made comments about the stupidity of them. And I am sure as hell going to verbally defend myself if I am berated by some "activist" (although in uniform its a different game). I think most of us would do the same.


----------



## The Bread Guy

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I really didn't know that Mi’kmaq territory extended all the way to Vancouver, where this Chief Grizzly Mamma is said to be from?


??? If someone born in Toronto as an Albanian citizen according to Albania's rules now lives in Vancouver, does that make all of Canada to the West Coast Albania?


----------



## Lex Justitia

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Perhaps poor judgement; but I never saw any signs in any of the videos of them being in a "off-colour standoff".  I did see them having a civil discussion with one lady, before being accosted by another loudmouth, 'in your face' woman and a Black man, and then leaving, still in civil discussion with the lady they were talking to in the first place.




I will concede that not all of them were making off-colour statements. However, I would consider, in light of how poorly Canada's indigenous are treated by ordinary people (sometimes with callous disregard for life and serious consequence), telling another Canadian of indigenous heritage to "take off all [their] clothes" and return everything they own—become destitute—to the state because none of that belonged, and was given, to them (paraphrased except where quoted) to be off-colour and tasteless.


----------



## The Baron

Surprised no one has posted or mentioned these....

QR&O
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:

if seen or heard by any member of the public, might reflect discredit on the Canadian Forces or on any of its members; or
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.

DAOD 7021-1, Conflict of Interest (relevant sections, its long)

outside activity (activité extérieure)

Any employment, political or charitable activity, whether remunerated or not, that is conducted outside the official working hours of a DND employee or the authorized hours of duty or service of a CAF member. 

Requirement

3.2 All DND employees and CAF members must conform to the following principles in their public roles as well as in their outside activities

Outside Activities	
Only pursuing an outside activity that does not create a COI or a potential for adverse public perception, and that does not otherwise contravene a federal, provincial or territorial act or regulation, or a DND or CAF directive, order or policy.

Participation in Public Events

Not identifying oneself as a DND employee or CAF member when participating in public events held by for-profit or non-profit entities without the prior written consent of the DM or the CDS or their delegates, as applicable, except in the course of the official duties of the DND employee or CAF member.
Note – During participation in public events, DND employees and CAF members must remain aware of their obligation of loyalty to the GC. Also, QR&O articles 19.14, Improper Comments, and 19.36, Disclosure of Information or Opinion, have application to the comments and disclosures of CAF members during their participation. 

Social Media and the Internet	
Remaining aware of their obligation of loyalty to the GC and remaining particularly sensitive to COI or the potential for adverse public perception that may arise from the creation, sharing or discussion of information on social media and other Internet sites.

Limitations on Civil Employment or Undertakings

4.1 QR&O article 19.42, Civil Employment, sets out limitations on the civil employment or undertakings of a CAF member who is on full-time service. To ensure any proposed civil employment or undertaking is not contrary to this article, a CAF member must submit a completed form DND 2839-E, Confidential Report, to their commanding officer (CO), requesting permission to engage in the civil employment or undertaking.

Note – A member of the Regular Force is on full-time service at all times, and a member of the Reserve Force is on full-time service when on Class “B” or Class “C” Reserve Service, in accordance with QR&O Chapter 9, Reserve Service.

Factors for a CO to Consider

4.2 When reviewing a form DND 2839-E submitted under paragraph 4.1 by a CAF member, a CO should take into consideration the following:

whether the proposed civil employment or undertaking will only occur during approved leave or outside the authorized hours of duty or service of the CAF member;
whether or not the potential clients of the CAF member will be primarily DND employees, other CAF members and their family members;
the risk that the CAF member will be placed in a position which is not consistent with the principles of conduct set out in paragraph 3.2;
the general practice in the CAF regarding the approval of this type of civil employment or undertaking; and
any other factors that the CO considers to be relevant to the situation.

Review of COI by the DDEP

4.6 Once a CO has confirmed that the proposed civil employment or undertaking is not contrary to QR&O article 19.42, the CAF member must send the completed form DND 2839-E, along with the confirmation of the CO, to the DDEP in order to confirm that a COI does not prevent the CAF member from engaging in it.

5. Criteria Applicable to DND Employees and CAF Members
Applicable Criteria

5.1 In evaluating situations of COI, the permissibility of the holding of a non-exempt asset or liability, the permissibility of the conduct of an outside activity, or any action or decision of a DND employee or CAF member under this DAOD, the DDEP must consider the following:

whether the holding of the non-exempt asset or liability, the conduct of the outside activity or other action or decision of the DND employee or CAF member under this DAOD complies with the principles of conduct in paragraph 3.2, the ethical principles and specific values of the Department of National Defence and Canadian Forces Code of Values and Ethics and, in the case of a DND employee, the Treasury Board (TB) Policy on Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment, as they apply in their public roles;
whether the outside activity involves the use of GC property, including intellectual property;
whether the outside activity is in fact to be conducted outside the official working hours of the DND employee or the authorized hours of duty or service of the CAF member;
whether the holding of the non-exempt asset or liability, proposed outside activity or other action or decision of the DND employee or CAF member creates the potential for adverse public perception;
whether the non-exempt asset or proposed outside activity of the DND employee or CAF member will have the GC, DND or CAF as a user or client;
whether the non-exempt asset or proposed outside activity of the DND employee or CAF member will have other DND employees, other CAF members or their family members as users or clients; and
any other factors relevant to the situation.
Note – In this paragraph, “outside activity” includes any civil employment or undertaking or political activity of a CAF member.

5.2 In reaching a determination, the DDEP must always defer to the broader public interest above that of the personal interest of the DND employee or of the CAF member, or the interest of the DND or the CAF.

There is also DAOD 7023-1 and the The DND and CF Code of Values and Ethics, specfically from the latter 

Table 1 - Ethical Principles of DND and CF 

ETHICAL PRINCIPLES	EXPECTED BEHAVIOURS
1. RESPECT THE DIGNITY OF ALL PERSONS	

At all times and in all places, DND employees and CF members shall respect human dignity and the value of every person by:  

1.1  Treating every person with respect and fairness.
1.2  Valuing diversity and the benefit of combining the unique qualities and strengths inherent in a diverse workforce.
1.3  Helping to create and maintain safe and healthy workplaces that are free from harassment and discrimination. 
1.4  Working together in a spirit of openness, honesty and transparency that encourages engagement, collaboration and respectful communication.
2. SERVE CANADA BEFORE SELF	
At all times and in all places, DND employees and CF members shall fulfil their commitments in a manner that best serves Canada, its people, its parliamentary democracy, DND and the CF by:

2.1   Making decisions and acting at all times in the public interest.
2.2   Performing their duty or their responsibilities to the highest ethical standards.
2.3   Avoiding or preventing situations that could give rise to personal or organizational conflicts of interests.
2.4   Providing decision-makers with all the information, analysis and advice they need, always striving to be open, candid and impartial.

Table 2 - Values and Expected Behaviours of DND Employees and CF Members

SPECIFIC VALUES	EXPECTED BEHAVIOURS
1. INTEGRITY	
DND employees and CF members shall serve the public interest by:

1.1  Acting at all times with integrity, *and in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny*; an obligation that may not be fully satisfied by simply acting within the law.
1.2  Never using their official roles to inappropriately obtain an advantage for themselves or to advantage or disadvantage others.
1.3  Taking all possible steps to prevent and resolve any real, apparent or potential conflicts of interest between their official responsibilities and their private affairs *in favour of the public interest*.
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.
1.5  Adhering to the highest ethical standards, communicating and acting with honesty, and avoiding deception.
1.6  Being dedicated to fairness and justice, committed to the pursuit of truth regardless of personal consequences.

7. Failure to Comply


7.2 For CF members

7.2.1 A CF member who fails to comply with ethical principles, values, expected behaviour or the policies of the DND and CF Code of Values and Ethics, or fails to comply with the DAOD 7023 series, may be subject to one or more of the following:  

change of duties;
release or other administrative action as set out in the Administrative Review (AR) Career Decisions block of DAOD 5019-2, Administrative Review; and/or
disciplinary action under the National Defence Act.

So yeah, I think these guys are up schitts creek on this one, particularly in regards to their association with "The Proud Boys" and my doubts that they went through the necessary steps outlined in DAOD 7021-1 to get approval.


----------



## Underway

You've forgotten  QR&O 19.44 - POLITICAL ACTIVITIES AND CANDIDATURE FOR OFFICE

....snip....
(7) No member of the Regular Force shall:

a. take an active part in the affairs of a political organization or party;
b. make a political speech to electors, or announce himself or allow himself to be announced as a candidate, or prospective candidate, for election to the Parliament of Canada or a provincial legislature; or
c. except with the permission of the Chief of the Defence Staff, accept an office in a municipal corporation or other local government body or allow himself to be nominated for election to such office.

...snip...

Also in my research I have re-read  QR&O 19.36 - DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION OR OPINION in particular para (2), and decided to adjust how I interact on this board with members.   I would _strongly recommend_other Mil members here read that themselves so they can properly adjust their comments or discussions on the board to their comfort.  This is not as a result of me feeling any sort of big brother chill, or any anticipation of some sort of witch hunt search, just a personal decision based on my own comfort level with following regs I haven't reviewed in a long time.  It's also not a threat or anything like that just a PSA as I was a bit surprised by how encompassing that QR&O was.

*edit for spacing*


----------



## The Baron

Underway said:
			
		

> You've forgotten  QR&O 19.44 - POLITICAL ACTIVITIES AND CANDIDATURE FOR OFFICE
> 
> ....snip....
> (7) No member of the Regular Force shall:
> 
> a. take an active part in the affairs of a political organization or party;
> b. make a political speech to electors, or announce himself or allow himself to be announced as a candidate, or prospective candidate, for election to the Parliament of Canada or a provincial legislature; or
> c. except with the permission of the Chief of the Defence Staff, accept an office in a municipal corporation or other local government body or allow himself to be nominated for election to such office.
> 
> ...snip...
> 
> Also in my research I have re-read  QR&O 19.36 - DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION OR OPINION in particular para (2), and decided to adjust how I interact on this board with members.   I would _strongly recommend_other Mil members here read that themselves so they can properly adjust their comments or discussions on the board to their comfort.  This is not as a result of me feeling any sort of big brother chill, or any anticipation of some sort of witch hunt search, just a personal decision based on my own comfort level with following regs I haven't reviewed in a long time.  It's also not a threat or anything like that just a PSA as I was a bit surprised by how encompassing that QR&O was.



I didn't forget, just thought my post was long enough, and I am not quite sure if The Proud Boys qualify as a political organization.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Improper Comments - 90% of the posts on the whole forum could fall under this.  What, then, in the whole 10 minute video, would one consider improper comments?

I would, personally, go with the whole *give all your clothes back...this is a British colony* blurb from the flag bearer.  IMO, that was the only stuff that *may* have crossed a line.


----------



## The Baron

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Improper Comments - 90% of the posts on the whole forum could fall under this.  What, then, in the whole 10 minute video, would one consider improper comments?
> 
> I would, personally, go with the whole *give all your clothes back...this is a British colony* blurb from the flag bearer.  IMO, that was the only stuff that *may* have crossed a line.



I haven't seen the video in entirety, however I think its more likely the DAOD's and Values and Ethics policy will be the most applicable here particularly their association with the proud boys.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

The Baron said:
			
		

> their association with the proud boys.



And I think this part is what is giving this the traction it is getting with the media and (some) of the public.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The Baron said:
			
		

> I didn't forget, just thought my post was long enough, and I am not quite sure if The Proud Boys qualify as a political organization.



I don't think the "Proud Boys" meet the definition at all.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Colin P said:
			
		

> I don't think the "Proud Boys" meet the definition at all.


Agree.  

Political "organization"?  Very >>slim<< maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaybe, depending on how they deal with governments re:  their agenda & what they want from government, and how the term is defined.  Political "party"?  Can't see it from the group's current public offerings.  YMMV


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I think a group or organization that is contrary to established CAF Ethics and Values fits more.

7.2 For CF members

7.2.1 A CF member who fails to comply with ethical principles, values, expected behaviour or the policies of the DND and CF Code of Values and Ethics, or fails to comply with the DAOD 7023 series, may be subject to one or more of the following:  
a.change of duties;
b.release or other administrative action as set out in the Administrative Review (AR) Career Decisions block of DAOD 5019-2, Administrative Review; and/or

c.disciplinary action under the National Defence Act.


----------



## Underway

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Agree.
> 
> Political "organization"?  Very >>slim<< maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaybe, depending on how they deal with governments re:  their agenda & what they want from government, and how the term is defined.  Political "party"?  Can't see it from the group's current public offerings.  YMMV



To get to the fourth level of their organization one needs to go to a political protest where there are "antifa's" (antifacists) and counter protest with the goal of getting in a fight and either a) get arrested or  b) get beat up.  They are starting to provide volunteer security for controversial right speakers in the US, and are calling themselves the Alt-Knights.  Yah, thats a political organization.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Don't you worry, the legal beagles and defenders of correctness are staying up nights trying to find the biggest, heaviest books available to throw at these golf shirt wearing thugs.


----------



## Brad Sallows

"Western chauvinism" is basically another form of cultural dick-waving, of which there is a lot around these days, much of it enjoying a form of socially "protected" status.  But it isn't racism.

Some people - particularly in the chattering classes - need to come to grips with the realization that "the West" (western civilization) is awesome and has a long list of worthwhile achievements along with its black spots, and that there is no racial bar to becoming a member.  I know plenty of people who are not visibly pale, with no or little heritage of European extraction, and who are essentially as western as me.

In other news, archaeologists in Mexico announced the discovery of a legendary tower of skulls.  It is not an achievement of "the West".


----------



## The Bread Guy

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I think a group or organization that is contrary to established CAF Ethics and Values fits more ...


 :nod:


----------



## jollyjacktar

I have to agree with some of their views insomuch as I'm tired of being blamed for all the ills of the world by virtue of my heritage and ethnicity.   I am in agreement that western civilization is a good thing and has contributed to the world overall.  Their golf shirts are tasteful in appearance.  Antifa idiots are annoying at times but then so are the other side idiots.  But that's pretty much as far as I'll travel down the same path as I am not cool with anti-semites and no doubt there's more about the Proud Boys that's disagreeable. 

I am very saddened to see the over reaction by the adults and massive shows of men in black spandex with music waving their arms and dancing like in that commercial.  The 5 in question are going to be thrown under a bus I fear to appease the thin skinned mobs who only howl in one direction.  Should something be done with them for their membership and stirring a pot?  Yes, to some degree but this smells of a blanket party in the making, not reasoned response.


----------



## Jarnhamar

It appears that the proud boys are more inclusive to gays than the Catholic Church and Islam.


----------



## The Baron

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I have to agree with some of their views insomuch as I'm tired of being blamed for all the ills of the world by virtue of my heritage and ethnicity.   I am in agreement that western civilization is a good thing and has contributed to the world overall.  Their golf shirts are tasteful in appearance.  Antifa idiots are annoying at times but then so are the other side idiots.  But that's pretty much as far as I'll travel down the same path as I am not cool with anti-semites and no doubt there's more about the Proud Boys that's disagreeable.
> 
> I am very saddened to see the over reaction by the adults and massive shows of men in black spandex with music waving their arms and dancing like in that commercial.  The 5 in question are going to be thrown under a bus I fear to appease the thin skinned mobs who only howl in one direction.  Should something be done with them for their membership and stirring a pot?  Yes, to some degree but this smells of a blanket party in the making, not reasoned response.



I highlighted the relevant parts of your post. Do the proud boys, overtly cross any lines? No, not from what I can tell, however they come awful close sometimes, occasionally saying its satire. And it would be naive to think that there aren't those within this organization (and other organizations) who DO hold overtly racist views, they're just smart enough to keep their mouths shut.  All it would take is just one tweet or facebook post or comment in a bar, that crossed the line, and became public, and everyone involved WILL get tagged with the guilty by association brush, deservedly or not. You know this, I know this, and I am sure everyone right on up to the CDS knows this. 

Which seems to me the reason why there are rules in place to get approval prior to joining or participating in such groups, and I think that is what will ultimately hang them.


----------



## The Baron

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> It appears that the proud boys are more inclusive to gays than the Catholic Church and Islam.



Difference being Catholicism/Islam are religions which have charter protections.  And if one were to look at from a hierarchical perspective, freedom of conscience and religion is listed first in the charter.


----------



## George Wallace

The Baron said:
			
		

> .......And it would be naive to think that there aren't those within this organization (and other organizations) who DO hold overtly racist views, they're just smart enough to keep their mouths shut.  All it would take is just one tweet or facebook post or comment in a bar, that crossed the line, and became public, and everyone involved WILL get tagged with the guilty by association brush, deservedly or not. You know this, I know this, and I am sure everyone right on up to the CDS knows this.



I think you can apply that logic to all organizations, religions, societies, etc.  No one is exempt.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> It appears that the proud boys are more inclusive to gays than the Catholic Church and Islam.



Ah, good.  Yes, missed that point.  No issue with that.


----------



## The Baron

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I think you can apply that logic to all organizations, religions, societies, etc.  No one is exempt.



The majority don't act in quite the same provocative fashion though, with a "leader" deliberately stirring the pot wherever and whenever he can.


----------



## George Wallace

The Baron said:
			
		

> The majority don't act in quite the same provocative fashion though, with a "leader" deliberately stirring the pot wherever and whenever he can.



Hmmmm?  I don't know about that.  We have just witness a few leaders really "stirring the pot" in the past couple weeks.  Some recognize it.  Some people just ignore it, or accept it as part of their "leader's" position to do so.  Leaders quite often stir their followers on to do their bidding.


----------



## The Baron

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Hmmmm?  I don't know about that.  We have just witness a few leaders really "stirring the pot" in the past couple weeks.  Some recognize it.  Some people just ignore it, or accept it as part of their "leader's" position to do so.  Leaders quite often stir their followers on to do their bidding.



Really like who? I haven't seen any local legion halls, Shriners, Masons, Scout/Guide/St. John Ambulance Groups, Church/Mosque/Temple groups, YM/WCA groups, Rotary, Lions, etc. etc. (you see where I am going with this), making ANY news outside perhaps a local/community newspaper. 



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> I think you can apply that logic to all organizations, religions, societies, etc.  No one is exempt.



Perhaps don't take half a quote, and reply to it out of context.

Go away for 2 years and things are still the same around here.


----------



## gryphonv

The Baron said:
			
		

> Really like who? I haven't seen any local legion halls, Shriners, Masons, Scout/Guide/St. John Ambulance Groups, Church/Mosque/Temple groups, YM/WCA groups, Rotary, Lions, etc. etc. (you see where I am going with this), making ANY news outside perhaps a local/community newspaper.



See that is where this should of ended. This incident should of never made it past the local/community newspaper. 

The proverbial 'mountain out of a molehill' applies here perfectly.

The ball of shit from this kept growing and could of been stopped at many levels before certain politicians decided to speak on it, making it national. 

The 'damage control' from this has only empowered a very vocal minority.


----------



## The Baron

gryphonv said:
			
		

> See that is where this should of ended. This incident should of never made it past the local/community newspaper.
> 
> The proverbial 'mountain out of a molehill' applies here perfectly.
> 
> The ball of crap from this kept growing and could of been stopped at many levels before certain politicians decided to speak on it, making it national.
> 
> The 'damage control' from this has only empowered a very vocal minority.



Possibly, however it still won't negate that the DAODs (likely) werent followed.  The DAOD's don't list exemptions either so I suspect there are probably quite a number of people who participate in those other community organizations who aren't in compliance either. Again (not that I like the thought), the DAOD's are pretty clear, and if the higher echelons are intent on making an example (which seems likely), that is the ammo they will use. 

Common sense should also tell people, if a group is attracting controversy (rightly or wrongly), you are playing with fire, if you get involved with them.


----------



## George Wallace

The Baron said:
			
		

> Perhaps don't take half a quote, and reply to it out of context.



Just perhaps, that was the only part of a rant that I felt like replying to with that answer.  Nothing nefarious there.



			
				The Baron said:
			
		

> Go away for 2 years and things are still the same around here.



I can guess what you are insinuating, but I will let you clear the air.


----------



## gryphonv

The Baron said:
			
		

> Possibly, however it still won't negate that the DAODs (likely) werent followed.  The DAOD's don't list exemptions either so I suspect there are probably quite a number of people who participate in those other community organizations who aren't in compliance either. Again (not that I like the thought), the DAOD's are pretty clear, and if the higher echelons are intent on making an example (which seems likely), that is the ammo they will use.
> 
> Common sense should also tell people, if a group is attracting controversy (rightly or wrongly), you are playing with fire, if you get involved with them.



I agree, there are many groups that participation in runs afoul of the DAODs, some of them are given a pass though.

Look at BLM and Gay Pride, to name a couple. Both are very political, both have many active military who are members. Hell even the  Mi'kmaq/Mi'gmaq protesters from that day have active military members in their group(one of the protesters facebook profile lists themselves as a RMC grad).

The problem that I see will arise from this, and if it actually goes to trial. Is a lawyer could argue that the DAODs are only applied when its convenient to do so. 

I feel the most valid point made earlier was to do with our political climate. We have a party in power that is pro social justice. Our PM has embraced that side of the political spectrum to run a very successful campaign as they felt they were largely ignored during the Conservatives Government. It's really not unlike what happened with Trump in the US. Both applied their msg to a group who felt they were under attack from a government in power.  

On a side note, I find it hilarious that some of the 'Grizzly Mamma' supporters are now asking for financial compensation from the CAF. So far it is only posts on a facebook page, but that is how this all started was posts on a facebook page. It's going to be interesting to see if some SJW Lawyer picks this up and runs with it.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Why not?  it worked for Omar.....


----------



## kratz

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Why not?  it worked for Omar.....



This is how Ottawa will surpass it's 2% GDP commitment. Canadians will simply 





> "pay for their...",


----------



## Jarnhamar

[quote author=gryphonv] .  

On a side note, I find it hilarious that some of the 'Grizzly Mamma' supporters are now asking for financial compensation from the CAF.  
[/quote]

 pavlov's law law of temporal contiguity.


----------



## Private_John_Winger

The Baron said:
			
		

> Surprised no one has posted or mentioned these....
> 
> QR&O
> 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:
> 
> if seen or heard by any member of the public, might reflect discredit on the Canadian Forces or on any of its members; or
> 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.
> 
> DAOD 7021-1, Conflict of Interest (relevant sections, its long)
> 
> outside activity (activité extérieure)
> 
> Any employment, political or charitable activity, whether remunerated or not, that is conducted outside the official working hours of a DND employee or the authorized hours of duty or service of a CAF member.
> 
> Requirement
> 
> 3.2 All DND employees and CAF members must conform to the following principles in their public roles as well as in their outside activities
> 
> Outside Activities
> Only pursuing an outside activity that does not create a COI or a potential for adverse public perception, and that does not otherwise contravene a federal, provincial or territorial act or regulation, or a DND or CAF directive, order or policy.
> 
> Participation in Public Events
> 
> Not identifying oneself as a DND employee or CAF member when participating in public events held by for-profit or non-profit entities without the prior written consent of the DM or the CDS or their delegates, as applicable, except in the course of the official duties of the DND employee or CAF member.
> Note – During participation in public events, DND employees and CAF members must remain aware of their obligation of loyalty to the GC. Also, QR&O articles 19.14, Improper Comments, and 19.36, Disclosure of Information or Opinion, have application to the comments and disclosures of CAF members during their participation.
> 
> Social Media and the Internet
> Remaining aware of their obligation of loyalty to the GC and remaining particularly sensitive to COI or the potential for adverse public perception that may arise from the creation, sharing or discussion of information on social media and other Internet sites.
> 
> Limitations on Civil Employment or Undertakings
> 
> 4.1 QR&O article 19.42, Civil Employment, sets out limitations on the civil employment or undertakings of a CAF member who is on full-time service. To ensure any proposed civil employment or undertaking is not contrary to this article, a CAF member must submit a completed form DND 2839-E, Confidential Report, to their commanding officer (CO), requesting permission to engage in the civil employment or undertaking.
> 
> Note – A member of the Regular Force is on full-time service at all times, and a member of the Reserve Force is on full-time service when on Class “B” or Class “C” Reserve Service, in accordance with QR&O Chapter 9, Reserve Service.
> 
> Factors for a CO to Consider
> 
> 4.2 When reviewing a form DND 2839-E submitted under paragraph 4.1 by a CAF member, a CO should take into consideration the following:
> 
> whether the proposed civil employment or undertaking will only occur during approved leave or outside the authorized hours of duty or service of the CAF member;
> whether or not the potential clients of the CAF member will be primarily DND employees, other CAF members and their family members;
> the risk that the CAF member will be placed in a position which is not consistent with the principles of conduct set out in paragraph 3.2;
> the general practice in the CAF regarding the approval of this type of civil employment or undertaking; and
> any other factors that the CO considers to be relevant to the situation.
> 
> Review of COI by the DDEP
> 
> 4.6 Once a CO has confirmed that the proposed civil employment or undertaking is not contrary to QR&O article 19.42, the CAF member must send the completed form DND 2839-E, along with the confirmation of the CO, to the DDEP in order to confirm that a COI does not prevent the CAF member from engaging in it.
> 
> 5. Criteria Applicable to DND Employees and CAF Members
> Applicable Criteria
> 
> 5.1 In evaluating situations of COI, the permissibility of the holding of a non-exempt asset or liability, the permissibility of the conduct of an outside activity, or any action or decision of a DND employee or CAF member under this DAOD, the DDEP must consider the following:
> 
> whether the holding of the non-exempt asset or liability, the conduct of the outside activity or other action or decision of the DND employee or CAF member under this DAOD complies with the principles of conduct in paragraph 3.2, the ethical principles and specific values of the Department of National Defence and Canadian Forces Code of Values and Ethics and, in the case of a DND employee, the Treasury Board (TB) Policy on Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment, as they apply in their public roles;
> whether the outside activity involves the use of GC property, including intellectual property;
> whether the outside activity is in fact to be conducted outside the official working hours of the DND employee or the authorized hours of duty or service of the CAF member;
> whether the holding of the non-exempt asset or liability, proposed outside activity or other action or decision of the DND employee or CAF member creates the potential for adverse public perception;
> whether the non-exempt asset or proposed outside activity of the DND employee or CAF member will have the GC, DND or CAF as a user or client;
> whether the non-exempt asset or proposed outside activity of the DND employee or CAF member will have other DND employees, other CAF members or their family members as users or clients; and
> any other factors relevant to the situation.
> Note – In this paragraph, “outside activity” includes any civil employment or undertaking or political activity of a CAF member.
> 
> 5.2 In reaching a determination, the DDEP must always defer to the broader public interest above that of the personal interest of the DND employee or of the CAF member, or the interest of the DND or the CAF.
> 
> There is also DAOD 7023-1 and the The DND and CF Code of Values and Ethics, specfically from the latter
> 
> Table 1 - Ethical Principles of DND and CF
> 
> ETHICAL PRINCIPLES	EXPECTED BEHAVIOURS
> 1. RESPECT THE DIGNITY OF ALL PERSONS
> 
> At all times and in all places, DND employees and CF members shall respect human dignity and the value of every person by:
> 
> 1.1  Treating every person with respect and fairness.
> 1.2  Valuing diversity and the benefit of combining the unique qualities and strengths inherent in a diverse workforce.
> 1.3  Helping to create and maintain safe and healthy workplaces that are free from harassment and discrimination.
> 1.4  Working together in a spirit of openness, honesty and transparency that encourages engagement, collaboration and respectful communication.
> 2. SERVE CANADA BEFORE SELF
> At all times and in all places, DND employees and CF members shall fulfil their commitments in a manner that best serves Canada, its people, its parliamentary democracy, DND and the CF by:
> 
> 2.1   Making decisions and acting at all times in the public interest.
> 2.2   Performing their duty or their responsibilities to the highest ethical standards.
> 2.3   Avoiding or preventing situations that could give rise to personal or organizational conflicts of interests.
> 2.4   Providing decision-makers with all the information, analysis and advice they need, always striving to be open, candid and impartial.
> 
> Table 2 - Values and Expected Behaviours of DND Employees and CF Members
> 
> SPECIFIC VALUES	EXPECTED BEHAVIOURS
> 1. INTEGRITY
> DND employees and CF members shall serve the public interest by:
> 
> 1.1  Acting at all times with integrity, *and in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny*; an obligation that may not be fully satisfied by simply acting within the law.
> 1.2  Never using their official roles to inappropriately obtain an advantage for themselves or to advantage or disadvantage others.
> 1.3  Taking all possible steps to prevent and resolve any real, apparent or potential conflicts of interest between their official responsibilities and their private affairs *in favour of the public interest*.
> 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.
> 1.5  Adhering to the highest ethical standards, communicating and acting with honesty, and avoiding deception.
> 1.6  Being dedicated to fairness and justice, committed to the pursuit of truth regardless of personal consequences.
> 
> 7. Failure to Comply
> 
> 
> 7.2 For CF members
> 
> 7.2.1 A CF member who fails to comply with ethical principles, values, expected behaviour or the policies of the DND and CF Code of Values and Ethics, or fails to comply with the DAOD 7023 series, may be subject to one or more of the following:
> 
> change of duties;
> release or other administrative action as set out in the Administrative Review (AR) Career Decisions block of DAOD 5019-2, Administrative Review; and/or
> disciplinary action under the National Defence Act.
> 
> So yeah, I think these guys are up schitts creek on this one, particularly in regards to their association with "The Proud Boys" and my doubts that they went through the necessary steps outlined in DAOD 7021-1 to get approval.



The only thing you have demonstrated here Baron is that you are familiar with Microsoft's cut and paste function. Anyone with a passing familiarity with law understands that codified law is a starting point, not the final word. There is an abundance of employment law which also applies to the police, emergency services and the military which articulates the nexus that can be drawn between a member's off-duty conduct and their professional obligations. I suspect that your familiarity with that case law may be less profound than your ability to cut and paste sections of QR and O's from Canlii. 

Suffice to say this. If the military attempts to discipline these members, I believe they would have a legitimate defence. I saw nothing in that video that indicates they brought the Canadian Forces into disrepute. They did not wear their uniforms, identify themselves as members of the forces, use profane, abusive or vulgar language or otherwise cause a disturbance. All I saw was a group of young men who engaged a group of activists in a discussion in a public place. As I mentioned before, people do not surrender their basic Charter rights as Canadians to engage in a public debate just because they join the forces. It is not enough for the military to say they have brought the service into disrepute. The prosecution still has to establish that they had some intent to disobey, or at least displayed a level of disregard for, established codes of conduct. None of that occurred here. If they are forced out administratively, I hope they sue. If they are court martialled, I hope they fight it tooth and nail.

This whole situation is a strong argument for some type of unionization in the military. I'm not personally in favour of that kind of a system, but at least it would ensure that these troops were treated a little more fairly and it would force the senior command to put a little more thought into their actions before kicking them to the curb.


----------



## mariomike

Private_John_Winger said:
			
		

> There is an abundance of employment law which also applies to the police, emergency services and the military which articulates the nexus that can be drawn between a member's off-duty conduct and their professional obligations.



For reference to the discussion,

Forces.ca
"The Code of Service Discipline and Me"
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs-military-law/code-of-service-discipline.page

If you are a member of the Regular Force you are always subject to the CSD, both inside and outside Canada. 

If you are a member of the Reserve Force, you are subject to the CSD:
•while undergoing drill or training (whether you are in uniform or not)
•whenever you are in uniform
•while on any military duty
•24 hours a day, 7 days a week during any period of full time service (Class "B" or "C" service)
•whenever you are present on defence property
•whenever you are in a vehicle, ship or aircraft of the CF.



			
				Private_John_Winger said:
			
		

> This whole situation is a strong argument for some type of unionization in the military.



See also,

"Unionizing" the CF (merged) 
https://army.ca/forums/threads/1294.200
11 pages.


----------



## The Baron

Private_John_Winger said:
			
		

> The only thing you have demonstrated here Baron is that you are familiar with Microsoft's cut and paste function. Anyone with a passing familiarity with law understands that codified law is a starting point, not the final word. There is an abundance of employment law which also applies to the police, emergency services and the military which articulates the nexus that can be drawn between a member's off-duty conduct and their professional obligations. I suspect that your familiarity with that case law may be less profound than your ability to cut and paste sections of QR and O's from Canlii.
> 
> Suffice to say this. If the military attempts to discipline these members, I believe they would have a legitimate defence. I saw nothing in that video that indicates they brought the Canadian Forces into disrepute. They did not wear their uniforms, identify themselves as members of the forces, use profane, abusive or vulgar language or otherwise cause a disturbance. All I saw was a group of young men who engaged a group of activists in a discussion in a public place. As I mentioned before, people do not surrender their basic Charter rights as Canadians to engage in a public debate just because they join the forces. It is not enough for the military to say they have brought the service into disrepute. The prosecution still has to establish that they had some intent to disobey, or at least displayed a level of disregard for, established codes of conduct. None of that occurred here. If they are forced out administratively, I hope they sue. If they are court martialled, I hope they fight it tooth and nail.
> 
> This whole situation is a strong argument for some type of unionization in the military. I'm not personally in favour of that kind of a system, but at least it would ensure that these troops were treated a little more fairly and it would force the senior command to put a little more thought into their actions before kicking them to the curb.



The only thing you have demonstrated is glossing over the part that CAF members are "suppposed" to get APPROVAL for outside activities PRIOR to getting involved. Which if you had read my follow on posts, that is where I think these guys are going to get in crap, since that part is fairly straight forward and unambiguous (enforcement of that provision may be spotty and THAT might be an issue down the road as mentioned a few posts up). But hey thanks for coming out and showing you are also adept at just using the quote button and not reading further posts.


----------



## Private_John_Winger

The Baron said:
			
		

> The only thing you have demonstrated is glossing over the part that CAF members are "suppposed" to get APPROVAL for outside activities PRIOR to getting involved. Which if you had read my follow on posts, that is where I think these guys are going to get in crap, since that part is fairly straight forward and unambiguous (enforcement of that provision may be spotty and THAT might be an issue down the road as mentioned a few posts up). But hey thanks for coming out and showing you are also adept at just using the quote button and not reading further posts.



I've had a read of that post I wrote that offended you and you're right Baron, it was vituperative. As I wrote it it sounded like a bit of soldierly banter, but having read it over it actually comes across and snide and nasty. I'll avoid doing that in the future.

That said, I believe these guys are being treated unfairly and that's fundamentally wrong.

That's my last word on the topic.

Cheers.


----------



## Shrek1985

Just a few points, but first a big thank you to everyone who posted; this thread has been an excellent source of "One stop shopping" with all the links and references needed to understand just what the hell went on here.

Looks like another example of what defeat looks like and with some clues on how to avoid it for future civilizations to consider.

Questions.

1. Does anyone else ever look at some of the QR&Os...such as those cited and get disturbed by how subjective they are? Crossing the QR&Os can easily end your career, if not your professional life and It bothers me deeply that such poorly and flexibly worded regulations dictate our lives in the CF. Weasel words bother me in all laws, but I find them especially disturbing here.
2. A chaser to the above; so if I do not "Value Diversity"; a thought-crime, but one bounded in a lot of defensible philosophy and historical precedent, am I; in fact in violation of the QR&Os and subject to discipline for my personal opinion, whether I state it, or not? Should the COC come across a personal diary of mine, containing my most deeply held thoughts and feelings and including a historically sourced and referenced essay on the subject and stating in no uncertain terms my thoughts on the subject; might I be subject to discipline, if someone in my COC felt like it?
3. Had these individuals not been outed as military, would the CF have investigated nonetheless, just to ensure their bases were covered, just in case? Is this done with any and all suspect incidents? Or does any and all claim of CF membership compel the forces to investigate?
4. How is it, with all this sensitivity to the political activity of Canadian Forces members that it is that we are allowed to vote and even, under very limited circumstances; hold elected office? Accepting that humans aren't logically consistent creatures, it still seems rather glaring that as a CF member, I can vote, but not be a member of any political movement or party. Is that not the ultimate political expression? I wonder how far I would have to go to find individuals in the chain of command, who do not think we *should* be allowed to vote while serving in the CF?

Observations.

1. To the extent the QR&Os are objective, I think they should not be applied subjectively and I would doubt the integrity of any leadership structure which did so. As such; as they deal with politically inconvenient groups, such as the Proud Boys and those members who are a part; so too should they deal with any forces members who are part of such as Pride, Idle No More and BLM. Naturally, since Gay Pride is a political movement and the CF is barred from taking official or unofficial part in political activities, either as a force or within it's members, I think that any attendance of on or off-duty CF members at Pride events should be curtailed completely. I think the QR&Os were quite refreshingly clear on that point.
2. Since the QR&Os are quite clear on what I can and cannot say about my leaders and in the finest tradition of internet forums; that's not how I was taught, how I teach others or how I would have done it and I think that's about all I'm allowed to say on the matter. 
3. However. If anyone under me ever doxed one of my troops, I would not rest until they were professionally destroyed. These individuals literally betrayed one of their own to those who would do them harm. Don't know about the rest of you, but where I come from; we're sworn to never leave a comrade to fall into the hands of the enemy. I cannot imagine what use their is for such a person in the Forces, but surely, wiser than me must be able to find something. I think that's about all I can say there too. All wholly hypothetical, mind you.


----------



## The Bread Guy

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Curious:  blue golf shirts with gold collar/sleeve trim - an RCN thing or something else?


FYI, *NOT* an RCN thing ...


> Fred Perry's classic laurel wreath polo is instantly recognizable—a staple of men's closets since the brand debuted in 1952. Though they were regularly sported by the likes of JFK, they also have a history of being co-opted by the darker side of skinhead culture, particularly the sect of skinheads who aligned themselves with the far-right extremist group called the British National Front in the 1970s. Since then, Fred Perry has worked hard to escape this image by recruiting brand partners such as tennis star Andy Murray and the late great singer Amy Winehouse. But in the era of Trump, with a bolstered far-right movement, a new chauvinistic group called the Proud Boys—which is basically a fraternity of white guys who like to punch each other and harass peaceful protestors—has adopted the Fred Perry polo as a part of its unofficial uniform, much to the chagrin of the label ...


----------



## FSTO

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> FYI, *NOT* an RCN thing ...



Similar to how the Red Ensign seems to have been co-opted by the Canadian far right. Hence the accusation during the Cornwallis incident of the young lady calling the Red Ensign a "Confederate Flag".

I personally feel that the government should get ahead of this and state in no uncertain terms that the Red Ensign was the former national flag of Canada and therefore is a legitimate symbol of this country. Sadly I doubt that many in our current government give a hoot.


----------



## Stoker

I guess they are emboldened with all the publicly. How much you want to be a email comes out forbidding any RCN from coming with 5 miles of the place. Notice the Idle no more hashtag.


Mi’kmaq in Nova Scotia split with leadership over Edward Cornwallis statue and Saturday’s ceremony

http://aptnnews.ca/2017/07/12/mikmaq-in-nova-scotia-split-with-leadership-over-edward-cornwallis-statue-and-saturdays-ceremony/

"Come join us JULY 15th @ 12pm for the historical take down of the Cornwallis statue. We the people have had enough with genocidal symbols of colonialism being venerated. To stand in solidarity create an action in your community and call the Mayor’s office in Halifax to demand the removal and to make your statement of solidarity with the Mi’kmaq! Bring your rope, your regalia, your songs, your dances, your medicine, your prayers, and your presence. Calling all peoples to come join in this Historic event! #DownWithCornwallis Idle No More @IdleNoMore4"


----------



## gryphonv

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I guess they are emboldened with all the publicly. How much you want to be a email comes out forbidding any RCN from coming with 5 miles of the place. Notice the Idle no more hashtag.
> [size=24pt]



Yeah, ever since this started, I've done a lot of snooping through their facebook profiles. 

A large amount of these people are what I called before 'professional protesters'. They been at protests for many things, not just Native Issues. I've seen them linked to Idle no more, the Occupy movement, various Anonymous protests, One even had a big thing about boycotting Starbucks. There have been many videos of them posted being arrested by police, sometimes wearing the Guy Fawkes mask, one video of a guy getting arrested was during the Bill C-51 protests. Many of them have a very clear hatred for anything that represents institutions, military included (this goes back farther then when the proud boys incident happened)

A lot of them fit the stereotype of disenfranchised millennials who are attending universities with little to no personal resources. They show up at events, with cameras in hand hoping for an incident to try to further their cause. Look at how often a video garners a public opinion, when it rarely shows what accurately happened. 

I honestly feel the event Saturday is going to blow up, a few hundred have said they are going to the event through Facebook,  Over a 1000 are interested. Its not hard for mob mentality to take over if there are a few people brazen enough to start something. And I definitely feel a few of these are brazen enough. 

I'm no longer in the forces, but I would imagine people in are being encouraged to avoid the area over Saturday. Nothing good can come from it if these people get you on video doing anything they can make you look culpable of something. Even worse if they find out you are military. 

I'm defend the right of people to protest peacefully (though personally I dislike any sort of protester), but often a lot of this group crosses that line. I look at them as social terrorists, as their main goal isn't the protest (seen by their variety of protests) it's to cause anarchy and fight the 'institution'.

I don't envy the Mayor or the HRP in this event. Although I feel the Mayor has approached this very well. The HRP are going to have a tough job Saturday. This is like watching a train wreck from a week before it happens. 

In the end, I think the 'Proud Boys' incident and all the public attention that came from that has empowered this group. One thing I am happy for though, even though the public sentiment towards the 'Proud Boys' incident was mostly condemnation for the 5 men(which I'm sad for), that hasn't seem to carry over for support to remove the statue like they plan on. 

One thing I hope, is if anything Illegal happens this weekend, either through mischief or assaults. I hope each and every one is arrested and charged with the full weight of the law. Especially the organizers.


----------



## jollyjacktar

*Alt-right group posts names, photos of 'potentially dangerous' Cornwallis protesters

28 people 'doxed' by national socialist group, some labelled as mentally ill *

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/doxing-list-antifa-alt-right-cornwallis-statue-protest-1.4210331

Looks like things are going to get interesting between the two sides now.   op:


----------



## Stoker

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> *Alt-right group posts names, photos of 'potentially dangerous' Cornwallis protesters
> 
> 28 people 'doxed' by national socialist group, some labelled as mentally ill *
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/doxing-list-antifa-alt-right-cornwallis-statue-protest-1.4210331
> 
> Looks like things are going to get interesting between the two sides now.   op:



Certainly don't condone this behavior, but the other side had no problem doing the same to the 5 "proud boys"


----------



## jollyjacktar

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Certainly don't condone this behavior, but the other side had no problem doing the same to the 5 "proud boys"



What goes around, comes around it seems.  Karma is a bitch.


----------



## gryphonv

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> What goes around, comes around it seems.  Karma is a *****.



I'm not surprised but CBC fails to mention anything about the Doxing of the 5 soldiers/sailors but asked the Lawyer about his opinion on the legality of this 'doxing'. 

I think both examples are pretty bad, though the 5 guys had it done a bit worse IMO. As the protesters actively encouraged people to call certain phone numbers. 

The person who doxed the protesters twitter is a cesspool. I went over a few of the tweets, and they are pretty much the new way of Nazism. Both sides are extremes that we don't need in our society.


----------



## Jarnhamar

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> *Alt-right group posts names, photos of 'potentially dangerous' Cornwallis protesters
> 
> 28 people 'doxed' by national socialist group, some labelled as mentally ill *
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/doxing-list-antifa-alt-right-cornwallis-statue-protest-1.4210331
> 
> Looks like things are going to get interesting between the two sides now.   op:



Not accounting for the character of who did this I think this is absolutely great, and not (just) because I'm an asshole.

These professional protestors have zero problems with doxing their weekly targets and turning peoples lives upside down through targeted online harassment which includes threats of violence. If giving them their own medicine is what it takes to cure them of that behavior then it's perfect.

If it's not a deterrent then at least it's a level playing field for their stupidity.


----------



## Lightguns

anyone got a link, I would like to read the list.


----------



## Inspir

I was looking for it to but couldn't find it. It's not on their Facebook page either.


----------



## Strike

This person posted it on FB. It's pretty ridiculous.

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003540459790&hc_ref=ARQYW3YCil1oKt8MUBCGmBvUKL-VLjvxcvhWWJ-LXmXHay8wq4doO5fQeAZ8EVXI8Kg


----------



## Lightguns

Not much of an int job and piss poor doxing to boot.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Strike said:
			
		

> This person posted it on FB. It's pretty ridiculous.
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003540459790&hc_ref=ARQYW3YCil1oKt8MUBCGmBvUKL-VLjvxcvhWWJ-LXmXHay8wq4doO5fQeAZ8EVXI8Kg






> what if dogs hate fireworks bc they’re afraid of symbolic displays of imperialism



What if indeed.


----------



## gryphonv

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> What if indeed.



I think the coolaid she used on her hair has penetrated the gray matter.


----------



## ModlrMike

A counter argument from the Chronicle Herald:

Scapegoating Cornwallis: Who are we to judge history?

While conducting research for my 2012 book, Halifax and Titanic, I came across the following quote from Daniel Allen Butler, the American author of another Titanic book:

“There is something horribly hypocritical about passing judgment on another human being’s actions from the comfort and safety of an armchair. Even more hypocritical is making moral pronouncements on others’ actions having judged them by moral standards that they neither knew nor could conceive.”



More at link.


----------



## kratz

CBC.ca

Despite mass calls for "the book" to be thrown at these 5, it appears corrective measures have been taken WRT their actions.



> Military personnel in Proud Boys incident return to regular duty
> No criminal charges or demotions against men who harassed people at Mi’kmaq ceremony in Halifax
> By Susan Bradley, CBC News  Posted: Aug 31, 2017
> 
> Four of the five Canadian Forces personnel who said they were members of the group the Proud Boys and disrupted a Mi'kmaq ceremony in Halifax on July 1 have been allowed to return to their regular duties.
> 
> "The investigation has now been completed, and no criminal charges will be laid," Rear-Admiral John Newton said in a release Thursday. The men were members of the army and navy...



More at link.


----------



## Strike

Gotta love the media.  It wasn't a Mi'kmaq ceremony.  It was a protest by a Squamish FN woman against Cornwallis for his actions against the Mi'kmaq.

But who am I to fix that factual error?   :


----------



## EpicBeardedMan

gryphonv said:
			
		

> I think the coolaid she used on her hair has penetrated the gray matter.



Her Facebook page is hilarious.


----------



## The Bread Guy

This from the Navy info-machine ...


> *Statement on ‘Proud Boys’ incident and consequences for members involved*
> Navy News / August 31, 2017
> 
> Rear-Admiral John Newton, Commander Joint Task Force Atlantic and Maritime Forces Atlantic, issued the following statement:
> 
> “On July 1, five members of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) disrupted a Mi’kmaq ceremony in Halifax, displaying behaviour inconsistent with the values and ethics expected of those in uniform.  These members were relieved of their duties and re-assigned to other jobs, pending the results of a military police investigation. The investigation has now been completed, and no criminal charges will be laid. With the exception of one individual who has since left the CAF, the members are being returned to their operational units and regular duties. However, the CAF have taken appropriate measures to address individual shortcomings, with the intention of ensuring a clear understanding of expected ethical behaviours and standards of conduct within the CAF. Any further inappropriate behavior could result in their termination from the Canadian Armed Forces.”


----------



## The Bread Guy

Strike said:
			
		

> Gotta love the media.  It wasn't a Mi'kmaq ceremony.  It was a protest by a Squamish FN woman against Cornwallis for his actions against the Mi'kmaq.
> 
> But who am I to fix that factual error?   :


#LAVisNotATank


----------



## mariomike

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> This from the Navy info-machine ...



The bottom line caught my eye,

"Any further inappropriate behavior could result in their termination from the Canadian Armed Forces.”


----------



## Lumber

mariomike said:
			
		

> The bottom line caught my eye,
> 
> "Any further inappropriate behavior could result in their termination from the Canadian Armed Forces.”



Well, year, they're on C&P. Breach of that would result in an AR with recommendation for release (probably).

However, if you kept reading, the Admiral elaborated that it would still depend on what they did.


----------



## mariomike

Lumber said:
			
		

> Well, year, they're on C&P. Breach of that would result in an AR with recommendation for release (probably).
> 
> However, if you kept reading, the Admiral elaborated that it would still depend on what they did.



From Reply #210, the bottom line of the CAF statement,
http://www.navy-marine.forces.gc.ca/en/news-operations/news-view.page?doc=statement-on-proud-boys-incident-and-consequences-for-members-involved%2Fj6wo0dg4

"Any further inappropriate behavior could result in their termination from the Canadian Armed Forces.”


----------



## PuckChaser

Glad the witch hunt is finally over. The CAF leadership can put away its torches.


----------



## jollyjacktar

:goodpost:


----------



## Gunner98

Strike said:
			
		

> Gotta love the media.  It wasn't a Mi'kmaq ceremony.  It was a protest by a Squamish FN woman against Cornwallis for his actions against the Mi'kmaq.
> 
> But who am I to fix that factual error?   :



Strike,

It would appear that the RAdm get his info from the MSM, and not his Public Affairs Advisor, as he is quoted as calling it a "Mi'kmaq ceremony" as well!


----------



## Lumber

mariomike said:
			
		

> From Reply #210, the bottom line of the CAF statement,
> http://www.navy-marine.forces.gc.ca/en/news-operations/news-view.page?doc=statement-on-proud-boys-incident-and-consequences-for-members-involved%2Fj6wo0dg4
> 
> "Any further inappropriate behavior could result in their termination from the Canadian Armed Forces.”



Right, my bad; we're actually both right. That's the official statement. However, he spoke off the cuff to the media, and this is what he said:



> "This is a permanent mark on a member's record," he said Thursday afternoon. "Any trespass against those conditions, any repeat leads to their release from the Canadian Armed Forces,  or, it's a good potential depending on those circumstances, will lead to their release."


----------



## FSTO

As I thought right at the start of all this is that they went straight to C&P. This is the most severe punishment they could get because if you looked at the whole incident from a lawyers POV they did nothing that would warrant criminal charges. If they threw a punch or started a chant or did something overt they were toast. But all they had was a conversation and then walked away. Despite the bleating from the reporter who was obviously upset that these guys heads were not on a pike they are now on a very very short leash and any transgression when it comes to ethics will be immediate release. A concept obviously lost on the chattering classes.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Strike said:
			
		

> Gotta love the media.  It wasn't a Mi'kmaq ceremony.  It was a protest by a Squamish FN woman against Cornwallis for his actions against the Mi'kmaq.
> 
> But who am I to fix that factual error?   :



Did you see what the Admiral said?   ;D   He called it a Mi'kmaq ceremony.


----------



## Halifax Tar

This quote from the linked CBC article scares me:

"I have heard [the men's] side of a story," Newton said. "It means nothing. What was perceived by the public is what matters …. No matter what they thought they were doing, or what was going to occur, it was not what occurred, and that they have to bear responsibility for, and they do."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/military-personnel-proud-boy-s-incident-jobs-1.4269952

Basically facts have been trumped by feelings and perception... No matter how misguided both are...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> This quote from the linked CBC article scares me:
> 
> "I have heard [the men's] side of a story," Newton said. "It means nothing. What was perceived by the public is what matters …. No matter what they thought they were doing, or what was going to occur, it was not what occurred, and that they have to bear responsibility for, and they do."
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/military-personnel-proud-boy-s-incident-jobs-1.4269952



But hold on a second, because not long ago the same man said...



> ...He's moving on to the highest-ranking military job at Veterans Affairs Canada in Charlottetown, where he will work as a liaison officer.
> 
> He says *he'll be relying on the listening skills he gained with the troops *to help him in Veterans Affairs "to listen with empathy and understanding, to give the benefit of the doubt to people's complex stories," he said.



 ^-^


----------



## jollyjacktar

:rofl:  we should be good then.


----------



## Journeyman

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> "I have heard [the men's] side of a story," Newton said. "It means nothing. What was perceived by the public is what matters ….



*WTF ? !  *    :stars:









Edit:  EITS beat me;  I was going to add that it will be a crappy time to deal with VAC, if the military's senior representative is relying on those dwelling in the CBC comment section for his wisdom.   
FML   :not-again:


----------



## Strike

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Did you see what the Admiral said?   ;D   He called it a Mi'kmaq ceremony.



Yes, and knowing who fed him the words to say, the irony of this is not lost on me.


----------



## Jarnhamar

> "I have heard [the men's] side of a story," Newton said. "It means nothing. What was perceived by the public is what matters ….



That's messed up.  Hopefully he doesn't look to Facebook and Twitter for optics advice with his new posting  :facepalm:


----------



## Navy_Pete

It's a great time to be in the Navy! People first, mission always.


If you don't like it, get out!  What you say means nothing.


We don't understand why we have a retention issue, this is going to be a challenge to man the new ships. :


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Personally, I suspect that Admiral Newton hasn't a friggin clue about "what was perceived by the public". To think that the spin put on news story by the CBC and the likes, paired with their limited left-wing constituency that constantly batters anything military in it's opinion forum, represents Canadian public perception is to live in an unreal world.

I very much doubt that he bothered to look at other media in the rest of the country and how it played - where he would have realized that nobody cared about this or held anything against the military as a result of it.

I was actually glad to see that he stated that those seamen have rights, and then went on to mention that when not at work in uniform (i'm paraphrasing here) they enjoy rights like all other Canadians, protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That got me to think that the powers-that-be were probably advised that, if they pushed for charges to be laid under the NDA for disobeying the rules limiting freedom of expression in this case, they would probably find themselves on the wrong side of Charter rights and the regulations/guidance would be struck by the courts. They didn't want to take that chance.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I suspect you are quite right on this. Eventually Charter rights are going limit how much influence the DND can have on it's members out of uniform.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Personally, I suspect that Admiral Newton hasn't a friggin clue about "what was perceived by the public". To think that the spin put on news story by the CBC and the likes, paired with their limited left-wing constituency that constantly batters anything military in it's opinion forum, represents Canadian public perception is to live in an unreal world.
> 
> I very much doubt that he bothered to look at other media in the rest of the country and how it played - where he would have realized that nobody cared about this or held anything against the military as a result of it ...


If the info-machine is doing its job, the good Admiral would have been shown the good, the bad and the ugly in media coverage, allowing the Admiral to come to his own conclusions.  Agreeing or disagreeing with the conclusions based on what you see/hear/read is fair ball.  That said, I don't know if one could build as strong a case saying "people were concerned" as they could for "_*nobody*_ cared."  Me not caring =/= nobody caring.

And the whole "is what media says = what people hear = what people believe" issue could fill its own thread ...

All that said ...


			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> ... the powers-that-be were probably advised that, if they pushed for charges to be laid under the NDA for disobeying the rules limiting freedom of expression in this case, they would probably find themselves on the wrong side of Charter rights and the regulations/guidance would be struck by the courts. They didn't want to take that chance.


... you're probably right that CF legal beagles piped in, too.


----------



## Brad Sallows

"I have heard [the men's] side of a story," Newton said. "It means nothing. What was perceived by the public idiots making a fuss is what matters ….


----------



## FJAG

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> If the info-machine is doing its job, the good Admiral would have been shown the good, the bad and the ugly in media coverage, allowing the Admiral to come to his own conclusions.  Agreeing or disagreeing with the conclusions based on what you see/hear/read is fair ball.  That said, I don't know if one could build as strong a case saying "people were concerned" as they could for "_*nobody*_ cared."  Me not caring =/= nobody caring.
> 
> And the whole "is what media says = what people hear = what people believe" issue could fill its own thread ...
> 
> All that said ...... you're probably right that CF legal beagles piped in, too.



Reminds me of years ago during Op Assistance (floods in Manitoba) when I did a stint as the legal advisor to 1 Div HQ, we had a bit of a shortage for office space so the Public Affairs people (shoulder flash "Truth") and the legal people (shoulder flash "Justice") occupied the same office just across the hall from the Comd and Chief of Staff. We would have about four or five quick, impromptu meetings with the four of us where the commander would ask "what are the public affairs and legal considerations on issue X". Very coordinated and very efficient.

On the Good Boys issue, I hope that the only issue that the legal folks weighed in on was whether or not disciplinary charges were appropriate (in which case the advice was correct as none were laid). I really hope there wasn't any input on what the Admiral said (especially the bit about "It means nothing. What was perceived by the public is what matters"). That statement (if accurately reported), IMHO, is contrary to the principles of procedural fairness/natural justice that underlie administrative law which is the legal field under which nondisciplinary actions against individuals are taken.

 :cheers:


----------



## Navy_Pete

Out of curiousity, is that the kind of thing you could ever use as part of grievance, in addition to the CDS and MND statements?  It was pretty much tried in the press before the whole AR process would have kicked in, so curious how that would work.

Would probably require brass balls that would put a prize bull to shame to overturn/review something like this in a grievance though.


----------



## FJAG

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Out of curiousity, is that the kind of thing you could ever use as part of grievance, in addition to the CDS and MND statements?  It was pretty much tried in the press before the whole AR process would have kicked in, so curious how that would work.
> 
> Would probably require brass balls that would put a prize bull to shame to overturn/review something like this in a grievance though.



One probably could because there are legal officers within the various layers of grievance process to advise on the matter.

The usual process to challenge an administrative law decision is by an application for Judicial Review to the Federal Court [or a a provincial superior court in the case of a provincial administrative body]) to have the decision set aside. Courts do not substitute their own decision in such a case but merely say that the decision failed the test of natural justice and send it back to the decision maker to rehear the matter properly.

The general concepts can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_administrative_law

 :cheers:


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Out of curiousity, is that the kind of thing you could ever use as part of grievance, in addition to the CDS and MND statements?  It was pretty much tried in the press before the whole AR process would have kicked in, so curious how that would work.
> 
> Would probably require brass balls that would put a prize bull to shame to overturn/review something like this in a grievance though.



I am not SME, but I believe that the *reasonable apprehension of bias* etc would be a potentially valid argument.


----------



## McG

I understand it is recomemded that members exhaust their options through the grievance process before seeking options through the court.  The grievance peocess will stop and wait for a court decision if both are initiated in overlapping timelines.  You should expect that the department's decision will not diverge from the court's decision, so a court action may take away the opportunity to get a favourable decision at the FA level.


----------



## jollyjacktar

FJAG said:
			
		

> On the Good Boys issue, I hope that the only issue that the legal folks weighed in on was whether or not disciplinary charges were appropriate (in which case the advice was correct as none were laid). I really hope there wasn't any input on what the Admiral said (especially the bit about "It means nothing. What was perceived by the public is what matters"). That statement (if accurately reported), IMHO, is contrary to the principles of procedural fairness/natural justice that underlie administrative law which is the legal field under which nondisciplinary actions against individuals are taken.
> 
> :cheers:



Sadly, this kind of comment and attitude from someone like the Admiral is exactly what I expect from the system.  Kangaroo comes to my mind.

And some ponder why morale is hurting...


----------



## Sub_Guy

I must be getting old.  I guess you could say I've been "triggered" by the Admiral's comments.  I just assumed a good leader would back his personnel up, even if that meant looking bad in the face of public opinion.  I am not saying these guys made the smartest choice, but at the same time they did not act (IMHO) in a disrespecting manner.  Very disappointed to say the least.


----------



## jollyjacktar

The new commander who took over from Admiral Newton comments on the subject.   He said he was in lockstep with him on things.  Sigh.

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/nova-scotia/change-of-command-admiral-newton-baines-1.4272148


----------



## Brad Sallows

Good to see all that loyalty and support from the top downward.


----------



## FSTO

Good gravy guys what do you expect them to say? "Yes the chattering class and the media is full of shyte, these sailors did nothing really wrong. But to satisfy the mobs screams for blood we are putting them on C&P. What is C&P? Well media, why don't you do your frikken job for once and find out and report the truth for once instead of being a mouthpiece for the uninformed and stupid."

If the Admiral said that he would be an ex admiral pretty quick!


----------



## PuckChaser

The original statement should have been nothing more than  "We are investigating the matter. Any personnel matters are Protected material and we cannot discuss them". Followed by "Appropriate actions have been taken following relevant Canadian Armed Forces directives and orders. Any further details are Protected information and will not be released."

The CAF leadership demands loyalty up the chain but apparently in this case it was wholly appropriate for both the CDS and MARLANT Comd to throw subordinates under the bus publicly. Sorry if I don't think that's appropriate leadership or proportional punishment.


----------



## trooper142

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The original statement should have been nothing more than  "We are investigating the matter. Any personnel matters are Protected material and we cannot discuss them". Followed by "Appropriate actions have been taken following relevant Canadian Armed Forces directives and orders. Any further details are Protected information and will not be released."
> 
> The CAF leadership demands loyalty up the chain but apparently in this case it was wholly appropriate for both the CDS and MARLANT Comd to throw subordinates under the bus publicly. Sorry if I don't think that's appropriate leadership or proportional punishment.



Not completely true!

The military police report can be ATIP and the media can see most of the investigation from there. Obviously it would be vetted prior to release, but they could have easily got the answers they were looking for without speaking to the Admiral. Given that they gave him a chance, anything he said is fair game. 

The Admiral 's  rash reaction and discussion in the media after the event occured, and subsequent 'speaking to' the members hindered any possibility of charges. I am willing to bet the Admiral didn't caution these young men prior to the jacking they likely received, obviously I don't know for certain, but his change in tone from the beginning of the events until the end gives a good impression on the advice he likely received once he had a copy of the MP report.

One thing that stick out on my mind was the "they have rights" where were these rights as you were throwing them under the bus you were driving

*Disclaimer* im not endorsing or encouraging their behaviour; but the standard is for all service members, not just those on the bottom! In my opinion, he embarrassed the forces as much as they did with his rash comments and off the collar remarks without knowing the facts, and did his subordinates a disservice.

My  :2c:


----------



## jollyjacktar

FSTO said:
			
		

> Good gravy guys what do you expect them to say? "Yes the chattering class and the media is full of shyte, these sailors did nothing really wrong. But to satisfy the mobs screams for blood we are putting them on C&P. What is C&P? Well media, why don't you do your frikken job for once and find out and report the truth for once instead of being a mouthpiece for the uninformed and stupid."
> 
> If the Admiral said that he would be an ex admiral pretty quick!



I would hope to feel that I would have a fair shake should I run aground, not to already be prejudged in both the courts of public opinion and CoC.  This rush to judgement by all appearances only further degrades my confidence in the system and further erodes morale that has been taking belt fed with recent changes in the navy.


----------



## The Bread Guy

FJAG said:
			
		

> ... On the Good Boys issue, I hope that the only issue that the legal folks weighed in on was whether or not disciplinary charges were appropriate (in which case the advice was correct as none were laid). I really hope there wasn't any input on what the Admiral said (especially the bit about "It means nothing. What was perceived by the public is what matters"). That statement (if accurately reported), IMHO, is contrary to the principles of procedural fairness/natural justice that underlie administrative law which is the legal field under which nondisciplinary actions against individuals are taken.


I meant input into the legal bits of the situation, not the comms - although if the Admiral had run that wording by the legal beagles, I'm guessing they would have likely had _something_ to say.


----------



## FSTO

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I would hope to feel that I would have a fair shake should I run aground, not to already be prejudged in both the courts of public opinion and CoC.  This rush to judgement by all appearances only further degrades my confidence in the system and further erodes morale that has been taking belt fed with recent changes in the navy.



I agree with you. But in this time of hyper awareness of white male privledge the knee jerk response pressure comes from far higher levels than COMD MARLANT. I'd love to see our leadership rake the liars and their enablers over the coals but I think he did a fairly good job to keep the inquisitors from publicly executing the four sailors.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I'm feeling less and less privileged each passing day.  So I guess the PC Pitchfork/Torch people must be winning the war.


----------



## mariomike

Proud Boys Canada claim victory on Twitter,

"I love the sound of SJWs crying, sounds like victory"
https://twitter.com/ProudboysCanada/status/903739330417627136
"i called it. No time in cells, no $$ charge; just Counseling & Probation for a year. They're good to go in 12 months"

Looks like a couple of PBs have gotten into a bit of hot water in the US, ( innocent until proven guilty )

Criminal charges against Proud Boys

Kyle Chapman

In August 2017, Chapman was charged with possessing a lead-filled stick that he allegedly used to strike protesters at a rally in Berkeley, California on March 4. Chapman has two past felony convictions – a 1993 felony robbery conviction in Texas and a 2001 grand theft conviction in California. Due to his past criminal history and the violent nature of the Texas robbery, Chapman could receive a double sentence under California’s "Three Strikes" law and faces a maximum sentence of seven to eight years in prison if convicted. He has previously spent a total of ten years in prison for the 1993 and 2001 convictions.

Alex Ramos

Proud Boy Alex Ramos was charged in the beating of DeAndre Harris at the Unite the Right Rally in Charlottesville, Virginia in August of 2017. Harris, a 20-year-old African American man, was cornered and beaten in a parking garage by six men from the rally, allegedly including Ramos. Security cameras show six men circling Harris and severely beating him with sticks and possibly other objects as he lay on the concrete. Harris suffered significant injuries, including a broken wrist, a spinal injury, and a head injury that required 10 staples.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Boys#Criminal_charges_against_Proud_Boys


----------



## Journeyman

FSTO said:
			
		

> If the Admiral said that he would be an ex admiral pretty quick!


Ahh...."know your troops and promote their well-being" versus "I won't make waves; please let me be CDS some day..."

I guess we have differing views on leadership.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

FSTO said:
			
		

> Good gravy guys what do you expect them to say? "Yes the chattering class and the media is full of shyte, these sailors did nothing really wrong. But to satisfy the mobs screams for blood we are putting them on C&P. What is C&P? Well media, why don't you do your frikken job for once and find out and report the truth for once instead of being a mouthpiece for the uninformed and stupid."
> 
> If the Admiral said that he would be an ex admiral pretty quick!



And this was any better??   :  



> "I have heard [the men's] side of a story," Newton said. "It means nothing. What was perceived by the public is what matters ….



1.  I'm glad I never had the...pleasure...of working for this guy

2.  I'm glad my DVA claim is already processed and approved.


----------



## FSTO

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Ahh...."know your troops and promote their well-being" versus "I won't make waves; please let me be CDS some day..."
> 
> I guess we have differing views on leadership.



Please do not assume. I have paid a price career wise for speaking my mind and supporting the well being of my sailors.

I am just pointing out the real politik of the times. Its an ugly world out there and right now the howling masses have the pulpit and I have no idea how we can speak rationally to these people (media, SJW's, etc)


----------



## Journeyman

Ack.

I had come back online to add.....

I'm well aware that there's more to leadership than buzzwords and pithy aphorisms. There may even have been some clear direction from on high.  Nonetheless, the Admiral could have chosen his words more wisely; the same administrative actions could have been awarded, without him coming across as either: 
a) a complete douche, and/or
b) a stereotype of how "naval leadership" has been portrayed over many years.

The result for the sailors/soldier would be the same, but pissing on any potential officer/enlisted schism could have been avoided. 


The bottom line for me is that I certainly don't envy anyone relying on his support in VAC.


----------



## jollyjacktar

:goodpost:

His comments have poisoned the well for me, that was not necessary or helpful.   The new boss sounding (more or less) like the old boss doesn't bode well for me either.

FSTO,  seeing as you don't know how they could talk rationally to the howling masses, how's about say as little as possible or keep stumm?  Just like an interrogation,  don't give them an opening.  But seeing as how they want to be twitter knobs like Trump, I suppose there's no mute button.


----------



## Stoker

Admiral Newton is a big social media guy and heavily involved in the aboriginal community here. When the original story broke it was responded to quickly as in the past the Navy has been accused of either reporting stuff late or not at all. In this case with video and the members identified within an hour as RCN, it had to be dealt with quickly.
In this PC world we now live in the RCN is not going to give them a pass because public everything these days is driven by public perception. At the end of the day the members were punished for their actions and was way better than getting the boot.  I really didn't envy the Admiral how he had to deal with this and only recently after another sailor insulted the aboriginal community.


----------



## FSTO

Maybe a case of damn if you do and damn if you don't. I wouldn't of wanted to be in his shoes for all of this and words and intent are tough things to join at times.

We as members of the military didn't like the way he came across because he didn't seem to support his sailors. Meanwhile the folks on the other side of the spectrum are likely furious that he didn't publicly draw and quarter them at the front gate to HMC Dockyard.


----------



## George Wallace

Journeyman said:
			
		

> The bottom line for me is that I certainly don't envy anyone relying on his support in VAC.



From what I have seen in comments so far, that is quite a disturbing thought.  Can this zebra change its' stripes?


----------



## Navy_Pete

For me the problem isn't that they are on C&P or anything else in the process, but more that all these statements have torpedoed the appearance of the sailors having been fairly treated by the processes in place.  Even if they were, these kind of public comments make it all appear like their number was up as soon as it happened, and further erode confidence that the CoC will have your back in any scenario, or that loyalty only is required up the chain.


----------



## Stoker

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> For me the problem isn't that they are on C&P or anything else in the process, but more that all these statements have torpedoed the appearance of the sailors having been fairly treated by the processes in place.  Even if they were, these kind of public comments make it all appear like their number was up as soon as it happened, and further erode confidence that the CoC will have your back in any scenario, or that loyalty only is required up the chain.



He was in an incredibility difficult situation, if he did or said nothing people would have accused the RCN of a coverup or not doing enough. Yes I think it was a forgone conclusion that they would be getting some sort of punishment. I think it says a lot that they weren't kicked out despite the masses calling for it. In any other element it would been the same result. The people saying that the Admiral won't be doing a great job in Vac because of this one incident in four years of Sterling service as the Commander of MARLANT are wrong.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> He was in an incredibility difficult situation, if he did or said nothing people would have accused the RCN of a coverup or not doing enough. Yes I think it was a forgone conclusion that they would be getting some sort of punishment. I think it says a lot that they weren't kicked out despite the masses calling for it. In any other element it would been the same result. The people saying that the Admiral won't be doing a great job in Vac because of this one incident in four years of Sterling service as the Commander of MARLANT are wrong.



Your loyalty is admirable and expected, but IMO there is zero...zero reasonable explanation for public statements such as this:



> "I have heard [the men's] side of a story," Newton said. "It means nothing. What was perceived by the public is what matters ….



If that is the *best* he can do in a rock/hardplace situation, and you see that as sterling service...we're on opposite sides when it comes to a few definitions, I'm afraid.

The one thing on this whole issue that DOES speak louder to me than the Admirals words is the lack of charges, even a 129.  But, that same message will not resound with the public crying for the hanging tree.

I guess *guilty until proven innocent* doesn't apply to military members in the public eye.  Ironic, they would deny the same freedoms to military people that military members defend and protect.   :not-again:


----------



## Stoker

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Your loyalty is admirable and expected, but IMO there is zero...zero reasonable explanation for public statements such as this:
> 
> If that is the *best* he can do in a rock/hardplace situation, and you see that as sterling service...we're on opposite sides when it comes to a few definitions, I'm afraid.
> 
> The one thing on this whole issue that DOES speak louder to me than the Admirals words is the lack of charges, even a 129.  But, that same message will not resound with the public crying for the hanging tree.
> 
> I guess *guilty until proven innocent* doesn't apply to military members in the public eye.  Ironic, they would deny the same freedoms to military people that military members defend and protect.   :not-again:



Your only speculating why they weren't charged, perhaps they didn't have a case, perhaps they wanted a more serious punishment. At the end of the day we have gotten so PC, that this is the type of thing we will continue to see and wake up call to stay the fu*k away from these sort of events because you won't come out on the winning end. At least we can move on from this now and I personally hope the Admiral does well in his new post.


----------



## PuckChaser

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Your only speculating why they weren't charged, perhaps they didn't have a case, perhaps they wanted a more serious punishment. At the end of the day we have gotten so PC, that this is the type of thing we will continue to see and wake up call to stay the **** away from these sort of events because you won't come out on the winning end. At least we can move on from this now and I personally hope the Admiral does well in his new post.



Yep, I sure hope when I have a complaint about VAC and bring up my side of the story, it doesn't "mean nothing" to Adm Newton.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Your only speculating why they weren't charged, perhaps they didn't have a case, perhaps they wanted a more serious punishment.



Actually, I hadn't thought I'd speculated at all why they weren't, just observed that they weren't and said that says a lot to me but the public won't stop and think on that at all;  they (some of them) are still at the hanging tree, fist-pumping and frowning.



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> The one thing on this whole issue that DOES speak louder to me than the Admirals words is the lack of charges, even a 129.  But, that same message will not resound with the public crying for the hanging tree.





> At the end of the day we have gotten so PC, that this is the type of thing we will continue to see and wake up call to stay the fu*k away from these sort of events because you won't come out on the winning end. At least we can move on from this now and I personally hope the Admiral does well in his new post.



Agreed on all points, highlight on the yellow part.   8)


----------



## mariomike

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> At the end of the day we have gotten so PC, that this is the type of thing we will continue to see and wake up call to stay the fu*k away from these sort of events because you won't come out on the winning end.



May also be good advice if there is a possibility a member will one day release, and apply to be hired by a new employer.

I suspect that, these days, some HR specialists may run the names of applicants through Google, to see what they come up with.

It may not matter to some employers, but may concern others.


----------



## ballz

Let's be generous with the accusations of poor displays of leadership here... the CDS's comments weren't much better and given his position, only poisoned everything below it. I'm not surprised his subordinate flag officers got off track when the big boss's official statement was calling their actions "deplorable" and telling Canadians "their future in the military is certainly in doubt."

Whatever happened to the higher ranks being the people that brought calm to chaos, not created it.


----------



## Stoker

ballz said:
			
		

> Let's be generous with the accusations of poor displays of leadership here... the CDS's comments weren't much better and given his position, only poisoned everything below it. I'm not surprised his subordinate flag officers got off track when the big boss's official statement was calling their actions "deplorable" and telling Canadians "their future in the military is certainly in doubt."
> 
> Whatever happened to the higher ranks being the people that brought calm to chaos, not created it.



You know back in the day before social media, smart phones and what not those members would have probably been given a stern talking to at worse and carried on. In the late 70's, early 80's the mess decks would have been cleared and march on mass to the park and took care of business. Things have certainly changed.


----------



## mariomike

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> You know back in the day before social media, smart phones and what not those members would have probably been given a stern talking to at worse and carried on. In the late 70's, early 80's the mess decks would have been cleared and march on mass to the park and took care of business. Things have certainly changed.



Back in the day, you just had to keep your name out of the newspaper clippings.  

Whole new ball game now.


----------



## jollyjacktar

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Yep, I sure hope when I have a complaint about VAC and bring up my side of the story, it doesn't "mean nothing" to Adm Newton.



Damn straight.  Despite his desire to do good at VAC, I won't hold my breath that he'll accomplish much of anything.  The NVC and that department is a trainwreck.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> You know back in the day before social media, smart phones and what not those members would have probably been given a stern talking to at worse and carried on. In the late 70's, early 80's the mess decks would have been cleared and march on mass to the park and took care of business. Things have certainly changed.



Back in the days, Chief, these things would not even have happened at all. This whole thing is 100% a social media era creation.

Before social media, the group that organized the (cough! cough! ceremony) statue protest would not even have been able or willing to take the time and effort required to organize the event, and had they been, no one else would have known outside of their circle except perhaps the press if they advised it in advance of their plan. And then, the likelihood that the press would bother showing up would have been very low, the event would have been reported on after the fact. Moreover, without prior knowledge, there would have been no counter-protest, save by some passerbys, and such counter protesters would not have been outed as CAF members, or anything else. Etc. etc.

So this is 100% modern days social media based tactics that did not occur before.

That does not excuse either the Admiral nor the CDS for their inappropriate behaviour and position taking.

You said earlier that the Admiral was "in an incredibly difficult situation". I call bull on this. Social medias have been around long enough for ALL senior appointees in the CAF to know how to handle media inquiries in such circumstances where lowly underlings may or may not have done something wrong. I don't know how often I've had to instruct clients on that myself, but the "rule" is simple: Only after you have been made aware of all the actual facts and if, and only if, the consequences of these facts are appropriately at your level can you express a position AFTER you have reached a decision that belongs to you. Otherwise: Shut the heck up!

On the very first day, when the admiral and the CDS hung these guys in public on the basis of only  a small video clip and a limited situation presented to them in a shorthand and biased fashion by the press, they should have known (otherwise, they have greatly incompetent PA people) to only state something to the following effect:

"The Canadian Armed Forces are subject to the laws of Canada like every body else. We also have rules that deal with groups, associations or organizations that our member may or may not associate with and rules on opinions and views that members may or may not publicly express. Most of those rules and regulations are public and you are free to consult them.

The situation you are bringing to my attention has been (or will be, if not done yet) reported to the proper investigative bodies who will investigate and determine if criminal or disciplinary charges are warranted or not under our Code of Service Discipline. Also, the proper authorities in the member's chain of command ( my comment here: that BTW would be their actual CO, not two, three or even four bloody levels above) have been seized of the matter and will review the facts and determine if administrative action against these members is warranted under the circumstances.

You may be sure that neither the CAF not I condone any association or expression of view by our members that is not permitted by our laws, rules and regulations."

Easy, peasy! And as they say, problem solved, regardless of how "weak" you think such response is.

It's when you actually take a position without knowing all the facts that you get in trouble: They did, and they got themselves in trouble.


----------



## Stoker

mariomike said:
			
		

> Back in the day, you just had to keep your name out of the newspaper clippings.
> 
> Whole new ball game now.



Thats for sure


----------



## FSTO

OGBD, good analysis. The (mis)handling of this affair should be on the command and public affairs course.


----------



## PuckChaser

FSTO said:
			
		

> OGBD, good analysis. The (mis)handling of this affair should be on the command and public affairs course.



Doubtful until we get a new CDS, but most definitely should be on there. I have a feeling there's a lot of troops out there now who don't know if the CDS will back them and impartially investigate anything.


----------



## FJAG

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Back in the days, Chief, these things would not even have happened at all. This whole thing is 100% a social media era creation.
> 
> Before social media, the group that organized the (cough! cough! ceremony) statue protest would not even have been able or willing to take the time and effort required to organize the event, and had they been, no one else would have known outside of their circle except perhaps the press if they advised it in advance of their plan. And then, the likelihood that the press would bother showing up would have been very low, the event would have been reported on after the fact. Moreover, without prior knowledge, there would have been no counter-protest, save by some passerbys, and such counter protesters would not have been outed as CAF members, or anything else. Etc. etc.
> 
> So this is 100% modern days social media based tactics that did not occur before.
> 
> That does not excuse either the Admiral nor the CDS for their inappropriate behaviour and position taking.
> 
> You said earlier that the Admiral was "in an incredibly difficult situation". I call bull on this. Social medias have been around long enough for ALL senior appointees in the CAF to know how to handle media inquiries in such circumstances where lowly underlings may or may not have done something wrong. I don't know how often I've had to instruct clients on that myself, but the "rule" is simple: Only after you have been made aware of all the actual facts and if, and only if, the consequences of these facts are appropriately at your level can you express a position AFTER you have reached a decision that belongs to you. Otherwise: Shut the heck up!
> 
> On the very first day, when the admiral and the CDS hung these guys in public on the basis of only  a small video clip and a limited situation presented to them in a shorthand and biased fashion by the press, they should have known (otherwise, they have greatly incompetent PA people) to only state something to the following effect:
> 
> "The Canadian Armed Forces are subject to the laws of Canada like every body else. We also have rules that deal with groups, associations or organizations that our member may or may not associate with and rules on opinions and views that members may or may not publicly express. Most of those rules and regulations are public and you are free to consult them.
> 
> The situation you are bringing to my attention has been (or will be, if not done yet) reported to the proper investigative bodies who will investigate and determine if criminal or disciplinary charges are warranted or not under our Code of Service Discipline. Also, the proper authorities in the member's chain of command ( my comment here: that BTW would be their actual CO, not two, three or even four bloody levels above) have been seized of the matter and will review the facts and determine if administrative action against these members is warranted under the circumstances.
> 
> You may be sure that neither the CAF not I condone any association or expression of view by our members that is not permitted by our laws, rules and regulations."
> 
> Easy, peasy! And as they say, problem solved, regardless of how "weak" you think such response is.
> 
> It's when you actually take a position without knowing all the facts that you get in trouble: They did, and they got themselves in trouble.



I agree with your post with one exception; the three paragraph quote above is entirely too long.

During my career I've had several media training sessions and of all the material that I was taught the one that stood out to me was -- every media event gives you only an eight second sound bite to transmit YOUR message. So before the interview you need to identify what YOUR message is, reduce it down to eight seconds and then, regardless of the question you are asked and regardless of how many times you are asked it, ensure that every --every-- answer you give is that sound bite.

Oh. I do remember one other useful tip which is that when you get trapped in a long-winded telephone conversation that you need to get out of, hang up in the middle of when you are talking. No one would suspect that you've hung up on yourself.  ;D

 :cheers:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I was just trying to illustrate what should be said, FJAG. I would accept just as much the following, especially if it pleases you  :

"We have rules on what association our members may participate in or opinion they may publicly express. The situation has been reported to proper authorities who will determine if any charges or administrative action is warranted."

Short enough for ya!

P.s.: Say hello to Genevieve Bernatchez for me if you see her.


----------



## FJAG

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I was just trying to illustrate what should be said, FJAG. I would accept just as much the following, especially if it pleases you  :
> 
> "We have rules on what association our members may participate in or opinion they may publicly express. The situation has been reported to proper authorities who will determine if any charges or administrative action is warranted."
> 
> Short enough for ya!
> 
> P.s.: Say hello to Genevieve Bernatchez for me if you see her.



Actually I wasn't being critical of what you said. I was pointing out that our leadership either missed the mark on what THEIR message was; or (even worse) bloody well knew what THEIR message was and delivered it; or haven't got control over their run-on mouths when speaking to the media.

Genevieve and I no longer travel in the same circles. When I retired I moved as far from Ottawa as I could (and still be in the same province) to where it was warmer and there was a lot less snow 

 :cheers:


----------



## jollyjacktar

Hell is in Ontario?


----------



## FJAG

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Hell is in Ontario?



 :rofl:

Good one, but we actually like it down here.  ;D

 :cheers:


----------



## jollyjacktar

If it is hell, I'm sure it's full of lawyers... so at least you won't feel alone. ;D. At least that's the only place I can think of where it's warm.


----------



## kratz

FJAG said:
			
		

> :rofl:
> 
> Good one, but we actually like it down here.  ;D
> 
> :cheers:



This conversation was begging for a modified song:

 [



> Marineland    *FJAG’s theme song*
> 
> There's a place I know in Ontario
> Where LLPs  kiss, so the story goes
> With amazing show and Tells
> Everyone loves Hell Southern Ontario
> 
> You'll be spinning, frying and digging low
> Our skies are warm and friendly
> Now you know what you'll say when you retire from Ottawa
> Everyone loves Hell Southern Ontario


----------



## FJAG

kratz said:
			
		

> This conversation was begging for a modified song:
> 
> [



I've always been partial to this one - unmodified:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-T6aaRV9HY

I see trees of green, red roses too
I see them bloom for me and you
And I think to myself what a wonderful world

I see skies of blue and clouds of white
The bright blessed day, the dark sacred night
And I think to myself what a wonderful world

. . .

 :cheers:


----------



## The Bread Guy

This from CBC.ca ...


> The Canadian Armed Forces is warning its personnel to be wary of associating with groups on social media, including Quebec's largest and most prominent far-right group.
> 
> "Being part of those movements is not something that's a part of our values," said Col. Paul Fuller.
> 
> An investigation by Radio-Canada found about 75 members of La Meute's private Facebook group are part of the Armed Forces, with some visibly identified by their military uniform.
> 
> La Meute, which has attracted more than 43,000 people to its Facebook group, is known for its public criticism of radical Islam and illegal immigration. Its three founders are ex-military.
> 
> Military members are forbidden to join organizations that don't respect the army's code of ethics.
> 
> "We have to be neutral when it comes to public opinion," said Fuller. "And we can't have personal opinions that go against our code of ethics and values."
> 
> Those who don't respect this fundamental rule can face disciplinary measures, ranging from a first warning to expulsion from the ranks, said Fuller.
> 
> The warning comes nearly three weeks after the province's anti-radicalization centre held a training session for both military personnel and civilian employees with the Armed Forces based in Valcartier, Que.
> 
> (...)
> 
> Affiliating with La Meute is also grounds for being turned away from Les Eaux Curatives, a local program that supports military personnel coping with psychological or physical injuries.
> 
> Bob Danis, the vice-president of Les Eaux Curatives, said he has no desire to associate with any radical groups.
> 
> "We don't want them to come here for recruitment," said Danis. "We risk being barred from the military base, by the clinic for trauma linked to operational stress injuries and by Veterans Affairs Canada."


----------



## Shrek1985

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> This from CBC.ca ...



Wait...so, people feeling alienated from society get barred from a program to help with various mental health issues...Huh. Okay. Can't see that going wrong, ever.

But I wish the CF would just come out with it and stop pretending it's about right and wrong; troops you are required to be openly and officially politically correct any time you are where the public or media can hear you and spot you as a CF member.

Anything more is unenforceable, anything less is patently dishonest. Let's not give any orders we know won't be followed, eh?

If only Canada could grow up and mature as fast as it's population ages.


----------



## Journeyman

Shrek1985 said:
			
		

> If only Canada could grow up and mature as fast as it's population ages.


I don't understand what this means; can you explain.


----------



## Shrek1985

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I don't understand what this means; can you explain.



A fundamental truth of military service; we, all of us in uniform "Fight" for things we do not believe in as part of a pact which serves to also defend that which we *do* believe in.

"My country, right or wrong"

The Gay Soldier defends those who want to see gays murdered in the streets.
The Religious Soldier fights for the atheists
The Patriotic Soldier defends the person who burns the flag.

Just a few, small examples. We are, each of us soldiers; but we are also people, with our own beliefs no regulation or act of parliament could ever change that. Let us not pretend or wish to be the kind of military which stamps us into an Orwellian mould of fanaticism for the party line. 

But the above is not an idea that Canadian citizens are able or willing to internalize and digest. It is, in fact anathema to their own ideology, as much as it is endemic to values of duty, honour and loyalty to something bigger and better than oneself. These are mature, adult concepts, which do not fit in Canadian society. Thus why we produce few willing and fewer still good career soldiers, despite our large population.

Soldiers, it is known tend to lean farther right of centre than their parent population. This seems to be a near-universal gift of military service. There is something about the elements of pragmatism and the unforgiving nature of our reality that forces this on soldiers across the world. Yet, Canada is a distinctly left-leaning country. 

In an world where "Nazism" is increasingly defined as not just "That which must be opposed in order to be a good person" and simultaneously "Those who disagree with leftist/progressive ideology", this will increasingly bring our soldiers into conflict with a population and media that cannot comprehend why someone who thought differently from them would ever put their lives on the line for them. Especially, when they; in the same position could not resist the urge to use any power given them to bring their own ideology ever greater power and control.


----------



## Journeyman

Sorry, but I still missed the meaning of how Canada should "grow up and mature as fast as its population ages."

(Although I think I got "it's OK to be a racist because it's a personally-held belief common to soldiers because 'it is known' we're right-wing; any regulation to the contrary will just be disobeyed")


----------



## Shrek1985

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Sorry, but I still missed the meaning of how Canada should "grow up and mature as fast as its population ages."
> 
> (Although I think I got "it's OK to be a racist because it's a personally-held belief common to soldiers because 'it is known' we're right-wing; any regulation to the contrary will just be disobeyed")



Thanks for being part of the problem, Journeyman; couldn't have illustrated it better without you!

Okay; C-A-T spells CAT;

Canada's population is aging, you know this right?

Generally, as a person grows; their base of knowledge and experience comes together in a sort of mature wisdom, which while it may bear similarities to being too tired also carries with it added doses of common sense, perspective and breadth of experience.

That isn't happening in Canada; we're stuck with the kind of immaturity and appetite for group-think and conformity you normally need university students to find, right up through the entire culture, irrespective of age. It's this kind of puritan, disgust-based thinking that I'm talking about. Diversity of all but thought.

Have you ever heard the saying; "Anyone who is not a liberal at 20 has no heart and anyone who is still a liberal at 40 has no brain"? A very accurate summation, overall.

There is a lot to unpack in your second statement. I'll start with the easy parts first.

I'll assume you're totally unfamiliar with the axiom of "Never give an order you know will not be obeyed"?

Okay; so you first have to accept that such a thing is possible and maybe you don't; sometimes orders are issued which are so asinine, so patently useless, so onerous and also so unenforceable that they will not be obeyed. 

It is my assertion that anything more that what I proposed out above, that soldiers should be painstakingly politically correct anytime the media or public can hear or see them and relate their lives to military service is unenforceable. You can argue ways in which you could enforce such regulations, going after what amounts to thought crimes, but I'd like to see you do so in such a way as not to destroy the morale of the forces and fleece us of many very good men and women.

What I propose is enforceable and better still; practicable. A Canadian population which would be at peace with the values of soldiers is outside the reach of the military to bring about. A military founded on what passes for Canadian values today would be non-functional on the face of it. Of course, a reasonable person might ask; "Why should we care what values our soldiers possess, if we do not care what values new Canadian immigrants possess? After all; get in enough of them and *our* values will soon be changing, no?" One might also question; "What does it matter what values the military of the first post-national state possess?"

I would in fact propose, in a brief aside; that in order to preserve the beautiful snowflake nation that we have, that an army as different from the average Canadian as possible would be ideal.

Good leaders never give orders they know will not be obeyed; because disobedience, whatever it's source is corrosive to effective leadership and the CoC. It takes moral courage to say to someone farther up the chain; "Sir, that's nonsense." You may get ordered to pass it along anyways, but in writing and under protest is how it should go. That way, you can be vindicated later when the charges have to be laid (another failure of leadership).

Moving along; again it's a well-known fact that soldiering tends to produce a right-leaning bent in those who come in contact with it. This is known across most of the world, in diverse cultures. Now; you may come to the army a radical leftist, maybe you only come out a little less-left, but what I find and what others experience supports, especially among combat arms is that most soldiers are noticeably very right-leaning. This in a country where we have these depressing European-style politics of competing socialists, with one party marking out the centre on a good day and calling themselves conservative. That's not a recipe for harmony. An army that trends right and a populace that trends left is going to cause us trouble and we, as leaders must be prepared to deal with it and protect our soldiers however we can.

Now, finally; when you equate racism and right-wing politics; you are wrong and you are ignorant. Sadly and relevant to my other points; you are also speaking in harmony with our schools and our state media. That isn't the truth though; not only is racism not a possession of the right, it is something commonly felt by many of us who espouse right-wing beliefs. If for no-other reason, in our society of feelings; that should matter for the purposes of fairness; "A Canadian Value", if for no other reason. If that is, we truly wish to represent Canadian values in the CF.

That kind of language silences people; it drives them to more extreme and more anti-social groups; like real neo-nazis and it is not consistent with effective leadership. Remember always, as we move ever faster towards our Orwellian destiny that the alternative to free speech is violence. In this context, things like the recent riots between pro and anti-immigration groups take on a much deeper, darker meaning. Hatred cannot grow in the light of day without truly massive, broad-based support. It is nurtured in dark corners with quiet whispers. What we're doing here forces people into those dark corners.

So what do we do? Well, any COA I might suggest has to be coloured by my status as a leader and I, as a leader have a great deal of responsibility to know my people and support their welfare and air their grievances in an appropriate matter with higher authority on their behalf. I have exactly zero responsibility to counsel or punish them for their own privately held beliefs. Although I know there are those in the CF who feel that is exactly their duty. I suggest to those individuals that there yet remain militaries in this world who count political commissars amongst their number. Perhaps they might find greater satisfaction in their lives in such a position, elsewhere.

So my responsibilities are coloured by the strict letter of the CanForGens which severely limit political action by Canadian Forces members. I couldn't write to my member of parliament as a forces member and be like; "A number of my soldiers are concerned with the direction our country is taking in regards to feminist indoctrination at all levels, the increasingly cult-like nature of our schools, and failure to attract and assimilate people from compatible cultures, could you do something about that?"

However, perhaps a senior or THE SENIOR member of the CF or one of his or her direct civilian superiors would be well advised, simply from a perspective of interest and responsibility in the manning and morale of the forces to raise a similar message with our enlightened Civilian Masters. A few examples of statements which could usefully be made;

"our schools are contaminating Canadian youth with values and beliefs which are inimical to their potential usefulness as soldiers."
"I am concerned for the safety and morale of homosexual members of the Canadian Forces, due to the increasing numbers of violently homophobic immigrants being permitted to reside in the country."
"I fear for the morale of certain religious members of the Canadian Forces, so long as their faith remains to be held up to mockery and derision by the state media and school system, while other faiths enjoy unusual protection under the law and policies of the current government."
"I am deeply concerned for the fate of current and former Canadian Forces members who, out of a sense of alienation or as a response to their trauma may be denied certain services due to their misguided membership in various unfavourable organizations. I feel such exclusion will only deepen their trauma and sense of rejection and possibly lead to actions which may harm themselves, others or the reputation of the CF."
"Many Canadian Forces members are concerned for the safety of their families and the nation as a whole, if better screening of current and potential immigrants for violent, radical beliefs is not initiated."

This would be much more useful than; your opinions are an embarrassment; get out. Naturally of course, if we're already hip-deep in subjectivism with terms like "Extreme-Right", then whose to say who and what fits in that category? You could be in any group, out of official favour and find yourself in hot water on a whim.

Soldiers are human; humans have limits and interests. it pays to remember that when fighting or leading them. It's one thing to end up fighting for people who think differently than you; so long as they're part of the bigger population. It's another when those interests seem to control the government, schools, the media, culture, ect.

I think we've all been in that place; coming back from the field and catching a bit of news and feeling like we're the Legion, guarding the walls of the Empire, while the barbarians batter at the gates and the wind shifts and you can just *Smell* Rome burning behind you. We need to help each other get through that and deal with it, not shun anyone who smells smoke and wonders aloud where it's coming from.

It's not ideal that my COA involves kicking it upstairs and letting the CDS Or MND handle it, but unfortunately, with the CanForGens how they are, I'm just not going to do myself or anyone else any good at all bringing it up myself. Hell, in this atmosphere of "Get with the program or get out" I'm not sure even a nice memo up the CoC would get me more than career death. But I'm a leader and I wasn't trained to reject my soldiers for anything. Even if they're useless someone else will come take them away, *IF* I fail to remediate their performance. It would be a sin to lose a good soldier to the PC police, we don't have any to spare.


----------



## Journeyman

Shrek1985 said:
			
		

> Thanks for being part of the problem, Journeyman.....


Wow. I'll refrain from seeking any further clarification.  

Thank you for your brilliance and apparently awesome leadership.


----------



## Jed

Shrek1985 said:
			
		

> Thanks for being part of the problem, Journeyman; couldn't have illustrated it better without you!
> 
> Okay; C-A-T spells CAT;
> 
> Canada's population is aging, you know this right?
> 
> Generally, as a person grows; their base of knowledge and experience comes together in a sort of mature wisdom, which while it may bear similarities to being too tired also carries with it added doses of common sense, perspective and breadth of experience.
> 
> That isn't happening in Canada; we're stuck with the kind of immaturity and appetite for group-think and conformity you normally need university students to find, right up through the entire culture, irrespective of age. It's this kind of puritan, disgust-based thinking that I'm talking about. Diversity of all but thought.
> 
> Have you ever heard the saying; "Anyone who is not a liberal at 20 has no heart and anyone who is still a liberal at 40 has no brain"? A very accurate summation, overall.
> 
> There is a lot to unpack in your second statement. I'll start with the easy parts first.
> 
> I'll assume you're totally unfamiliar with the axiom of "Never give an order you know will not be obeyed"?
> 
> Okay; so you first have to accept that such a thing is possible and maybe you don't; sometimes orders are issued which are so asinine, so patently useless, so onerous and also so unenforceable that they will not be obeyed.
> 
> It is my assertion that anything more that what I proposed out above, that soldiers should be painstakingly politically correct anytime the media or public can hear or see them and relate their lives to military service is unenforceable. You can argue ways in which you could enforce such regulations, going after what amounts to thought crimes, but I'd like to see you do so in such a way as not to destroy the morale of the forces and fleece us of many very good men and women.
> 
> What I propose is enforceable and better still; practicable. A Canadian population which would be at peace with the values of soldiers is outside the reach of the military to bring about. A military founded on what passes for Canadian values today would be non-functional on the face of it. Of course, a reasonable person might ask; "Why should we care what values our soldiers possess, if we do not care what values new Canadian immigrants possess? After all; get in enough of them and *our* values will soon be changing, no?" One might also question; "What does it matter what values the military of the first post-national state possess?"
> 
> I would in fact propose, in a brief aside; that in order to preserve the beautiful snowflake nation that we have, that an army as different from the average Canadian as possible would be ideal.
> 
> Good leaders never give orders they know will not be obeyed; because disobedience, whatever it's source is corrosive to effective leadership and the CoC. It takes moral courage to say to someone farther up the chain; "Sir, that's nonsense." You may get ordered to pass it along anyways, but in writing and under protest is how it should go. That way, you can be vindicated later when the charges have to be laid (another failure of leadership).
> 
> Moving along; again it's a well-known fact that soldiering tends to produce a right-leaning bent in those who come in contact with it. This is known across most of the world, in diverse cultures. Now; you may come to the army a radical leftist, maybe you only come out a little less-left, but what I find and what others experience supports, especially among combat arms is that most soldiers are noticeably very right-leaning. This in a country where we have these depressing European-style politics of competing socialists, with one party marking out the centre on a good day and calling themselves conservative. That's not a recipe for harmony. An army that trends right and a populace that trends left is going to cause us trouble and we, as leaders must be prepared to deal with it and protect our soldiers however we can.
> 
> Now, finally; when you equate racism and right-wing politics; you are wrong and you are ignorant. Sadly and relevant to my other points; you are also speaking in harmony with our schools and our state media. That isn't the truth though; not only is racism not a possession of the right, it is something commonly felt by many of us who espouse right-wing beliefs. If for no-other reason, in our society of feelings; that should matter for the purposes of fairness; "A Canadian Value", if for no other reason. If that is, we truly wish to represent Canadian values in the CF.
> 
> That kind of language silences people; it drives them to more extreme and more anti-social groups; like real neo-nazis and it is not consistent with effective leadership. Remember always, as we move ever faster towards our Orwellian destiny that the alternative to free speech is violence. In this context, things like the recent riots between pro and anti-immigration groups take on a much deeper, darker meaning. Hatred cannot grow in the light of day without truly massive, broad-based support. It is nurtured in dark corners with quiet whispers. What we're doing here forces people into those dark corners.
> 
> So what do we do? Well, any COA I might suggest has to be coloured by my status as a leader and I, as a leader have a great deal of responsibility to know my people and support their welfare and air their grievances in an appropriate matter with higher authority on their behalf. I have exactly zero responsibility to counsel or punish them for their own privately held beliefs. Although I know there are those in the CF who feel that is exactly their duty. I suggest to those individuals that there yet remain militaries in this world who count political commissars amongst their number. Perhaps they might find greater satisfaction in their lives in such a position, elsewhere.
> 
> So my responsibilities are coloured by the strict letter of the CanForGens which severely limit political action by Canadian Forces members. I couldn't write to my member of parliament as a forces member and be like; "A number of my soldiers are concerned with the direction our country is taking in regards to feminist indoctrination at all levels, the increasingly cult-like nature of our schools, and failure to attract and assimilate people from compatible cultures, could you do something about that?"
> 
> However, perhaps a senior or THE SENIOR member of the CF or one of his or her direct civilian superiors would be well advised, simply from a perspective of interest and responsibility in the manning and morale of the forces to raise a similar message with our enlightened Civilian Masters. A few examples of statements which could usefully be made;
> 
> "our schools are contaminating Canadian youth with values and beliefs which are inimical to their potential usefulness as soldiers."
> "I am concerned for the safety and morale of homosexual members of the Canadian Forces, due to the increasing numbers of violently homophobic immigrants being permitted to reside in the country."
> "I fear for the morale of certain religious members of the Canadian Forces, so long as their faith remains to be held up to mockery and derision by the state media and school system, while other faiths enjoy unusual protection under the law and policies of the current government."
> "I am deeply concerned for the fate of current and former Canadian Forces members who, out of a sense of alienation or as a response to their trauma may be denied certain services due to their misguided membership in various unfavourable organizations. I feel such exclusion will only deepen their trauma and sense of rejection and possibly lead to actions which may harm themselves, others or the reputation of the CF."
> "Many Canadian Forces members are concerned for the safety of their families and the nation as a whole, if better screening of current and potential immigrants for violent, radical beliefs is not initiated."
> 
> This would be much more useful than; your opinions are an embarrassment; get out. Naturally of course, if we're already hip-deep in subjectivism with terms like "Extreme-Right", then whose to say who and what fits in that category? You could be in any group, out of official favour and find yourself in hot water on a whim.
> 
> Soldiers are human; humans have limits and interests. it pays to remember that when fighting or leading them. It's one thing to end up fighting for people who think differently than you; so long as they're part of the bigger population. It's another when those interests seem to control the government, schools, the media, culture, ect.
> 
> I think we've all been in that place; coming back from the field and catching a bit of news and feeling like we're the Legion, guarding the walls of the Empire, while the barbarians batter at the gates and the wind shifts and you can just *Smell* Rome burning behind you. We need to help each other get through that and deal with it, not shun anyone who smells smoke and wonders aloud where it's coming from.
> 
> It's not ideal that my COA involves kicking it upstairs and letting the CDS Or MND handle it, but unfortunately, with the CanForGens how they are, I'm just not going to do myself or anyone else any good at all bringing it up myself. Hell, in this atmosphere of "Get with the program or get out" I'm not sure even a nice memo up the CoC would get me more than career death. But I'm a leader and I wasn't trained to reject my soldiers for anything. Even if they're useless someone else will come take them away, *IF* I fail to remediate their performance. It would be a sin to lose a good soldier to the PC police, we don't have any to spare.



Impressive clarification.


----------



## Loachman

I don't have the time, or inclination, to pick through all of that in detail, but:

"Far Right" and "Right-Leaning" are not the same thing (and I have no idea why racism (and other forms of bigotry) is even considered to be "far right" at all, as it is not).

Nobody can, and few would even try, to control somebody's thoughts. Decisions can, however, be made about what expressions are or are not suitable for serving members to publicly _make_, and the resulting policies can indeed be enforced, practically and legally.

How we look and act in public is important, as is how we sound, or type on the interweb. We have reasonably well-defined values that have stood the test of time and have also been somewhat refined, and those values are necessary. Those who willfully ignore them, or otherwise fail to live up to them, are incompatible with the organization as a whole. There is a Charter-guaranteed freedom of opinion and expression, yes, but there is no corresponding right to freedom from sanction, including cessation of membership, by an organization after saying or doing dumb things.

Perhaps the current limitations are a little too tight, or perhaps not, but society has its expectations and true leaders have little choice but to consider those expectations and guide/command their subordinates with them in mind.

Failure to do so puts _both_ subordinate and leader in career (and possibly legal) jeopardy when lines are crossed and public, media, and politicians respond.

A wise leader, then, counsels/guides/orders, as appropriate, his or her subordinates about acceptable behavioral limits prior to those limits being explored in public view as that protects both.

And this comes from someone who has, I am reasonably confident, done a little more "aging" than you (and definitely more than those being cautioned), grown, expanded his base of knowledge and experience (through his own mistakes and the oft-worse mistakes of others), and may have developed at least a molecule or two of "a sort of mature wisdom".

The latter does not mean that I am now immune to error myself, but I have acquired a pretty good ability to see the impending error of others. If I can save them from themselves, I generally try, as futile as that often is.

I was never a Liberal, although I am liberal in many ways. And conservative. And libertarian.

I do not care what somebody's religion is or isn't, or with whom they prefer to mate, or what colour their outermost layer is, etcetera. I only care how they perform in Society - whether they contribute or detract, whether they help others or hurt. And I am generous in my application of benefit-of-the-doubt, until either is confirmed. I would never fight "for" or "despite" gays, or "for" or "despite" atheists, or "for" or "despite" flag-burners, but for fellow Citizens and decent people anywhere.

I am in agreement with some of your words, but far from all.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Shrek1985 said:
			
		

> Thanks for being part of the problem, Journeyman; couldn't have illustrated it better without you!
> 
> Okay; C-A-T spells CAT;
> 
> Canada's population is aging, you know this right?
> 
> Generally, as a person grows; their base of knowledge and experience comes together in a sort of mature wisdom, which while it may bear similarities to being too tired also carries with it added doses of common sense, perspective and breadth of experience.
> 
> That isn't happening in Canada; we're stuck with the kind of immaturity and appetite for group-think and conformity you normally need university students to find, right up through the entire culture, irrespective of age. It's this kind of puritan, disgust-based thinking that I'm talking about. Diversity of all but thought.
> 
> Have you ever heard the saying; "Anyone who is not a liberal at 20 has no heart and anyone who is still a liberal at 40 has no brain"? A very accurate summation, overall.
> 
> There is a lot to unpack in your second statement. I'll start with the easy parts first.
> 
> I'll assume you're totally unfamiliar with the axiom of "Never give an order you know will not be obeyed"?
> 
> Okay; so you first have to accept that such a thing is possible and maybe you don't; sometimes orders are issued which are so asinine, so patently useless, so onerous and also so unenforceable that they will not be obeyed.
> 
> It is my assertion that anything more that what I proposed out above, that soldiers should be painstakingly politically correct anytime the media or public can hear or see them and relate their lives to military service is unenforceable. You can argue ways in which you could enforce such regulations, going after what amounts to thought crimes, but I'd like to see you do so in such a way as not to destroy the morale of the forces and fleece us of many very good men and women.
> 
> What I propose is enforceable and better still; practicable. A Canadian population which would be at peace with the values of soldiers is outside the reach of the military to bring about. A military founded on what passes for Canadian values today would be non-functional on the face of it. Of course, a reasonable person might ask; "Why should we care what values our soldiers possess, if we do not care what values new Canadian immigrants possess? After all; get in enough of them and *our* values will soon be changing, no?" One might also question; "What does it matter what values the military of the first post-national state possess?"
> 
> I would in fact propose, in a brief aside; that in order to preserve the beautiful snowflake nation that we have, that an army as different from the average Canadian as possible would be ideal.
> 
> Good leaders never give orders they know will not be obeyed; because disobedience, whatever it's source is corrosive to effective leadership and the CoC. It takes moral courage to say to someone farther up the chain; "Sir, that's nonsense." You may get ordered to pass it along anyways, but in writing and under protest is how it should go. That way, you can be vindicated later when the charges have to be laid (another failure of leadership).
> 
> Moving along; again it's a well-known fact that soldiering tends to produce a right-leaning bent in those who come in contact with it. This is known across most of the world, in diverse cultures. Now; you may come to the army a radical leftist, maybe you only come out a little less-left, but what I find and what others experience supports, especially among combat arms is that most soldiers are noticeably very right-leaning. This in a country where we have these depressing European-style politics of competing socialists, with one party marking out the centre on a good day and calling themselves conservative. That's not a recipe for harmony. An army that trends right and a populace that trends left is going to cause us trouble and we, as leaders must be prepared to deal with it and protect our soldiers however we can.
> 
> Now, finally; when you equate racism and right-wing politics; you are wrong and you are ignorant. Sadly and relevant to my other points; you are also speaking in harmony with our schools and our state media. That isn't the truth though; not only is racism not a possession of the right, it is something commonly felt by many of us who espouse right-wing beliefs. If for no-other reason, in our society of feelings; that should matter for the purposes of fairness; "A Canadian Value", if for no other reason. If that is, we truly wish to represent Canadian values in the CF.
> 
> That kind of language silences people; it drives them to more extreme and more anti-social groups; like real neo-nazis and it is not consistent with effective leadership. Remember always, as we move ever faster towards our Orwellian destiny that the alternative to free speech is violence. In this context, things like the recent riots between pro and anti-immigration groups take on a much deeper, darker meaning. Hatred cannot grow in the light of day without truly massive, broad-based support. It is nurtured in dark corners with quiet whispers. What we're doing here forces people into those dark corners.
> 
> So what do we do? Well, any COA I might suggest has to be coloured by my status as a leader and I, as a leader have a great deal of responsibility to know my people and support their welfare and air their grievances in an appropriate matter with higher authority on their behalf. I have exactly zero responsibility to counsel or punish them for their own privately held beliefs. Although I know there are those in the CF who feel that is exactly their duty. I suggest to those individuals that there yet remain militaries in this world who count political commissars amongst their number. Perhaps they might find greater satisfaction in their lives in such a position, elsewhere.
> 
> So my responsibilities are coloured by the strict letter of the CanForGens which severely limit political action by Canadian Forces members. I couldn't write to my member of parliament as a forces member and be like; "A number of my soldiers are concerned with the direction our country is taking in regards to feminist indoctrination at all levels, the increasingly cult-like nature of our schools, and failure to attract and assimilate people from compatible cultures, could you do something about that?"
> 
> However, perhaps a senior or THE SENIOR member of the CF or one of his or her direct civilian superiors would be well advised, simply from a perspective of interest and responsibility in the manning and morale of the forces to raise a similar message with our enlightened Civilian Masters. A few examples of statements which could usefully be made;
> 
> "our schools are contaminating Canadian youth with values and beliefs which are inimical to their potential usefulness as soldiers."
> "I am concerned for the safety and morale of homosexual members of the Canadian Forces, due to the increasing numbers of violently homophobic immigrants being permitted to reside in the country."
> "I fear for the morale of certain religious members of the Canadian Forces, so long as their faith remains to be held up to mockery and derision by the state media and school system, while other faiths enjoy unusual protection under the law and policies of the current government."
> "I am deeply concerned for the fate of current and former Canadian Forces members who, out of a sense of alienation or as a response to their trauma may be denied certain services due to their misguided membership in various unfavourable organizations. I feel such exclusion will only deepen their trauma and sense of rejection and possibly lead to actions which may harm themselves, others or the reputation of the CF."
> "Many Canadian Forces members are concerned for the safety of their families and the nation as a whole, if better screening of current and potential immigrants for violent, radical beliefs is not initiated."
> 
> This would be much more useful than; your opinions are an embarrassment; get out. Naturally of course, if we're already hip-deep in subjectivism with terms like "Extreme-Right", then whose to say who and what fits in that category? You could be in any group, out of official favour and find yourself in hot water on a whim.
> 
> Soldiers are human; humans have limits and interests. it pays to remember that when fighting or leading them. It's one thing to end up fighting for people who think differently than you; so long as they're part of the bigger population. It's another when those interests seem to control the government, schools, the media, culture, ect.
> 
> I think we've all been in that place; coming back from the field and catching a bit of news and feeling like we're the Legion, guarding the walls of the Empire, while the barbarians batter at the gates and the wind shifts and you can just *Smell* Rome burning behind you. We need to help each other get through that and deal with it, not shun anyone who smells smoke and wonders aloud where it's coming from.
> 
> It's not ideal that my COA involves kicking it upstairs and letting the CDS Or MND handle it, but unfortunately, with the CanForGens how they are, I'm just not going to do myself or anyone else any good at all bringing it up myself. Hell, in this atmosphere of "Get with the program or get out" I'm not sure even a nice memo up the CoC would get me more than career death. But I'm a leader and I wasn't trained to reject my soldiers for anything. Even if they're useless someone else will come take them away, *IF* I fail to remediate their performance. It would be a sin to lose a good soldier to the PC police, we don't have any to spare.



You are right- people will have political beliefs and the army tends to be right leaning. However, as a leader, it is our responsibility to form and build effective teams to accomplish a goal. Part of the "art" of leadership is being able to meld people from different backgrounds, beliefs, cultures, and languages into a single team. Having subordinates in racist groups such as "la meute" goes against not only the CF Code of conduct, values and ethics, and a number of QR&Os/DAODs, it goes against the entire concept of team building and leadership. These people have no role in the military, full stop. Much like the 2Lt in the US who is being kicked out/punished for writing about communism in his hat and having a che guevara shirt on in photos, these people should be shown the door because they, again, have no role or business being in the military. FULL STOP. The pers in "le Meutre", far left-wing, or other far right-wing groups are not "good soldiers".


----------



## mariomike

From the original post,


> The Canadian Armed Forces is warning its personnel to be wary of associating with groups on social media.



I was in the CAF before the internet, but I suspect social media is likely the #1 career killer with certain employers these days.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

mariomike said:
			
		

> From the original post,
> I was in the CAF before the internet, but I suspect social media is likely the #1 career killer with certain employers these days.



Social media only allows people to "out" themselves, though some of the younger people coming through seem to think the internet is a punishment free zone. We need to look no further than the airborne Regiment to know that racism has existed in the CAF in some capacity longer than social media. Whereas in the old days the cretins could keep to themselves in the shacks and largely just annoy those close to them now they're able to let the world know their beliefs.

Leaders in the CAF are expected to uphold the values of the CAF. If they dont, than they are free to leave, and the CAF (aside from possibly a short blip) will be better off for it.


----------



## mariomike

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Whereas in the old days the cretins could keep to themselves in the shacks and largely just annoy those close to them now they're able to let the world know their beliefs.



No harm in a little fishing boat talk among friends, but the Internet may not be the best place for it.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Shrek1985 said:
			
		

> "My country, right or wrong"
> 
> 
> Soldiers, it is known tend to lean farther right of centre than their parent population. This seems to be a near-universal gift of military service. There is something about the elements of pragmatism and the unforgiving nature of our reality that forces this on soldiers across the world. Yet, Canada is a distinctly left-leaning country.



Actually, if you go into the political spectrum theories, right-wing pers tend to be more nationalistic, which explains why more people in the military are right wing vs left wing. Members largely join the military with their belief systems already established, so the "near-universal gift of military service" isn't based in anything to do with the military nor is it an inherent trait of the right.

The Soviet military in the Bolshevik revolution, Russian civil war, and largely in WW2 was left wing and they did ok at dealing with the unforgiving nature of combat.


----------



## mariomike

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Members largely join the military with their belief systems already established,



That may be more common than it once was. I did not have much of a "belief system" when I joined the PRes at age 16.

Other than a paper route, it was my first job. Everyone on my BMQ were high school students ( SSEP ), so we may have been more moldable than some recruits today. They may have more "life experience" than we did.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

The problem with "political spectrum" theory is that, I personally don't believe that it applies much in Canada, or most Parliamentarian system countries.

In Canada, in my view, almost all politics is centrist, and then either a little left or little right. If your positions are in that small portion of the spectrum, you can achieve power after an election, if you don't and don't move there, you can't. It's the old Liberal trick, BTW. Promise on the left end of spectrum but, in office, govern from the centre. The "die-hard" Liberals know that they will govern from the centre so are not worried, while there are usually enough left leaning fools every time to vote for them thinking they will actually deliver. The recipe cannot work for the Conservatives because (1) there are not enough "hard" right people in Canada to try and fool into voting Conservatives and (2) the more centrist people are actually afraid that the Conservatives will deliver extreme right policies even when they don't promise them, or at least enough centrist that are convinced by the Liberals that it will be so, even though just about every Conservative government since WWII has been just as centrist as the Liberals.

Now, to input some facts into the CAF members view discussion: On the larger bases, with on base accommodation for members and families, the polls are usually found on the base. As a result it is possible to get an overall picture of how CAF members vote by reviewing the section by section vote on those bases. The sample is proportionally so large as to deliver an extremely high reliability figure of how CAF members vote.

As far as I know, only one such study has ever been made. It was done by historian Jack Granastein in the late 70's/early 80's, and it reviews data for Post WWII elections to 1968 (inclusive)*. The findings: The members of the CAF consistently voted for the Liberals throughout. No research has been done on this since. However, I consider the following to be anecdotal data supporting the view that this is still the case: When you look at CAF retired members standing for office since 1968, and in particular our more senior officers from Fred Mifflin to Andrew Leslie, and including people such as Mark Garneau and our DefMin Sajan, they for the most part stand under the Liberal banner.

So, personally, I am not at all convinced that overall, the political views of the members of the CAF are much different than the Canadian population's views at large. I rather think that they closely mirror one another.

I think that it would be dangerous to equate the CAF members generally more conservative (small c) personal outlook on life with their actually voting Conservative (capital C).    

*: In one of his essays published in 2013, Prof. Granastein refers to this research of his and to the fact that no other has been made since. I am pretty sure none has been done since 2013.


----------



## dapaterson

Don't forget, CAF electors are supposed to vote in the location identified in their Statement of Ordinary Residence, not where they are domiciled.  Thus, if you enrol in Moose Jaw, unless you change your SOR, you will vote in Moose Jaw, regardless of where you live in Canada or abroad.

So any review of "CAF voting patterns" is going to be incorrect; you can infer that families of CAF (Reg F) members vote Liberal; CAF members themselves, not so much.


(Or, in other words, Granatstein's research was lacking.)


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Dapaterson, since neither you nor I have reviewed the methodology of Prof. Granastein, nor know the exact form that the data he collected and used takes, which may permit to account for members voting preference even with the S.O.R. situation, I suggest it is a little arrogant to claim here that his research was lacking. "Lacking" is after all not a qualification I would assign to research by Prof Granastein without strong evidence it was so.  irate: 

While I have not worked as an Election Canada returning officer on any of the CAF bases, I have done so on more than one occasion at ordinary polling stations. I know for a fact that Elections Canada has forms for everything. Therefore, I very strongly suspect that the CAF members votes cast on base are tabulated in a report for onward transmission to the Chief Electoral Officer, probably in the form of a table listing for a given CFB's all the ridings in Canada for which members have indicated their SOR followed by the vote breakdown by party for each such riding. This would permit the results of the election to be "certified" before the actual ballots cast by CAF members can make their way to the ridings returning officers.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> As far as I know, only one such study has ever been made. It was done by historian Jack Granastein in the late 70's/early 80's, and it reviews data for Post WWII elections to 1968 (inclusive)*.  . . .
> 
> *: In one of his essays published in 2013, Prof. Granastein refers to this research of his and to the fact that no other has been made since. I am pretty sure none has been done since 2013.





			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> (Or, in other words, Granatstein's research was lacking.)



While I'm not a great fan of Granatstein, at the minimum we should not be opining about the rigourousness of his research without, at least, looking at the results of that research.  In the same light, statements about the conclusions of his research should be taken as only anecdotal (or faint remembrance) unless it can be referenced.

However, it did interest me, but was only able to find  one mention in a bibliography.  Wasn't yet able to find an online copy of that particular journal article.


----------



## dapaterson

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> While I have not worked as an Election Canada returning officer on any of the CAF bases, I have done so on more than one occasion at ordinary polling stations. I know for a fact that Elections Canada has forms for everything. Therefore, I very strongly suspect that the CAF members votes cast on base are tabulated in a report for onward transmission to the Chief Electoral Officer, probably in the form of a table listing for a given CFB's all the ridings in Canada for which members have indicated their SOR followed by the vote breakdown by party for each such riding. This would permit the results of the election to be "certified" before the actual ballots cast by CAF members can make their way to the ridings returning officers.



Such information would not be releaseable to researchers, as it would be trivial to associate individuals with their ballot.

My supposition is that Dr G merely extrapolated results from ridings with large military facilities; both he & Dr Morton are typical of Canadian "all star" academics: big fish in a small pond, with reputations that they have started to believe in themselves...


----------



## Michael OLeary

The first few paragraphs of Granatstein's article can be read here, or a copy purchased.

Journal of Canadian Studies
Vol. 4, No. 1, February 1969

http://utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/jcs.4.1.6


----------



## Blackadder1916

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Don't forget, CAF electors are supposed to vote in the location identified in their Statement of Ordinary Residence, not where they are domiciled.  . . .



And if we continue to make the assumption that all Regular Forces members are abiding by Special Voting Rules then it seems that interest in the political process is not that deep in the CF.  Or else, the majority vote in the riding where they are stationed/live.

2008 Election


> Members of the Canadian Forces can vote in a general election by special ballot wherever they are stationed. For a minimum period of three days between September 29 and October 4, 2008, polling stations were set up on Forces bases around the world to give all members the opportunity to vote. There were 62,401 Canadian Forces electors on the lists for the 40th general election. Of them, 23,034 voted but 437 of the ballots had to be rejected. In the end, the ballots of 22,597 Canadian Forces electors were counted.
> 
> Some 4,050 of these electors were unable to vote during the prescribed period because of their assigned military duties. To allow them to vote, the Chief Electoral Officer adapted the Act, extending the Special Voting Rules period.
> 
> Some civilian personnel supporting the Forces in Afghanistan and other locations around the world were disappointed at not being able to vote at the Forces polling stations. According to the legislation, these individuals had to complete an application requesting a special ballot from Elections Canada in Ottawa. Once they completed their ballot, they had to return it to Ottawa by the prescribed deadline


.

2011 Election


> Canadian Forces voting
> 
> Members of the Canadian Forces (CF) can vote by special ballot in a general election wherever they are stationed. For a minimum period of three days between April 18 and April 23, 2011, polling stations were set up on CF bases around the world to give all members the opportunity to vote. Because the military voting period happened to include religious and statutory holidays, some electors may have been on leave. Liaison officers were advised to encourage unit commanding officers to hold voting at the beginning of the military voting period. For the first time, an ad was published in base papers and on the Elections Canada Web site to inform CF members of their voting options.
> 
> Some 4,598 CF electors were unable to vote during the prescribed voting period because of their assigned military duties. To allow them to vote, the Chief Electoral Officer adapted the Canada Elections Act, extending the Special Voting Rules period.
> 
> Some CF members were still unable to vote during the designated military voting period because they were deployed and not able to vote at their military base. The current legislation offers little flexibility when dealing with such situations.
> 
> Approximately 2,500 CF members stationed in Afghanistan voted. The CF helped facilitate voting by special ballot for civilian personnel in Afghanistan.
> 
> There were 65,198 CF electors on the lists for the 41st general election. Of them, 26,667 voted by special ballot but 551 of the ballots were rejected. In the end, the ballots of 26,116 CF electors were counted.



Wasn't able to find a similar statement in the reports for the 2015 election


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Such information would not be releaseable to researchers, as it would be trivial to associate individuals with their ballot.
> 
> My supposition is that Dr G merely extrapolated results from ridings with large military facilities; both he & Dr Morton are typical of Canadian "all star" academics: big fish in a small pond, with reputations that they have started to believe in themselves...



First of all, Dapaterson, the very introductory page of Prof. Granastein's article gracefully provided above by  Michael O'Leary certainly contradicts your supposition, which on a personal note I must say is quite a statement on the ethics of Canadian academics. I would love to know your basis for such a negative view of these people.

Second, Elections Canada releases data all the time in forms that protects the confidentiality of the vote. I would like to point out, however, that what I theorized on does not reveal one's vote. I did not mention, BTW, that there would be any names attached to each vote - something that could not be one anyway. On any given base, there would likely be more than one voter for each riding so all you would have in the table, for instance is "Riding of Pictou-Kicking-Pass (to use a famous Canadian comedian's fake riding): PC = 7, Lib = 16, NDP = 9, etc." The actual ballots, that contain no identification of any member, would be sealed in an envelope and forwarded to that riding for inclusion in case of an official recount. Finally, on a list held only at the base's voting section, there would be an indication beside an individual's name on the local list that he/she (it?) has voted. These list would not go anywhere else.


And Blackadder, you are right in qualifying your statement on the basis of an assumption. These statistics cover only the votes cast by CAF members by way of the special ballots. I can think of three instances where the likelihood is high of the CAF members voting as part of the general public: Most naval NCM's, because they are home-ported either in Halifax or Victoria, put down more permanent roots and likely vote in their actual riding of residence; similarly, I suspect many of the members posted to Ottawa in fields where, while they may change jobs as a result of their posting, will not move out of the National Capital region for a long time; and members on their "retirement" posting that have obtained it at or near the location where they will live in retirement.


----------



## Loachman

I was a Deputy Returning Officer for the military vote in Petawawa in 1983. Almost every single CF Member who came to my desk (one of five or six) enthusiastically stated their intent to "vote the (varied plural expletive) out" or "vote Conservative" or variants of those.


----------



## dapaterson

I fully acknowledge that Dr G's article intro does disqualify some of my inferences and accusations; I withdraw them.

That said, my impressions of much of Canadian academia remain: inward looking, quibbling for status amongst themselves, believing their own press, and lacking the depth of most of their international peers.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> . . .  The actual ballots, that contain no identification of any member, would be sealed in an envelope and forwarded to that riding for inclusion in case of an official recount.  . . .



Not to pick flyshit out of pepper, but the ballots are counted in Ottawa.  Elections Canada have kindly outlined the process of counting the ballots of CF electors and communicating the results on their site.

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=bkg&document=ec90550&lang=e


> Communicating the results
> 
> As soon as the special ballots are counted at Elections Canada in Ottawa, the Special Voting Rules Administrator informs the Chief Electoral Officer of the results of the special ballot vote for each riding. The Chief Electoral Officer totals the results, for each riding, of the vote by special ballot of Canadian Forces electors, Canadian citizens residing outside the country and incarcerated electors; these three categories are designated Group 1. After the polling stations close on polling day, the Group 1 results for each riding are sent to the appropriate returning officer.
> 
> The other category of electors whose votes are counted in Ottawa is that of Canadian residents absent from their ridings. The results of these votes are tallied separately from Group 1 and sent to the appropriate returning officer, who adds this result to the result for electors voting by special ballot in their own ridings. These two categories are designated as Group 2.
> 
> The results of the two groups are reported separately on polling night. All the results of the special ballot votes are then added to the total results for each riding.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> The problem with "political spectrum" theory is that, I personally don't believe that it applies much in Canada, or most Parliamentarian system countries.
> 
> In Canada, in my view, almost all politics is centrist, and then either a little left or little right. If your positions are in that small portion of the spectrum, you can achieve power after an election, if you don't and don't move there, you can't. It's the old Liberal trick, BTW. Promise on the left end of spectrum but, in office, govern from the centre. The "die-hard" Liberals know that they will govern from the centre so are not worried, while there are usually enough left leaning fools every time to vote for them thinking they will actually deliver. The recipe cannot work for the Conservatives because (1) there are not enough "hard" right people in Canada to try and fool into voting Conservatives and (2) the more centrist people are actually afraid that the Conservatives will deliver extreme right policies even when they don't promise them, or at least enough centrist that are convinced by the Liberals that it will be so, even though just about every Conservative government since WWII has been just as centrist as the Liberals.
> 
> Now, to input some facts into the CAF members view discussion: On the larger bases, with on base accommodation for members and families, the polls are usually found on the base. As a result it is possible to get an overall picture of how CAF members vote by reviewing the section by section vote on those bases. The sample is proportionally so large as to deliver an extremely high reliability figure of how CAF members vote.
> 
> As far as I know, only one such study has ever been made. It was done by historian Jack Granastein in the late 70's/early 80's, and it reviews data for Post WWII elections to 1968 (inclusive)*. The findings: The members of the CAF consistently voted for the Liberals throughout. No research has been done on this since. However, I consider the following to be anecdotal data supporting the view that this is still the case: When you look at CAF retired members standing for office since 1968, and in particular our more senior officers from Fred Mifflin to Andrew Leslie, and including people such as Mark Garneau and our DefMin Sajan, they for the most part stand under the Liberal banner.
> 
> So, personally, I am not at all convinced that overall, the political views of the members of the CAF are much different than the Canadian population's views at large. I rather think that they closely mirror one another.
> 
> I think that it would be dangerous to equate the CAF members generally more conservative (small c) personal outlook on life with their actually voting Conservative (capital C).
> 
> *: In one of his essays published in 2013, Prof. Granastein refers to this research of his and to the fact that no other has been made since. I am pretty sure none has been done since 2013.



A debate/discussion on the political spectrum is, tbh, sorely needed in the political threads. I believe that it is a simplistic model that many many many people take too literal and use it to choose "sides" rather than to understand political nuance. 

As for the poll by Mr. Granatstein, I actually don't see any reason to not believe the results. In 1969 it is entirely believable to me that military personnel would support the LPC over the PC party. The post war period saw 3 x Liberal PMs who were largely pro-military. Mackenzie-King wasn't a huge fan of the military, but supported conscription (sort of) and the Canadian war effort in WW2. More importantly Louis St. Laurent presided over arguably the last period in Canadian history where the CAF was a priority.

For his part, Lester B. Pearson's government (in power in until 68) between 2.5 and 3% of GDP on defence. Heck, even the elder Trudeau spent over 2% of GDP on the military in 68, the year of the poll. I believe that it is with the elder trudeau and Chretien where you would see a break in support for the Liberals.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Shrek1985 said:
			
		

> I'll assume you're totally unfamiliar with the axiom of "Never give an order you know will not be obeyed"?
> 
> Okay; so you first have to accept that such a thing is possible and maybe you don't; sometimes orders are issued which are so asinine, so patently useless, so onerous and also so unenforceable that they will not be obeyed.
> 
> What I propose is enforceable and better still; practicable. A Canadian population which would be at peace with the values of soldiers is outside the reach of the military to bring about. A military founded on what passes for Canadian values today would be non-functional on the face of it. Of course, a reasonable person might ask; "Why should we care what values our soldiers possess, if we do not care what values new Canadian immigrants possess? After all; get in enough of them and *our* values will soon be changing, no?" One might also question; "What does it matter what values the military of the first post-national state possess?"
> 
> I would in fact propose, in a brief aside; that in order to preserve the beautiful snowflake nation that we have, that an army as different from the average Canadian as possible would be ideal.
> 
> So my responsibilities are coloured by the strict letter of the CanForGens which severely limit political action by Canadian Forces members. I couldn't write to my member of parliament as a forces member and be like; "A number of my soldiers are concerned with the direction our country is taking in regards to feminist indoctrination at all levels, the increasingly cult-like nature of our schools, and failure to attract and assimilate people from compatible cultures, could you do something about that?"
> 
> Soldiers are human; humans have limits and interests. it pays to remember that when fighting or leading them. It's one thing to end up fighting for people who think differently than you; so long as they're part of the bigger population. It's another when those interests seem to control the government, schools, the media, culture, ect.
> 
> I think we've all been in that place; coming back from the field and catching a bit of news and feeling like we're the Legion, guarding the walls of the Empire, while the barbarians batter at the gates and the wind shifts and you can just *Smell* Rome burning behind you. We need to help each other get through that and deal with it, not shun anyone who smells smoke and wonders aloud where it's coming from.
> 
> But I'm a leader and I wasn't trained to reject my soldiers for anything. Even if they're useless someone else will come take them away, *IF* I fail to remediate their performance. It would be a sin to lose a good soldier to the PC police, we don't have any to spare.



If you are a leader can I assume that you have studied "Duty with Honour?" It was published in 2009 and is found in our leadership courses and unit-level ethics/leadership professional development sessions. What you are saying throughout your post directly contradicts that publication.

Duty with Honour lays out our Canadian Armed Forces' ethos. It states that "Military values must always be in harmony and never in conflict with Canadian values." There are aspects of our military ethos that do distinguish us as members of the military. Our focus on duty, loyalty, integrity and courage makes us a little different. These values are certainly esteemed in general society, but we in the military _must_ live by them. They are not, however, in opposition to Canadian values. 

Unlimited liability, fighting spirit, teamwork, discipline and physical fitness are fundamental beliefs of our military ethos - these set us apart perhaps but they do not isolate us. They amplify things and place certain restrictions on us but they are not in discord with Canadian values.  While we sometimes live different lives than the average Canadian, we are still part of that Canada. Note the emphasis on discipline. 

This is not about thought crimes. The thread is about a prohibition against joining a radical group. Joining that radical group is an action - not a thought. Registering, speaking or blogging are actions. The order to desist from such activity is completely possible to obey. I am comfortable giving orders that my subordinates may not want to follow. As long as the order is legal and in keeping with our ethos I can live with unpopularity. 

I have no idea what you on about regarding being in the Roman Legions and coming home from the field and thinking that "Rome" is burning. I think that you are being melodramatic. I returned to Canada two years ago after a year-long deployment and I feel very happy about my country. 

I realize that this may come across as lecturing. I read and re-read the quoted post and reflected on it yesterday and I feel strongly that I should offer a different view. 

Cheers,

T2B


----------



## ModlrMike

In short: you can't tell people what to think, but you can hold them accountable if they act on that thinking.


----------



## mariomike

I was part of a group that received a simple message from a leader 45 years ago, 
"You come from a society with many prejudices. I cannot change your beliefs, but if you treat anyone with disrespect, I can change your employment!” 

It probably took less than 60 seconds.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Would a CAF member come under fire if he or she belonged to an organization that was considered radical or included hate speech/teachings if the member didn't partake in said language themselves, either in person or on social media?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Would a CAF member come under fire if he or she belonged to an organization that was considered radical or included hate speech/teachings if the member didn't partake in said language themselves, either in person or on social media?



Asking for a friend?


----------



## the 48th regulator

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Would a CAF member come under fire if he or she belonged to an organization that was considered radical or included hate speech/teachings if the member didn't partake in said language themselves, either in person or on social media?



Tango2Bravo made it very clear.  Your actions.  By joining, you are activley supporting that organization.  What would you say if the news found out that Trudeau was a card carrying, up to date member of say the Conservatives, or Antifa, yet kept it very secret?  The public would eat him up alive.

dileas 

tess


----------



## Colin Parkinson

So is Greenpeace a "radical" group?


----------



## the 48th regulator

Colin P said:
			
		

> So is Greenpeace a "radical" group?



I don't know what standard the military uses, as I am out.  When you find out let us know, as that is a great question.


----------



## Jarnhamar

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Asking for a friend?



Ha. Definitely not in the example I'm thinking of (and I even find gun orgs too radicalized for me) 




			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> So is Greenpeace a "radical" group?



Or Peta?

I was going to say how it's interesting that a member would come under fire for simply joining said radical organization (I don't disagree) however certain religious have some pretty serious hate speech built into the books and it's different.


----------



## captloadie

I don't think that the restriction is meant to keep individuals from joining LEGAL organizations, regardless of what that organization holds as its values. The orders being given are that you are not to be identified as CAF member when doing so. So, if I want to join PETA, Greenpeace, the CPC, or the Arian Brotherhood, I must ensure that I don't identify as a CAF member, which means I don't show up to meetings/events, etc. sporting my uniform, ship's ballcap, DND parking pass, etc. Any mail goes to my off base address, and my social media accounts don't have any identifiers (pics, groups, links, etc.) to the CAF.

The bigger issue is whether an individual can truly integrate the CAF values with their own personal beliefs.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Nowadays just belonging is enough, if the link is made by others by searching social media and the brass are questioned on it. 

You may have to define "Legal" better, because I bet an organization like the "Proud boys" would fit the term. "Mainstream" may be what you are referring to. Would attending a meeting hosted by the "Rebel" be enough to get you in hot water? Maybe not now, but maybe later.


----------



## mariomike

Colin P said:
			
		

> You may have to define "Legal" better, because I bet an organization like the "Proud boys" would fit the term.



I don't know what the "Legal" definition would be, but who would want to join?

Proud Boys was founded by a man named Gavin McInnes,
https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/1.777711


----------



## Colin Parkinson

It appears his only real crime against humanity is the invention of the "Man-knot".


----------



## the 48th regulator

captloadie said:
			
		

> I don't think that the restriction is meant to keep individuals from joining LEGAL organizations, regardless of what that organization holds as its values. The orders being given are that you are not to be identified as CAF member when doing so. So, if I want to join PETA, Greenpeace, the CPC, or the Arian Brotherhood, I must ensure that I don't identify as a CAF member, which means I don't show up to meetings/events, etc. sporting my uniform, ship's ballcap, DND parking pass, etc. Any mail goes to my off base address, and my social media accounts don't have any identifiers (pics, groups, links, etc.) to the CAF.
> 
> The bigger issue is whether an individual can truly integrate the CAF values with their own personal beliefs.



The bigger issue is people have proven they can't hence why the directive came out.  I feel you are making an assumption, unless you can correct me with a link to facts, because  As for the aryan brotherhood annallogy, they are not considered a legal friendly group one can join to talkabout knitting white doilies. They are a White Supremacist Prison Gang, and I feel they would fall under the term "Radical".

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/qc/pub/sn-ns/ge-eg-eng.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_Brotherhood

dileas

tess


----------



## daftandbarmy

Colin P said:
			
		

> Nowadays just belonging is enough, if the link is made by others by searching social media and the brass are questioned on it.



That has always been the case. Once upon a time 'they' rounded up 'malcontents' on the basis of membership lists kept by various fringe organizations, you know, like those confounded Bolsheviks!


----------



## Jarnhamar

mariomike said:
			
		

> I don't know what the "Legal" definition would be, but who would want to join?
> 
> Proud Boys was founded by a man named Gavin McInnes,
> https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/1.777711



I find Gavin McInnes insufferable. His shitty articles are the reason I stopped reading The Rebel even in passing.  His articles seem to cater more to (an amateur) Howard Stern shock value attempt and less to journalism.


You ask who would want to join though. When the Proud Boys first surfaced after the protest incident I recall one of their mission statements or whatever was something to do white males being fed up at being blamed for everything wrong in the world.  I'm pretty sure that same message, at least in part, is what catered to a lot of US voters in the last election.


----------



## mariomike

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> When the Proud Boys first surfaced after the protest incident I recall one of their mission statements or whatever was something to do white males being fed up at being blamed for everything wrong in the world.  I'm pretty sure that same message, at least in part, is what catered to a lot of US voters in the last election.



Obama Derangement Syndrome ( ODS ) ?


----------



## McG

Contrary to what the article says, Col Boivin is the 5 CMBG commander and not the base commander but, otherwise, here is his take on why he is not directly taking action against brigade members who may have joined La Meute on Facebook:


> *CFB Valcartier commander disapproves of far-right group La Meute but won't tell soldiers to quit*
> 'What we see goes against our code of conduct,' says Col. Stéphane Boivin, but he can't legally investigate
> 18 Dec 2017
> Catou MacKinnon
> CBC News
> 
> The commander of Canadian Forces Base Valcartier says the values of people in the far-right Facebook group La Meute are in direct contradiction to those of the military, but he's not about to order soldiers to leave the group.
> 
> La Meute — which mean wolf pack in French — takes the position that Quebec's policies of immigration and cultural diversity threaten Quebec society, and its members are particularly worried about Islamic fundamentalism making inroads in the province.
> 
> In an exclusive interview with CBC/Radio-Canada, Col. Stéphane Boivin said the group's values and ideology, from what he has seen in the media and in recent protests in Quebec City, contradict the Armed Forces' code of conduct.
> 
> "The Armed Forces are about integration, diversity, freedom of speech, freedom of culture, freedom of religion, freedom of sexual orientation," said Boivin.
> 
> "Some of those groups that have ideas and ideologies which are against the Canadian Armed Forces' approach, they are certainly not entertained."
> 
> But he said he doesn't believe he has to single out the group specifically and order people to leave it.
> 
> "They all understand which groups are not reflecting the Canadian values. It could be La Meute, it could be another, I don't need to be specific."
> 
> Since a November investigation by Radio-Canada into the "members-only" section of the online group, 20 members of the Canadian Armed Forces have left the group and 50 remain.
> 
> "I'm certainly happy that you can confirm that people have left, because they realized it was not the right thing to do," said Boivin.
> 
> He said soldiers who want to take part in a political, social or networking group need to ask permission from the Force's director of ethics, who in turn acts on his recommendation.
> 
> Boivin said he would never recommend a request to join La Meute, and he's received no such requests to date.
> 
> Boivin took command of CFB Valcartier, about 25 kilometres northwest of Quebec City, in June 2017.
> 
> It's the fifth time he has been posted to the base, and he said he's never heard anyone make disparaging remarks about Muslims.
> 
> Boivin said when he took over at Valcartier, he spoke to each unit about his philosophy of command, telling soldiers they were expected to follow the 2012 Code of Conduct.
> 
> Boivin said he has sent a clear message to those under his command — some of whom will be deployed to Muslim countries such as Iraq over the next 18 months.
> 
> "I didn't have to mention the Meute, I did explain what I was expecting. I had nothing specific to say about the Meute itself, just groups in general."
> 
> Boivin added it's impossible for him, or anyone in the Armed Forces, to investigate what groups soldiers belong to unless someone brings it to their attention and supplies them with a name.
> 
> "Collecting intelligence is illegal from an open-source domain for the Canadian Armed Forces, according to a regulation established in 2014," he said.
> 
> If the Armed Forces finds someone has infringed the code of conduct, that person is subject to administrative and disciplinary measures, up to and including a court martial, he said.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/cfb-valcartier-meute-investigate-1.4452235


----------



## Eye In The Sky

> "Collecting intelligence is illegal from an open-source domain for the Canadian Armed Forces, according to a regulation established in 2014," he said.



What regulation is this one, exactly?


----------



## Jarnhamar

> "The Armed Forces are about integration, diversity, freedom of speech, freedom of culture, freedom of religion, freedom of sexual orientation,"



  :


----------



## MARS

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> What regulation is this one, exactly?



Perhaps this one...
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/AnnualStatutes/2014_17/

It appears to be the only 2014 update remotely related to his comments, but I still don't see what he means.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> :



Why the eye roll? The CAF should absolutely stand for all of those things for two reasons- first, our society does and we represent them not vice versa. Second, we want the best soldiers and that includes all those groups.


----------



## Strike

> He said soldiers who want to take part in a political, social or networking group need to ask permission from the Force's director of ethics, who in turn acts on his recommendation.



This is something new to me...


----------



## Jarnhamar

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Why the eye roll? The CAF should absolutely stand for all of those things for two reasons- first, our society does and we represent them not vice versa. Second, we want the best soldiers and that includes all those groups.



-It sounded like a typical canned response to me. 
-As an organization we may fight FOR freedom of speech but I don't see our members enjoying it all that much (see Strikes post).  I'm quite confident I'll be published for "liking" the wrong thing on Facebook.
-I find it hypocritical that we'll condemn or investigate members for belonging to these groups  (as dumb as they are I find personally) yet give a free pass to a religion who's teachings drastically conflict the whole freedom of culture, sexual orientation, diversity stuff.

In hindsight Im surprised and impressed by how the CAF is handling this.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

History, including modern, is replete with organizations that were outlawed because of government bias. Masons and Knight Templar come to mind. Even today, Masons are penalized and outcast in some societies. Leaving the government to decide who you can and cannot associate with is dangerous.

And whoever decided that being, Canadian, white, proud and patriotic is some sort of plague that people can't voice an opinion about.


----------



## Cloud Cover

recceguy said:
			
		

> And whoever decided that being, Canadian, white, proud and patriotic is some sort of plague that people can't voice an opinion about.


Constance Backhouse ( the Honourable). And Rosie Abella. And Justin Trudeau. And many boot licking cuck generals, police chiefs, etc. 
People want to talk about powerless and semi stateless. Talk to a white blue collar man of any age in this country. #truthisevil


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Constance Backhouse ( the Honourable). And Rosie Abella. And Justin Trudeau. And many boot licking cuck generals, police chiefs, etc.
> People want to talk about powerless and semi stateless. Talk to a white blue collar man of any age in this country. #truthisevil



A quick read of my political posts will leave no doubt about where I stand on those.


----------



## a_majoor

The real issue is who, exactly, is defining what is a "radical" group? As we see in a different context, Laurier University allowed a Maoist "Struggle Session" to be undertaken against TA Lindsey Shepherd because she failed to "denounce" Professor Jordan Peterson prior to showing a 2 minute clip of him debating another person on a TVO show. Now imagine people with this mindset looking at who _you_ associate with or what _you_ say or do.....

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/christie-blatchford-thought-police-strike-again-as-wilfrid-laurier-grad-student-is-chastised-for-showing-jordan-peterson-video

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/christie-blatchford-investigators-report-into-wilfrid-laurier-universit-vindicates-lindsay-shepherd


----------



## Cloud Cover

recceguy said:
			
		

> A quick read of my political posts will leave no doubt about where I stand on those.



I don't have to do that. I met you once.  I think the only thing I didn't agree on was what you were drinking, which appeared to be some sort of old tank engine oil  :cheers:


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

recceguy said:
			
		

> History, including modern, is replete with organizations that were outlawed because of government bias. Masons and Knight Templar come to mind. Even today, Masons are penalized and outcast in some societies. Leaving the government to decide who you can and cannot associate with is dangerous.
> 
> And whoever decided that being, Canadian, white, proud and patriotic is some sort of plague that people can't voice an opinion about.



I dont think that anyone is saying that you can't be "Canadian, white, proud, and patriotic" what I think they're saying is that if you want to be a member of le meute do so outside of the CAF. The CAF, after all, isn't a right- like any other employer.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Freedom of association.  No?


----------



## Kat Stevens

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Freedom of association.  No?



Also guilt by association.


----------



## mariomike

"An investigation by Radio-Canada found about 75 members of La Meute's private Facebook group are part of the Armed Forces, with some visibly identified by their military uniform."

Regarding Facebook, if applying to certain employers,

"Oakville ( ON ) resident Rob MacLeod had breezed through the early stages of the interview process and become a finalist for a police job when he was lobbed a question he hadn’t anticipated: 

What is your Facebook password?"
https://www.thestar.com/business/2012/03/20/would_you_reveal_your_facebook_password_for_a_job.html

"So when the request came, MacLeod offered to log in to his Facebook account and then leave the room so the interviewer could browse his page.

But he says the interviewer remained firm — he wanted the password. After a few minutes, MacLeod gave it to him."

I've also heard of some emergency services interviewers asking applicants to "friend" them on Facebook.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> * I dont think that anyone is saying that you can't be "Canadian, white, proud, and patriotic" * what I think they're saying is that if you want to be a member of le meute do so outside of the CAF. The CAF, after all, isn't a right- like any other employer.



What happens if you start posting that you're a patriotic proud white Canadian?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> What happens if you start posting that you're a patriotic proud white Canadian?



hey, no one likes a xenophobe man!!  not cool!!  you should be discharged for that!   ;D


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> you're a patriotic proud white Canadian?



You must be the last one! Good on you, you have now also achieved being special in your membership of a single individual category.   ;D

And when every body is special ... then nobody will be. (dixit Syndrome, in "The Incredibles").


----------



## Journeyman

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> What happens if you start posting that you're a patriotic proud white Canadian?


I happen to be all four of those adjectives;  I just never felt a need to make posts about it, wear a t-shirt proclaiming it, or hassle other people for lacking those attributes.

   :dunno:


----------



## Infanteer

...or that any of them need to be intrinsically linked.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> hey, no one likes a xenophobe man!!  not cool!!  you should be discharged for that!   ;D



Holy crap I didn't mean me. Don't send the GBA QRF!  I think it's silly to be proud of your race because you have absolutely no control over it.  

I'm saying if someone  started posting they're proud of being white you better believe people will label them a racist. It's a double standard.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I happen to be all four of those adjectives;  I just never felt a need to make posts about it, wear a t-shirt proclaiming it, or hassle other people for lacking those attributes.
> 
> :dunno:



Hummmmm, no Canadian flags or maple leaf tattoos? Truly?    ;D


----------



## a_majoor

mariomike said:
			
		

> "An investigation by Radio-Canada found about 75 members of La Meute's private Facebook group are part of the Armed Forces, with some visibly identified by their military uniform."
> 
> Regarding Facebook, if applying to certain employers,
> 
> "Oakville ( ON ) resident Rob MacLeod had breezed through the early stages of the interview process and become a finalist for a police job when he was lobbed a question he hadn’t anticipated:
> 
> What is your Facebook password?"
> https://www.thestar.com/business/2012/03/20/would_you_reveal_your_facebook_password_for_a_job.html
> 
> "So when the request came, MacLeod offered to log in to his Facebook account and then leave the room so the interviewer could browse his page.
> 
> But he says the interviewer remained firm — he wanted the password. After a few minutes, MacLeod gave it to him."
> 
> I've also heard of some emergency services interviewers asking applicants to "friend" them on Facebook.



I'm a bit dubious about the legality of asking for a password on a personal, non work account, or for having anyone demand you "friend" them as a condition of employment. Since I don't partake of social media like Facebook, I don't have to worry too much, but I'd certainly change the password immediately upon leaving the interview, and use whatever minimalistic security features exist on FB if someone demanded to be placed on my page to isolate them as much as possible were that to be the case.

I have no illusions that anything done on a _work_ computer cam be monitored, and social media is open enough that anyone can "drop in" and view your page at will without being a friend or having your password, so if you choose to be stupid (i.e. posting your amazing rock climbing adventure on the same day you called in sick to work) then you will bear the consequences.

WRT freedom of speech, if you are willing to say something, then you should also have the arguments to back it up. If you disagree with something, then you also should have the arguments to refute the issue in dispute. London's Mayor Matt Brown used the opposite approach by essentially calling out a mob to shout down a Free Speech rally in London, which was cowardly (he didn't have the arguments to refute the free speechers), and stupid (now the bar is lowered, what happens when a mob decides they don't like what Matt Brown is saying?). 

This should also be true for employment. Obviously shilling for a competitor or saying or doing something to hurt your company's reputation (narrowly defined) is wrong, and should get you fired, but political speech outside of the workplace isn't one of those areas IMO. The CF and Public Service is the one exception where political speech is exempt, since we work for the Government. If we disagree with Government policy, we are always free to resign and speak publicly as citizens.


----------



## mariomike

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I'm a bit dubious about the legality of asking for a password on a personal, non work account, or for having anyone demand you "friend" them as a condition of employment.



"There are currently no laws in Ontario prohibiting employers from asking job candidates for Facebook passwords."
https://www.thestar.com/business/2012/03/20/would_you_reveal_your_facebook_password_for_a_job.html

It's just a municipal job interview. You don't _have_  to give them your password, or "friend" them.

And they don't have to offer you a job either.  



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> The CF and Public Service is the one exception where political speech is exempt, since we work for the Government.



If you do get the job, you can get involved in federal and provincial campaign activities. ( When off-duty and not in uniform. ) But, not elections for the municipal government you are employed by.




			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> If we disagree with Government policy, we are always free to resign and speak publicly as citizens.



 :goodpost:

"If you work for a man, in heaven's name work for him, speak well of him, and stand by the institution he represents. Remember, an ounce of loyalty is worth a pound of cleverness. If you must growl, condemn, and eternally find fault - resign your position, and when you are outside, damn to your heart's content - but as long as you are part of the institution, do not condemn it. If you do, the first high wind that comes along will blow you away, and probably you will never know why."

E. Hubbard


----------



## brihard

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I'm a bit dubious about the legality of asking for a password on a personal, non work account, or for having anyone demand you "friend" them as a condition of employment. Since I don't partake of social media like Facebook, I don't have to worry too much, but I'd certainly change the password immediately upon leaving the interview, and use whatever minimalistic security features exist on FB if someone demanded to be placed on my page to isolate them as much as possible were that to be the case.



Police services are able to justify a lot in the context of determining reliability and suitability. There are unique demands and expectations applied to police officers by virtue of their need to retain their credibility in all manners of enforcing the law and protecting the public as well as abiding by their responsibility as agents of the state to respect rights of individuals and groups.


----------



## jollyjacktar

In college, it was drummed into our heads that whatever bias or beliefs you might carry around get put aside once you put on your uniform and start work.  Everyone was to be treated fairly, correctly and professionally and you were to be colour blind as to the citizen's skin tone etc.  I always adhered to that structure and was nice until it became time to not be nice, if it came to that.  It was a fairly easy standard to meet and hold for me.


----------



## Journeyman

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Hummmmm, no Canadian flags or maple leaf tattoos? Truly?    ;D


Well OK, _one_  tattoo has a maple leaf....  but it's not commonly visible.    :cheers:


----------



## mariomike

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> In college, it was drummed into our heads that whatever bias or beliefs you might carry around get put aside once you put on your uniform and start work.



Similar to what they told us, "You come from a society with many prejudices. We won't try to change your beliefs. But, if you treat anyone with disrespect, we will change your employment."

They did too.


----------



## daftandbarmy

mariomike said:
			
		

> "If you work for a man, in heaven's name work for him, speak well of him, and stand by the institution he represents. Remember, an ounce of loyalty is worth a pound of cleverness. If you must growl, condemn, and eternally find fault - resign your position, and when you are outside, damn to your heart's content - but as long as you are part of the institution, do not condemn it. If you do, the first high wind that comes along will blow you away, and probably you will never know why."
> 
> E. Hubbard



OTOH:  ;D

"There is a great deal of talk about loyalty from the bottom to the top. Loyalty from the top down is even more necessary and much less prevalent. One of the most frequently noted characteristics of great men who have remained great is loyalty to their subordinates." Patton, War As I Knew It (1947)


----------



## jollyjacktar

And the statue of the man behind all the angst is currently being removed from the park.

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/nova-scotia/cornwallis-statue-removal-1.4511858


----------



## Eaglelord17

I find it interesting how whenever the statue is brought up it is always a negative because he issued a scalping proclamation. What is ignored whenever this is brought up was his attempts to make peace and avoid war with the Mi'kmaw. Ultimately the scalping proclamation was a response to the raids on his people and was a reactive measure.

 I don't mind them putting up the history, but I do mind when it is only a selective part of the story.


----------



## jollyjacktar

That's not part of the narrative.


----------



## Eaglelord17

Recently saw this article come up, guess not everyone is happy reading the propaganda coming out of most news outlets today.

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/the-true-history-of-cornwallis-shows-hes-more-a-victim-than-a-villain


----------



## McG

There is an interesting new CANFORGEN on military conduct and the subject of this thread.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> Recently saw this article come up, guess not everyone is happy reading the propaganda coming out of most news outlets today.
> 
> http://nationalpost.com/opinion/the-true-history-of-cornwallis-shows-hes-more-a-victim-than-a-villain



Excellent article, thanks.


----------



## EpicBeardedMan

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> Recently saw this article come up, guess not everyone is happy reading the propaganda coming out of most news outlets today.
> 
> http://nationalpost.com/opinion/the-true-history-of-cornwallis-shows-hes-more-a-victim-than-a-villain



Informative article, didn't know any of that. Thanks for the share!


----------



## pbi

EpicBeardedMan said:
			
		

> Informative article, didn't know any of that. Thanks for the share!



I'm a bit torn on this "monument removal" business, but in general I don't agree with it.

On the one hand, I understand that no public figure of any significance is painted with one brush, and that people who did great things for our country may also have done negligent or even harmful things. I also get it that First Nations want their story to be understood, beyond the level of a John Wayne western. Seen.

On the other hand... A few weeks ago I drove past the Sir John A. statue in City Park here in Kingston, only to see that it had been defaced with red painted slogans.  Now, I am maybe what some people on this site might call "a useless liberal flopper", but the sight of that defacement made me furious. I saw no useful purpose to it at all, and no moral superiority over any equivalent "right-wing" stupidity such as La Meute might dream up. Whatever we may want to say about Sir John, we would probably not be a country without him, and arguably we would have fallen under the spiked wheels of Manifest Destiny. Trashing him in a blind, dogmatic way (while shouting down any dissenting opinions or reasoned questioning as "racism" or "colonialism") leads us nowhere good. Backlash may be inevitable.

Where, exactly, does this stop? Who gets to pull down what monument to whom? I mean, we all get offended by something, right? Let's tear down the South African War monuments! The Boers don't like them! (And, really, in honesty, that war WAS little more than naked imperial aggression dressed up in Imperial jingoism, but, anyway...). And what about all those WW1 and WW2 monuments: what do Germans and Italians and Japanese feel about those? But I think you get my point.

So what? So first of all stop drawing direct moral equivalencies between public figures who offend us, and, let's say, Hitler or Saddam Hussein or other monsters. There are degrees of evil and harm. Apply some reasonable balance between positive and negative achievements. And, if after proper research we find verifiable historical fact that a public figure really did bad things, then by all means City Council can post a historical information plaque nearby stating these historical facts. No worries there, if it's true.

But let's stop this silly nonsense of trying to rewrite history by tearing down the statues of people who helped us become the country we are, warts and all.


----------



## Jarnhamar

pbi said:
			
		

> Where, exactly, does this stop? Who gets to pull down what monument to whom? I mean, we all get offended by something, right? Let's tear down the South African War monuments! The Boers don't like them! (And, really, in honesty, that war WAS little more than naked imperial aggression dressed up in Imperial jingoism, but, anyway...). And what about all those WW1 and WW2 monuments: what do Germans and Italians and Japanese feel about those? But I think you get my point.



[quote author=pbi]
But let's stop this silly nonsense of trying to rewrite history by tearing down the statues of people who helped us become the country we are, warts and all.
[/quote]

This is exactly how I feel and the point I was trying to make. Where does it stop?  Do we rename Kingston because it sounds too much like Kings Town? And that's not gender neutral? 

I just seen (saw?) a video where a woman speaking to our PM was making a passionate question about something and when SHE said mankind the PM interrupted her to say "We like to say People-kind". Which is ridiculous because no one uses that except for Tumblr wackos.  Same sort of virtue signalling IMO.

Instead of tearing down statues put up a plaque explaining how much of an asshole someone was or whatever. Build on the truth and impartialness (is that a word?) of our history, don't whitewash it.

I'm surprised we haven't  started talking about trashing our Afghanistan monuments because of Islamophobia.


----------



## AKa

My personal view is that we should evaluate these sort of monuments based on why/how we remember that individual and the historical context of the monument.  For example, I think the POTUS comparing statues of George Washington with those of Confederate generals is specious.  George Washington is revered as a founding father and the first President.  The fact that he and other leaders of the era were slave owners is not why he is celebrated.  The statues of him have generally been the products of patriotic fervour.  

Confederate generals were leaders in a rebellion against the legitimate government, a rebellion mostly seated in the desire to maintain the institution of slavery.  Many of the statues commemorating these men were also created at times when the African American population were pushing for more rights, so I don't think that it is unfair to believe that at least part of the purpose was to remind "those people" of their proper place, and to celebrate a time and place where people were possessions.  

I can completely understand how these statues can be a painful thorn in the side in the sides of modern minorities.  Cornwallis's story is not clear-cut and maybe the best place for him is in a museum with all the facts laid out, the good beside the ugly.

My  :2c:


----------



## pbi

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> This is exactly how I feel and the point I was trying to make. Where does it stop?  Do we rename Kingston because it sounds too much like Kings Town? And that's not gender neutral?
> 
> I'm surprised we haven't  started talking about trashing our Afghanistan monuments because of Islamophobia.



Or stop recalling our exploits in the War of 1812 because that will offend...That Unnamed Country That Didn't Conquer Canada.. :tsktsk:

On a similar dismal note, a well-known pub downtown recently renamed itself from "Sir John A's" because that might offend people (there was actually some sort of demonstration earlier, against the pub's name).   Don't frequent it myself, but from what I've seen of the clientele most of them probably didn't support that move, but maybe I'm stereotyping.

I would say though, that maybe we are walking along the edge of a slippery slope here with our views. Some people would tag  our expressions as racist, or colonialist or part of the "settler narrative". I don't believe any of that, but I also have no time for the  part of society represented by La Meute, the Klan, StormFront, the jabbering Islamophobes, or any of that lot of gutter fascists. 

I don't want to automatically align myself with one side just because I question the other: that is bumper-sticker thinking of the worst variety. It's a question of reason and balance, like most important things in life.


----------



## mariomike

pbi said:
			
		

> And what about all those WW1 and WW2 monuments: what do Germans and Italians and Japanese feel about those?



I think there is one that Japanese-Canadians should feel proud of:
https://www.google.ca/search?rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-CA%3AIE-Address&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&dcr=0&ei=mMl5WqFRjN-OBMDgiIAK&q=%22Japanese+Canadian+War+Memorial%22&oq=%22Japanese+Canadian+War+Memorial%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i7i30k1j0j0i30k1l3.4354.7874.0.8347.2.2.0.0.0.0.416.553.0j1j4-1.2.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.2.549...0i22i30k1.0.lYuLVv5QI_c


----------



## Remius

AK said:
			
		

> I can completely understand how these statues can be a painful thorn in the side in the sides of modern minorities.  Cornwallis's story is not clear-cut and maybe the best place for him is in a museum with all the facts laid out, the good beside the ugly.
> 
> My  :2c:



Gettysburg is a good example on how they handle history.  Everything is in context.  Confederate statues and flags fly there.  Most if not all is explained.  No one has to go there if they are offended by the sight of those things.  It is a place of history and more importantly it tries to be a place of reconciliation.  I recommend anyone go and give it a visit if they happen to be nearby.

The things is that people don't know their history from propaganda.  What happens when we look at history through unbiased eyes and scientific discovery? What happens when we find out heroes are villains and villains are heroes?  Do we have a responsibility to correct that?  Or just carry on in ignorance? 

Take General Custer.  That man was a hero for decades until a more careful look beyond the propaganda actually makes him out to be an idiot.  A brave idiot who got himself and his men killed.  But for the longest time he was a brave symbol of American courage in taming the west. 

I look at the whole statue from a more clinical view.  It was put up in 1931 during the depression as a means of reinforcing British Imperialism.  He was pretty ineffective and was removed from his post.  No one is denying he founded Halifax but I doubt he needs a statue to commemorate that and really his statue wasn't really put there for that reason either.  I think in a museum or at the citadel they have there in Halifax with a plaque stating he founded Halifax and was a controversial figure etc etc is fine. 

Most people have no idea who he is/was anyways.  it's local politics really.   

History is always complicated but until 1931 no one felt the need to commemorate him in any real fashion and even then it was a fringe group asking for it, so meh...


----------



## Edward Campbell

AK said:
			
		

> My personal view is that we should evaluate these sort of monuments based on why/how we remember that individual and the historical context of the monument ...  Cornwallis's story is not clear-cut and maybe the best place for him is in a museum with all the facts laid out, the good beside the ugly.
> 
> My  :2c:




That's a very good, insightful post and I agree with it ...

The problem is that many and sundry _*progressives*_ do not. They are not interested in having "all the facts laid out," in fact they want none of the facts at all because they have a _legend_ based narrative which, they hope, they can repeat over and over and over again until we all come to accept it as true.

Museums and scholars are the bitter enemies of the_* progressives*_ because all those pesky facts get in the way of the new "revealed truth."

We have law-courts that have, in good faith, bent over backwards to accept some legends as historically _near enough_ to being factual in order to provide some sort of framework for providing redress for things that happened centuries in the past. That's not enough: we are required, now, to accept that whatever certain groups say is gospel truth, even when it is, demonstrably, historical rubbish. But the _*progressive*_ narrative, for now, posits that everyone (except those brought here as slaves) whose ancestors were not settled here, in Canada, before 1608 (as aboriginal people, in other words) shares, somehow, in being guilty of a monstrous crime against humanity. No other view can be tolerated.

Does that mean that all First Nations' claims that are based on their own oral history are invalid? Of course not. We must accept three things:

     First, some French and Brits and Canadians did quite dreadful things to our First Nations and some redress is owed for legitimate grievances;

     Second, some oral history is, almost certainly, grounded in historical fact; and

     Third, 250 years ago First Nations and Europeans were, still, talking _*at*_ one another, talking _*past*_ one another not talking _*with*_ one another.

First Nations have a right to believe that they have been lied to, cheated and robbed ~ deprived for centuries of what was promised to them. What, _in my opinion_, they do not have a right to do is to revise history without some reference to the actual facts.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> we are required, now, to accept that whatever certain groups say is gospel truth, even when it is, demonstrably, historical rubbish. But the _*Insert any religious authority*_ narrative, for now, posits that everyone  shares, somehow, in being guilty of a monstrous crime against humanity. No other view can be tolerated.



There, I slightly modified your text and it fits perfectly with all religious based faith and imposition on the world, especially the Christian one with the stupid concept of original sin passed down the line for ever (eating from the fruit of knowledge, for those who don't know: knowledge and science are crimes as far as the catholic/christian faiths are concerned). 

But this is digression. I believe that there is at least one College/University in the US that adopted a very interesting process, with proper historian and similar scholars, amongst others, siting in judgement, so to speak, and reviewing requests for historical "erasures' before they are made, and providing guideline for where and when it is appropriate for such historical figures to be removed from public view. Those guidelines balance the good and the bad about such historical figures in coming to a decision.

In view of the increase in such requests in Canada and the number of time local (and even National) leaders decide to act without consultation just to be either seen to be doing something "progressive" or to avoid the public hounding of those seeking the redress (however small a minority they may be), perhaps it is time to have a debate and actually come out with an Act of Parliament on setting a proper process that will give due credit to ALL facts before coming to a conclusion on erasure or removal.


----------



## FJAG

Remius said:
			
		

> . . .
> The things is that people don't know their history from propaganda.  What happens when we look at history through unbiased eyes and scientific discovery? What happens when we find out heroes are villains and villains are heroes?  Do we have a responsibility to correct that?  Or just carry on in ignorance?
> 
> Take General Custer.  That man was a hero for decades until a more careful look beyond the propaganda actually makes him out to be an idiot.  A brave idiot who got himself and his men killed.  But for the longest time he was a brave symbol of American courage in taming the west.
> . . .



I agree with much in the last few posts and this element goes a long way to prove the point when you look under the surface.

Custer was actually a fairly good officer recognized for his competence and bravery during the Civil War. After his death at The Little Big Horn he was nearly deified by the writings of his widow Libbie. There were, of course, early questions about his tactics there (mostly fueled by the Reno advocates) but in general he was viewed very favourably by the public. 

That heroic status stayed in the public eye for nearly a century as shown in such films as the 1941 "They Died With Their Boots On." But starting in the late 1960s and 1970s a change came about when he became the poster boy for the anti-war movement as the symbol of military arrogance and ineptitude. Such films as the 1970 "Little Big Man" portrayed Custer in a very negative light.

I've studied the Black Hills Expedition campaign, and the Battle of the Little Big Horn which was a part of it, and while one can criticise aspects of both, they were not out of line considering the quality of the troops, the tactics in use and the intelligence available at the time.

One can have lengthy academic arguments about whether Custer's arrogance caused a large part of his command to die on the bluffs overlooking the Little Big Horn or whether it was simply overcome as a result of circumstances and a better opponent but I think what is really clear is that Custer's decline in reputation was not as a result of studied academic debates but from a much wider propaganda/revisionism/anti-establishment movement that occurred in America during the Vietnam War where numerous once revered government and public institutions and personalities were being torn down.

The problem we are seeing now in the case of Cornwallis and John A is of that nature. Small vocal groups push and push their personal/group agendas and governments without spines follow the path of least resistance. The trouble is that as a society we have become uneducated. We no longer remember what these symbols meant or how hard it was at the time to build this nation. We no longer know what is worth fighting for and we are too easily led astray by populist jingoism that circulates in the main stream media as well as on the web. We, collectively, are entirely too influenced by the most recent "outrage" that is pushed to our attention and then, without thinking it through, we react.

I often think that things were better when communications moved slowly and opinions didn't build to a critical mass overnight.

 :cheers:


----------



## Old Sweat

I agree with FJAG, especially his last paragraph. Remember, among others, the bogus attack on the schoolgirl in Toronto and the rapid, and incorrect, reaction to it by people who should have known better.

I have also studied Custer's last campaign and visited the battleground. He was audacious and a bit of a gambler. Custer's Luck was a well-used saying of the time. He had gambled and won on a number of occasions in the Civil War and in the west, but this time the odds caught up with him. Because of the shape of the ground he rode into a trap of his own making and the five Troops (tactical term) with him were largely unable to support one another and were overwhelmed in turn.


----------



## Remius

Those are good points FJAG.  

Maybe idiot is too harsh a term for me to use.  The point is that his legacy benefitted from strong and good propaganda, propaganda he himself set up.  Journalists loved him and he loved having them with him.  He also wrote a lot of his own stuff, not unlike Julius Caesar did during his campaigns in Gaul.

His defenders at the time had the benefit of popularity. 

Your point about the anti war sentiments of the 70s is valid and yes, we have to guard against that sort of revisionism but there are many works after that period that are just as critical.

Grant and Sheridan at the time thought he was at fault.  That the last stand was brought on by him and completely unnecessary and that his actions lead to the deaths of his men.

But that kind of description flies in the face of the propaganda.


----------



## FJAG

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> . . .
> I have also studied Custer's last campaign and visited the battleground.
> . . .



Off on one of my usual  ff topic: diversions.

Little Big Horn is one of those battles where you really can't understand it unless you have seen the ground. Movies always make it look like a prairie when in fact the various bluffs are massive, the gullies deep chasms and the lines of sight in the low and mid ground obscured by the terrain. (It's also the only place where I've been where there's a sign beside the path that says "Rattlesnakes: Stay on path!" which is immediately followed by a sign that says "Rattlesnakes like to sun themselves on the path!")

There are untold books about the battle that come out on both sides of the debate but for my money, one of the best and most even-handed is Richard A. Fox's Archaeology, History, and Custer's Last Battle: The Little Big Horn Reexamined. (1993) 

https://www.amazon.com/Archaeology-History-Custers-Last-Battle/dp/0806124962/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&qid=1517945853&sr=8-15&keywords=little+big+horn+books

Fox's premise is that the archaeology strongly suggests that the defeat wasn't so much arrogance or bad tactics on Custer's part but a sudden company by company disintegration of tactical stability within Custer's five company battalion which was grounded in several factors.

 :cheers:


----------



## Remius

FJAG said:
			
		

> Off on one of my usual  ff topic: diversions.
> 
> Little Big Horn is one of those battles where you really can't understand it unless you have seen the ground. Movies always make it look like a prairie when in fact the various bluffs are massive, the gullies deep chasms and the lines of sight in the low and mid ground obscured by the terrain. (It's also the only place where I've been where there's a sign beside the path that says "Rattlesnakes: Stay on path!" which is immediately followed by a sign that says "Rattlesnakes like to sun themselves on the path!")
> 
> There are untold books about the battle that come out on both sides of the debate but for my money, one of the best and most even-handed is Richard A. Fox's Archaeology, History, and Custer's Last Battle: The Little Big Horn Reexamined. (1993)
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Archaeology-History-Custers-Last-Battle/dp/0806124962/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&qid=1517945853&sr=8-15&keywords=little+big+horn+books
> 
> :cheers:



If you want as unbiased account as you might be able to find, The Real Custer: From Boy General to Tragic Hero by James S. Robbins is pretty good.  Took me a while to get through, not because it was particularly hard but I have a tendency to read too many books at once.

Off topic as well, sorry but I think these discussions and recommendations are healthy given the current debate on history.


----------



## Jarnhamar

[quote author=pbi]

I would say though, that maybe we are walking along the edge of a slippery slope here with our views. Some people would tag  our expressions as racist, or colonialist or part of the "settler narrative".[/quote]
That's pretty much debating SOPs. Hitler racist settler blah blah



> I don't believe any of that, but I also have no time for the  part of society represented by La Meute, the Klan, StormFront, the jabbering Islamophobes,


The first 3 of 4 examples you give have pretty straight forward beliefs and views.  Islamophobia is a BS scare tactic. The word doesn't even have an official meaning and is so ambiguous it can include simple (and legitimate) criticism.


----------



## pbi

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> That's pretty much debating SOPs. Hitler racist settler blah blah
> The first 3 of 4 examples you give have pretty straight forward beliefs and views.  Islamophobia is a BS scare tactic. The word doesn't even have an official meaning and is so ambiguous it can include simple (and legitimate) criticism.



Seen. But I think you see where I was trying to go with that. Just because I want to ask reasonable questions or challenge positions held by a certain group or community, doesn't mean I automatically side with their opponents.

For example, if I question corrupt, disgraceful, stupid and brutal behaviour by certain police officers, it doesn't mean "I hate the police". After all, I'm a middle-aged, middle class, property-owning, Scotch-drinking white male. I pretty much like law and order.  I support the police: I just want them to behave.

Or, on the other end, if I question why a certain community in a certain city seems to account for 98% of its gun homicides and drive-by shootings, and I don't automatically accept the premise that it's because they're "oppressed", now I'm a "racist".

Where is wisdom and judgement in all this?


----------



## mariomike

pbi said:
			
		

> I support the police: I just want them to behave.



It can get expensive for taxpayers.

From 2013,

Toronto police paid $27 million in lawsuit claims
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/10/11/toronto_police_paid_27_million_in_lawsuit_claims.html


----------



## dapaterson

See also: Baltimore.


----------



## pbi

I want to go on record as having no intentions of starting a police-bashing thread.... :


----------



## Jarnhamar

pbi said:
			
		

> Seen. But I think you see where I was trying to go with that. Just because I want to ask reasonable questions or challenge positions held by a certain group or community, doesn't mean I automatically side with their opponents.
> 
> For example, if I question corrupt, disgraceful, stupid and brutal behaviour by certain police officers, it doesn't mean "I hate the police". After all, I'm a middle-aged, middle class, property-owning, Scotch-drinking white male. I pretty much like law and order.  I support the police: I just want them to behave.
> 
> Or, on the other end, if I question why a certain community in a certain city seems to account for 98% of its gun homicides and drive-by shootings, and I don't automatically accept the premise that it's because they're "oppressed", now I'm a "racist".
> 
> Where is wisdom and judgement in all this?



Unequivocally agree.  I do see where you were going with that. People that ask legitimate questions are quickly called out for being racist, prejudiced, nazi etc..  Facts are racist.


The new CANFORGEN that just came out on this stuff was an interesting read for sure.


----------



## pbi

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> ...Facts are racist...



I don't agree with that, exactly, If racism is the belief that one racial group is inherently superior or inferior to others, or that behaviours are determined by race (a set of physical characteristics), then I don't think facts are "racist". The dangerous implication there is that the basis of racism is factual, which IMHO it isn't.

What facts are, often, is "inconvenient". Facts can cause embarrassing questions, or demolish poorly constructed arguments. So, for example, if you say "the police are all heroes who can do no wrong", or " (XYZ racial group) have no choice but to turn to violent crime because of oppression and discrimination", then I think that facts will soon be very inconvenient for you.


----------

