# Canadian Soldiers Under Investigation for Video with Racial Overtones



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Nov 2012)

What's old is new again........sigh.


http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1284710--canadian-soldiers-under-investigation-for-video-with-racial-overtones
Richard J. Brennan
National Affairs Writer


A controversial video showing a Canadian military member pretending to be Osama bin Laden’s brother has sparked an investigation by National Defence.

The video, shown during a formal dinner at Canadian Forces Base Greenwood in Nova Scotia in January 2010, was leaked to the CBC.
The soldier, wearing brown makeup and a turban, jokes on the video his niece works for the base and helped him come to Canada, and that he was driving a taxi in Vancouver.

“I am driving one very nice taxi! (walks off camera and shouts) Hey kid get away from that car bomb, I mean taxi. It is very dangerous. Don’t be giving me your dirty finger. I am telling you. I will come to your home and I’ll hump your goat. Now go away, stay away from that s---. Praise be to Allah. He would be so pissed if he heard that s---. I’m sorry. Where were we?”

When the video was made Canada was still involved in a combat mission in Afghanistan.

The CBC reports that the woman referred to as the niece found out about the video and raised it with brass on the base and received apologies from everyone involved in the production.

“There are serious allegations that its content was inappropriate and culturally insensitive. Although I have not seen the video, the information I received so far warranted my concern and immediate action,” Lt.-Gen. Yvan Blondin, head of the Canadian Air Force said in a statement.

Blondin said he has requested the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service conduct a probe into the circumstances surrounding that video.
“I express my apologies to those who may feel offended, and reaffirm my commitment to take any possible administrative, disciplinary or corrective actions that may be warranted,” he stated.


----------



## Bluebulldog (8 Nov 2012)

Read the transcript on CBC.ca.

Much ado about nothing.


----------



## medicineman (8 Nov 2012)

Bluebulldog said:
			
		

> Read the transcript on CBC.ca.
> 
> Much ado about nothing.



Optics are everything...especially in this country.

MM


----------



## Journeyman (8 Nov 2012)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> What's old is new again........sigh.


Yep. Airmen doing wrong and innocent "soldiers" being tarred with it.


That's what you meant, right?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Nov 2012)

I was thinking more along the lines that someone is a jerk-off enough to involve the press which leads to............stuff.


----------



## Gronk (8 Nov 2012)

Bravo CBC, what a stellar pile of in depth reporting you've managed to pinch off, I mean pull off. This ranks up there with the hard hitting "apparently some sailors got drunk in Key West" story. Please accept my congratulations for the Pulitzer Prize which I'm sure is on the way.


----------



## Occam (8 Nov 2012)

I wonder what Raj Binder would have to say about this...


----------



## Bluebulldog (8 Nov 2012)

Occam said:
			
		

> I wonder what Raj Binder would have to say about this...



Having seen Shawn Majumner live, I'd be betting that he's kicking himself for not doing a bit like this on "This Hour Has 22 Minutes".


----------



## Snakedoc (8 Nov 2012)

Yeah.. Seems to me the issue was already taken care of by the CoC... much like the Key West news story for the RCN.  What is the story here?  "Here is an issue that was already taken care of and we're making it an issue again by making it public and involving the military police."


----------



## dapaterson (8 Nov 2012)

CoC Apologized - good.

CoC allegedly ordered destruction of all copies - if so, stupid.  "Hey, we did something that we realized was dumb, so maybe we can pretend it never happened."


----------



## NavalMoose (8 Nov 2012)

"Racial Overtones"....cool name for a band ;D


----------



## Staff Weenie (8 Nov 2012)

I am so glad the PC Police weren't around in the 40's - we'd have to ban all the posters, comic books, cartoons, movies, and everything else that made fun of Hitler and the Germans.....then we'd have to apologize to all the Nazis we'd offended.....

Can't for the life of me remember where I read it, but I once came across a theory that demonizing the enemy is an important part of being able to kill him.  I believe there's a fundamental aspect of truth in that.


----------



## Teflon (8 Nov 2012)

Staff Weenie said:
			
		

> I am so glad the PC Police weren't around in the 40's - we'd have to ban all the posters, comic books, cartoons, movies, and everything else that made fun of Hitler and the Germans.....then we'd have to apologize to all the Nazis we'd offended.....
> 
> Can't for the life of me remember where I read it, but I once came across a theory that demonizing the enemy is an important part of being able to kill him.  I believe there's a fundamental aspect of truth in that.



Might not be where you read it but it is covered in LCol (Retired) Grossman's book "On Killing"


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Nov 2012)

medicineman said:
			
		

> Optics are everything...especially in this country.
> 
> MM



While many say "no harm done" it gives ammunition to people that don't like our line of work, our profession, to cut our funding or force more "sensitivity" training.


----------



## Sadukar09 (8 Nov 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> While many say "no harm done" it gives ammunition to people that don't like our line of work, our profession, to cut our funding or force more "sensitivity" training.


When the bad guys show up on their door, they'll say sorry for not opening the door.

Honestly, these people need to stop forcing PC on everyone.


----------



## ModlrMike (8 Nov 2012)

Interesting that the majority of "most agreed" comments on the CBC consider the video satire and not racist.


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Nov 2012)

Maybe I'm taking this in the wrong context.

Normally I'd agree that it's a joke and people are over reacting however when I read this;



> The soldier, wearing brown makeup and a turban, jokes on the vide*o his niece works for the base and helped him come to Canada*, and that he was driving a taxi in Vancouver.



I see someone singling out a base employee (possibly middle eastern decent?) and insinuating they're a terrorist sympathizer. Not only that but made a big production about it semi-publicly.  

I don't think many of us would appreciate being associated with a mass murderer or rapist in our work place, joke or not.

I'd also suggest it constitutes as harassment. (embarrassing someone professionally)


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Nov 2012)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> I see someone singling out a base employee (possibly middle eastern decent?) and insinuating they're a terrorist sympathizer. Not only that but made a big production about it semi-publicly.


Here's how the CBC puts it....


> .... the soldier portraying the bin Laden character names an officer working at the military base as the reason he is granting the interview. CBC News has decided not to name the officer.
> 
> The officer has confirmed to CBC that she became aware of the video after it was viewed at the mess dinner. She said she questioned her superiors about it and received apologies from everyone involved in the production ....


*If this is correct*, I _might_ be unhappy too if I was in this person's position, depending on how I was portrayed.



			
				ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> I don't think many of us would appreciate being associated with a mass murderer or rapist in our work place, joke or not.
> 
> I'd also suggest it constitutes as harassment. (embarrassing someone professionally)


Good point to consider.



			
				Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> While many say "no harm done" it gives ammunition to people that don't like our line of work, our profession, to cut our funding or force more "sensitivity" training.


 :goodpost:  Remember, it only takes one "holy s**t" to cancel out a thousand "atta boy's".


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Nov 2012)

I'm not surprised when people do dumb things; I'm even less surprised when the people are young and alcohol is involved. Holding the Queen's Commission does not render one immune to periodic attacks of idiocy.

What worries me is the casual, almost cavalier attitude that some (many? most?) people have towards _information_, of all sorts, and the recording, storage and distribution of it. If people are casual enough about recording and distribution copies of this sort of "skit" then how do they handle classified information? Are they equally _casual_ and _careless_?


----------



## dapaterson (8 Nov 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> What worries me is the casual, almost cavalier attitude that some (many? most?) people have towards _information_, of all sorts, and the recording, storage and distribution of it. If people are casual enough about recording and distribution copies of this sort of "skit" then how do they handle classified information? Are they equally _casual_ and _careless_?



Not at all.  Don't be ridiculous.  It's not like we let a 2Lt copy info from Secret systems on to flash drives and sell it to the Russians.







Oh.


----------



## Kat Stevens (8 Nov 2012)

Hmmm, yet Achmed the Dead Terrorist can fill theatres and sell jillions of videos for Jeff Dunham.  He's even been on CBCs Just For Laughs.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Nov 2012)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Hmmm, yet Achmed the Dead Terrorist can fill theatres and sell jillions of videos for Jeff Dunham.  He's even been on CBCs Just For Laughs.


Yeah, I like the idea of the puppet's wine, too.   That said, I think most people hold CF members to a little higher standard than stand-up comedians.


----------



## Kat Stevens (8 Nov 2012)

My point was that the CBC will raise the outrage flag at a bit of drunken foolishness, but will laugh along with a whole nation at scripted racial and religious stereotyping.  But you knew what I meant, right?


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Nov 2012)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> My point was that the CBC will raise the outrage flag at a bit of drunken foolishness, but will laugh along with a whole nation at scripted racial and religious stereotyping.  But you knew what I meant, right?


At least if this was the morning, I'd have the excuse of not having had my coffee yet - dohh!


----------



## jollyjacktar (8 Nov 2012)

I see that CBC have not received the reaction from comments on the original story that they wished to garner, so now they're trying to make waves another way.  It's pathetic.


----------



## V_I_Lenin (8 Nov 2012)

I wanted to stick a knitting needle through my ears when this story ran on the CBC morning news....leave it to our national broadcaster to make this their_ lead_ story a couple days before Remembrance Day.

Watching "Power and Politics" today, I found it interesting to see the discussion panels' take on "...this controversial, racially charged..." video (Host Evan Soloman's words)...takes place at 51:30...

http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Politics/ID/2302220877/

With the exception of one panel member, the reaction is more-or-less what prevails in the Comments section of online story; essentially a non-story ginned-up by our friends at the Mother Corp.

...And full points to Tom Flanagan for effectively skewering the coverage for the clown-show it is...QUOTE I think this story shows why we need the CBC...I've been laughing about it since this I read it this morning UNQUOTE.

Poor Evan...he looked like someone p**sed in his pickle jar when he heard that!


----------



## jollyjacktar (8 Nov 2012)

Good catch.  Was good to see Evan get slapped down.


----------



## Robert0288 (9 Nov 2012)

Comedy should be left to the comedians.  Didn't you hear the man CBC? Professionals only >


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Nov 2012)

V_I_Lenin said:
			
		

> Watching "Power and Politics" today, I found it interesting to see the discussion panels' take on "...this controversial, *racially charged*..."


That bit in orange is something that keeps coming up in, at least, CBC's coverage.....


----------



## ModlrMike (9 Nov 2012)

Rather ironic that the only people on the show who made anything of this were the two CBC employees.


----------



## Tank Troll (9 Nov 2012)

Bluebulldog said:
			
		

> Having seen Shawn Majumner live, I'd be betting that he's kicking himself for not doing a bit like this on "This Hour Has 22 Minutes".



Apparently he doesn't think it is all that funny....................unless it is true that he didn't think of it first and this is he sour grapes bit.


----------



## Bluebulldog (9 Nov 2012)

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> Apparently he doesn't think it is all that funny....................unless it is true that he didn't think of it first and this is he sour grapes bit.



Of course he doesn't ( publicly). Who do you think pays the bulk of his paycheque?


----------



## Tank Troll (9 Nov 2012)

Bluebulldog said:
			
		

> Of course he doesn't ( publicly). Who do you think pays the bulk of his paycheque?



That hasn't stopped him or others from making fun of CBC before. Ultimately the Government of Canada pays him and he hacks shit out of them


----------



## jollyjacktar (9 Nov 2012)

I'm enjoying reading the roasting CBC is taking in the comments section from the majority of readers.  Too bad it won't teach them a lesson to not try and make news out of SFA.


----------



## Snakedoc (9 Nov 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Not at all.  Don't be ridiculous.  It's not like we let a 2Lt copy info from Secret systems on to flash drives and sell it to the Russians.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, we would never give a 2Lt that responsibility, a Sub-Lieutenant on the other hand, all the civie flash drives he wants.. lol  : 

Agreed the CBC is blowing this out of proportion to try to make a news story out of something more than it actually is.  It still doesn't make the video appropriate if it unfairly targeted an individual but in my mind, the issue was already dealt with and the individual seemingly accepted the apology or a further investigation would have been conducted on the basis of a complaint.  

Nice to see the CBC get shut down on their own show tho and love the twitter feeds coming up as the panellist speak lol


----------



## FJAG (9 Nov 2012)

I realized as I read this story that I haven't watched or listened to CBC for at least six years. Haven't missed it one bit.


----------



## PMedMoe (13 Nov 2012)

Good article here:

CBC smear campaign: State broadcaster’s attack on Canadian Forces no laughing matter


----------



## Journeyman (13 Nov 2012)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> CBC smear campaign: State broadcaster’s attack on Canadian Forces no laughing matter


"The CBC isn’t even pretending to be reporters."  

Pretty much sums it up.  :nod:


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Nov 2012)

Folks, please, we're talking _journalism_ which is a sub-set of _infotaiment_ which, itself, a subset of the _marketing_ industry.

The modern, 21st century journalist is the direct successor of the Watkins Man who used to call at our back door selling liniments, lotions and notions and spreading gossip ~ my grandmother used to switch the radio off when he came by, serve him tea, listen to his stories and buy something for 25¢. 

Most journalists - 80%+ in my opinion - are just that. There are a few, a sadly rare few, who really do want to tell us, the public, the truth, as nearly as they can determine what the truth might be, about what is going on in the bigger, wider world, but most are just travelling salesmen, selling whatever the sponsor/advertiser wants sold: soap, policies, insurance, feminine hygiene products, erectile dysfunction _solutions_, cars or liniment.

TV is an expensive medium for selling liniment so it needs a constant flow of _excitement_ - *visual* excitement - to earn its keep. Controversy is exciting so it must be found or, when none can be found, manufactured. And that's what the CBC did: it manufactured some controversy by _recycling_ a two year old, already "solved" problem and putting it back on the air when it might create a stir. It worked, so it was "good" journalism - people watched and, presumably, some of them bought _Depends_ or a _Ford Focus_ or _Preparation H_ or whatever else paid for that "news" programme.

< yawn >

No need for  :tempertantrum:


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Nov 2012)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Good article here:
> 
> CBC smear campaign: State broadcaster’s attack on Canadian Forces no laughing matter


Fave quote from this column:


> .... The CBC said the video was an exclusive. But it actually wasn’t. Because the CBC called the military police to come watch the video at the CBC offices. The CBC isn’t just reporting on this “scandal.” It is pitching it to the police, with the implication that the police should lay charges ....


Funny - I wonder how the CBC would respond if, say, civilian police asked to see any video in their possesion?  Like video they shot?  If Levant is correct in this statement, so much for the "the media are not the tools of the police" argument to withold such video in the future.


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Nov 2012)

CBC hates freedom.


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Nov 2012)

This from an independent MP (via Macleans.ca):


> Edmonton East Member of Parliament Peter Goldring has expressed outrage and disgust over the manner in which the CBC conducted cheap, amateur, yellow journalism of the worst sort against Canada’s proud military.
> 
> The 2010 video of a private party skit in question involves a Canadian soldier dressed up in Taliban attire and posing as Osama bin Laden`s brother, ‘Eugene’. The CBC has latched on to this video and used it to paint the Canadian military and its members as both offensive and culturally insensitive persons.
> 
> ...



Here's a link to Majumder's Bin Laden/H1N1 sketch on YouTube, as well as a "Bin Laden Goodbye" video with Majumder as Bin Laden here.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Nov 2012)

Now another question that everyone seems to have overlooked: "Who was the numpty who sent the tape to CBC, and why?"


----------



## jollyjacktar (13 Nov 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Now another question that everyone seems to have overlooked: "Who was the numpty who sent the tape to CBC, and why?"


Someone with an axe to grind.  That's always the way.


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Nov 2012)

> “By calling upon CBC comedian Shaun Majumder – a visible minority – to speak out on the supposed ‘cultural insensitivities’ of this video is the height of hypocrisy, as *Shaun has portrayed bin Laden as an Arab himself*. The CBC attempted to detonate a racist scandal where there simply was none to be found.




Nice try hypocrites. I'm almost tempted to go back on facebook or twitter just to tell Shaun what a douchbag he is.


----------



## busconductor (14 Nov 2012)

What aggravated their  (CBC's) conduct was that they know what  a figure of speech was. Satire. Just like "telling that the military does not need intelligence". Back to freshman books! ;D


----------



## Danjanou (14 Nov 2012)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Nice try hypocrites. I'm almost tempted to go back on facebook or twitter just to tell Shaun what a douchbag he is.



Fill yer boots, but I hear the line up is rather long. ;D


----------



## busconductor (15 Nov 2012)

Apologists for Arab terrorism argue that the label "terrorist" was invented. Some of our men and women would sometimes desist to say their opinions on these  matters not out of complacency nor because of acting as a fencesitters. It is the serious and malicious repercussions that it can inflict on them including our loved ones. Hence the label, terrorist.

Right of way! and righteousness maybe suggested metaphors on what we should invoke to these agents of influence or journalists who argue on behalf of terrorists. These are not strong words! These are basic truths!


----------



## Journeyman (15 Nov 2012)

Whether strong words or basic truths, maybe you could give it a quick edit so that readers could have a hint what you're trying to say. It sounds like a profound statement of.......something.   :dunno:

It could be something simple, like the "pontification" setting on your computer.   :nod:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Nov 2012)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Whether strong words or basic truths, maybe you could give it a quick edit so that readers could have a hint what you're trying to say. It sounds like a profound statement of.......something.   :dunno:
> 
> It could be something simple, like the "pontification" setting on your computer.   :nod:



So, I wasn't the only one.


----------



## busconductor (15 Nov 2012)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Whether strong words or basic truths, maybe you could give it a quick edit so that readers could have a hint what you're trying to say. It sounds like a profound statement of.......something.   :dunno:
> 
> It could be something simple, like the "pontification" setting on your computer.   :nod:



I opine that it was not dogmatic, the word to describe pontification. It is true! Judging from experience and those of others. Just look how CBC reacted. Truly unrighteous to scandalize a skit and put malice on them. The satirical play was a complete description of some of the worst terrorists in the world. Driving a wedge between like minded persons is like fomenting "one's son to kill his father".


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Nov 2012)

busconductor said:
			
		

> I opine that it was not dogmatic, the word to describe pontification. It is true! Judging from experience and those of others. Just look how CBC reacted. Truly unrighteous to scandalize a skit and put malice on them. The satirical play was a complete description of some of the worst terrorists in the world. Driving a wedge between like minded persons is like fomenting "one's son to kill his father".



 :facepalm:

Can we get a translator in here? 

Preferably one from Elizabethan England?


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Nov 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> :facepalm:
> 
> Can we get a translator in here?
> 
> Preferably one from Elizabethan England?




Wouldn't help ... trust me. I can read e.g. William Cecil, Francis Walsingham and Elizabeth, herself, in the original, and I can understand them with relative ease. Busconductor, on the other hand ...  ???


----------



## Tank Troll (15 Nov 2012)

And here I thought I was the only one that was going Huh???


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Nov 2012)

busconductor said:
			
		

> I opine that it was not dogmatic, the word to describe pontification. It is true! Judging from experience and those of others. Just look how CBC reacted. Truly unrighteous to scandalize a skit and put malice on them. The satirical play was a complete description of some of the worst terrorists in the world. Driving a wedge between like minded persons is like fomenting "one's son to kill his father".



See?  You should have listened to your mom when she said to "_stop sniffing that glue_!".   ;D


----------



## uptheglens (15 Nov 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> :facepalm:
> 
> Can we get a translator in here?
> 
> Preferably one from Elizabethan England?



Works a treat if you have Yoda's voice in your head when you read his posts.


----------



## merk102 (26 Nov 2012)

uptheglens said:
			
		

> Works a treat if you have Yoda's voice in your head when you read his posts.



It does in deed  hmmm :nod:


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Feb 2013)

.... with the following conclusion:


> .... “The Canadian Forces Military Police takes all allegations of inappropriate and improper conduct seriously.  We have investigated the allegations to determine the facts; we have analyzed the evidence and concluded that charges are not warranted,” said Colonel Tim Grubb, Canadian Forces Provost Marshal.  “This investigation further determined that the Royal Canadian Air Force chain of command took prompt and appropriate administrative and corrective actions once this video was brought to its attention." ....


Time to move along, nothing left to see here?


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Feb 2013)

Except that now thanks to CBC trying to fabricate a story about racism the chain of command of the soldiers involved blasted them with charges and made their life shitty for the attention that this caused.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Feb 2013)

Statement from the CAS/Cmdr RCAF


----------



## dapaterson (7 Feb 2013)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Statement from the CAS/Cmdr RCAF



I'm thinking he needs better writers.

"The CFNIS has now completed its investigation, and determined that there is no evidence of any military discipline"


(Yes, the quote goes on, but it's poorly worded)


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Feb 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I'm thinking he needs better writers .... (Yes, the quote goes on, but it's poorly worded)


Maybe they were in a hurry?


----------



## Pandora114 (7 Feb 2013)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Maybe they were in a hurry?



Might be Frenglish.

I remember at the Christmas Dinner for my husband's unit...the Padre did grace, and he said "And Fellowship" But the guy was so French it came out sounding like "And I'm Full of S***"  The poor RAF guy at the table heard it the same way too and we both tried not to laugh..but it didn't work.

No compromising videos were shown at that dinner.  Nor at the mess dinner in May, no worries from that unit in Greenwood. >.>


----------

