# Operation HONOUR discussion



## FJAG

putz said:
			
		

> Alcohol is not a defense.  Issue I take with that statement is a lot of these "alcohol consent" cases never even the inside of a court martial.  There is nothing worse than having to sit across from a victim FACE TO FACE and have to tell them that charges are not proceeding due to the relative low probability of conviction.  I was really hoping that when decision like that were being made it was the JAG that would have to tell the victim, in person, that fact.  Additionally, when charged and convicted under NDA 130 you face a criminal record.  Take that same charge and plead it to a conduct and nothing.  Take it civy side and plead the Sexual Assault to and Assault and Criminal Record.  Honestly you could of committed a sexual assault in the CAF and face not repercussions other than administrative.  For the argument that is enough than also consider that if I walked into Joe Civies workplace and arrested him his employer could fire him on the spot.  Sexual Assaults, should NOT ever see the light of a Court Martial UNLESS it was a deployed operation and NDA 130 is the only means of proceeding.
> 
> I'm surprised that no one has focused in on ONLY 17 in the that three year period seeing as how many were investigated and sent for RMP review for sexual assault.  I think a better gauge would be to find out how many were sent to JAG as a SA but came back recommending something else.
> 
> I apologize if I'm coming across as harsh but I am very passionate about Sexual Assault investigations.



You misunderstood entirely what I was saying. I wasn't arguing that alcohol was a defence. What I said was that:



> Sexual assault cases are much more complex then that. When one deals with a stabbing or a shooting, then the requisite elements of the offence are fairly easily indicative of the fact that a crime was most probably committed. With a sexual assault there are the ever present complications that the act probably took place in a haze of alcohol and that, in many cases, it can be argued that the act was consensual and therefore not a crime.



The point being that a sexual act could be either a completely innocent act or it could be a crime. A judge has to work his/her way through a "he said/she said" situation in order to find out which side of the line the case falls on. On top of that the evidence is often less clear than one would like because often the parties were intoxicated to some extent.

The simple fact of the matter is that the legal standard to move a prosecution forward is one of whether or not there is a "reasonable likelihood of conviction" and the standard of proof for conviction is one of "beyond a reasonable doubt." It's a standard that has evolved over centuries under the simple theory that: "it's better for a hundred guilty persons to go free than for one innocent one to be convicted."

It seems to me that you are advocating that regardless of how weak or strong a case is it should be prosecuted in order to make the victim feel good. That, IMHO, is a very dangerous path to take. Besides the fact that we screw up a whole lot of innocent people by putting them through a trial where we know it won't lead to a conviction, all we'll end up doing is making our conviction rate look even lower than it is.

It's a bit silly to suggest that the JAG himself should tell the victim that. The JAG is separated from the Director of Military Prosecutions and the prosecution arm of the CF and I would expect that in any case where a complaint has been made that an explanation is provided to the victim by either the CFNIS/MPs (in the event that no charge is laid) or by the prosecutor (if a plea agreement is entered into or a charge stayed). That said, neither CFNIS/MPs or prosecutors need the victim's consent. Their actions are based on the rule of law and prosecutorial standards.

Much of the remainder of your comparison between the CF and civilian side is pure conjecture and most of that is baseless. I'm not saying that there isn't room for improvement--there almost always is--but your position flirts dangerously with the proposition that we need to make it easier to get a conviction so that the statistics look better. 

 :cheers:


<<<  Mod Edit: to link previous discussion from 2002 to current  >>>


----------



## NavalMoose

Newsflash....young men drink beer


----------



## daftandbarmy

mariomike said:
			
		

> Reminds me of something I read,
> 
> "The military has long known that the soldier's morale is sustained not just by plenty of badges and medals and by ample access to alcohol and, when possible, non-infectious sexual intercourse but by the irrational conviction on the part of each soldier that he has the honor of serving in the best squad in the best platoon in the best company in the best battalion in the best regiment etc. in the army."
> 
> Wartime: Understanding and Behavior in the Second World War
> By Paul Fussell



And....

"We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints,
Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;
    While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, fall be'ind",
    But it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind,
    There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,
    O it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind."

https://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/tommy.html


----------



## dimsum

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> This is my point, if you change the culture, do you spoil the recipe that makes these organizations effective war machines?



To be fair, seeing those BCGs on the dude on the right (with the 10th Mountain patch on his shoulder) makes *me* want to drink to forget.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Dimsum said:
			
		

> To be fair, seeing those BCGs on the dude on the right (with the 10th Mountain patch on his shoulder) makes *me* want to drink to forget.



It's how the Infantry keeps its troops fatalistic....


----------



## Good2Golf

Damn, scooped on the BCG comment!  :'(

Gotta hand it to the good ole U.S. of A. -- nobody does ocular prophylactics like Uncle Sam!  

G2G


----------



## winnipegoo7

I don’t know if this has already been posted but it seems a MS NavComm has been convicted of sexual assault and ill treatment of a subordinate for an incident that occurred in 2015 on HMCS ATHABASKAN. Sentencing will occur Monday. 

Does anyone know what the ´normal’ punishment is for sexual assault?

https://www.google.ca/amp/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4572981


----------



## JesseWZ

winnipegoo7 said:
			
		

> I don’t know if this has already been posted but it seems a MS NavComm has been convicted of sexual assault and ill treatment of a subordinate for an incident that occurred in 2015 on HMCS ATHABASKAN. Sentencing will occur Monday.
> 
> Does anyone know what the ´normal’ punishment is for sexual assault?
> 
> https://www.google.ca/amp/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4572981



There are too many factors to list for to determine the "normal" punishment of sexual assault (and really any offence). What the Judge will do, is weigh aggravating and mitigating factors, look at case law presented by the Defense and Crown (each supporting their position on the sentence) and weigh precedent with the determining factors or principles in a sentence. A judge has to consider several sentencing principles when bringing about a sentence (Deterrence, Rehabilitation, Denunciation, and Separation from society). Often, the first paragraph of sentencing decisions (written or oral statements by the judge outlining how they got to a particular sentence) begin with some variation of the line "Sentencing is one of the most difficult things for a Judge to undertake". Sentencing is to be individually tailored to the offender. 

A good (if open source) summary of Sentencing Principles can be found:

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Criminal_Sentencing/Purpose_and_Principles_of_Sentencing

In short, sentences range dramatically for each offence and it is entirely dependent on the unique aspects of the case and offender.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Hey got 22 months in jail and a release from the CAF.


----------



## winnipegoo7

Jesse and HT thanks for the info.


----------



## McG

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-finds-multiple-gaps-in-support-for-victims-of-sexual-misconduct-1.4573315

One of the shortfalls is:


> no mechanism by which a member facing harmful or inappropriate sexual behaviour could complain to the chain of command without automatically triggering an investigation



I have actually seen this.  Victims were disinclined to come forward because they believed, under the current tone, that the response would be completely out of proportion to the offence.  I don’t have enough observations to say there is a trend, but I hope someone is watching to ensure there is not a trend of victims choosing to do nothing because the only alternative is to let the system go nuclear.


----------



## OldSolduer

We had a case of a couple of the troops sexually harass some other soldiers. Of course, our immediate response was to investigate and if charges were warranted then charge. The victims stated that they would rather mediate a solution as it was within their control. Made sense to the CO and I so that’s what we did.


----------



## brihard

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Hey got 22 months in jail and a release from the CAF.



Will that be served in Edmonton?


----------



## mariomike

Brihard said:
			
		

> Will that be served in Edmonton?



I don't know. But, I read this,

QUOTE

Canadian Forces Service Prison and Detention Barracks

Personnel convicted of more serious offences are considered to be in “prison” and upon completion of their sentence they are released from the military.They can be  held at the CFSPDB up to a maximum of two years less a day. Serious offenders with sentences longer than two  years are transferred to the Canadian federal prison system after serving 729 days, to complete their sentence in the civilian prison system, followed by release from the Canadian Forces.
http://mdlo.ca/publications/canadian-forces-service-prison-and-detention-barracks/

END QUOTE


----------



## Halifax Tar

Brihard said:
			
		

> Will that be served in Edmonton?



No idea, they didn't say on the news.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Here is Note B to QR&O's Vol II, Article 104.04:

_(B) Service prisoners and service convicts typically require an intensive programme of retraining and rehabilitation to equip them for their return to society following completion of the term of incarceration. Civilian prisons and penitentiaries are uniquely equipped to provide such opportunities to inmates. Therefore, to facilitate their reintegration into society, service prisoners and service convicts who are to be released from the Canadian Forces will typically be transferred to a civilian prison or penitentiary as soon as practical within the first 30 days following the date of sentencing. The member will ordinarily be released from the Canadian Forces before such a transfer is effected._

In the present case, with 22 months imprisonment and release from the CAF, he would fall squarely in the purpose of the note and is therefore likely to be treated as it specifies: i.e. he will be released from the CAF and transferred to a civilian (in this case a Provincial prison, since it is less than two years) jail.


----------



## mariomike

For reference to the discussion, see also,

HMCS ATHABASKAN crewmember charged with drug/weapon offences, 11 Aug 16 
https://army.ca/forums/threads/123798/post-1515669.html#msg1515669
"Why is he serving this sentence in provincial jail, vice Edmonton?"

Discussed from Reply #2 to Reply #10.


----------



## Strike

Looks like he's going to serve the time in New Glasgow.


----------



## 211RadOp

Sgt Kevin MacIntrye was found not guilty in Halifax.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/military-policeman-acquitted-of-sexually-assault-1.4725775


----------



## pbi

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Here is Note B to QR&O's Vol II, Article 104.04:
> 
> _(B) Service prisoners and service convicts typically require an intensive program of retraining and rehabilitation to equip them for their return to society following completion of the term of incarceration. Civilian prisons and penitentiaries are uniquely equipped to provide such opportunities to inmates. Therefore, to facilitate their reintegration into society, service prisoners and service convicts who are to be released from the Canadian Forces will typically be transferred to a civilian prison or penitentiary as soon as practical within the first 30 days following the date of sentencing. The member will ordinarily be released from the Canadian Forces before such a transfer is effected._
> 
> 
> 
> In the present case, with 22 months imprisonment and release from the CAF, he would fall squarely in the purpose of the note and is therefore likely to be treated as it specifies: i.e. he will be released from the CAF and transferred to a civilian (in this case a Provincial prison, since it is less than two years) jail.



Having spent a bit of time in the various Federal  institutions back when we used to do the Pen Recces, and living in Kingston (which had nine prisons in operation in the area when I moved here in 2007), I utterly disagree with the rationale behind the quoted paragraph.

I doubt very much that incarceration in a place like KP or Collins Bay or Millhaven does very much to "reintegrate" any inmate back into society, Corrections Canada propaganda to the contrary. I think that para is based on an extremely narrow and badly outdated idea of what military people are like.  

It might (maybe...) have had some relevance when the military consisted of people who mostly lived either in shacks or PMQs, and lacked the education or the desire to function outside that environment, and would have no idea what to do with themselves once they got out.  IMHO that isn't the majority of the CAF population today. Most people live off base and have involvement in the civil community to varying degrees. Why, some military people are even married to civilians!!

If we are putting them in prison as a way to punish them, or if they are too dangerous to release, fine. But using the Federal prison system as a way to integrate released service members back into civilian life makes no sense to me, at all. There are programs to do that, if people avail themselves of them.


----------



## Blackadder1916

pbi said:
			
		

> . . .
> 
> If we are putting them in prison as a way to punish them, or if they are too dangerous to release, fine. But using the Federal prison system as a way to integrate released service members back into civilian life makes no sense to me, at all. There are programs to do that, if people avail themselves of them.



I don't know when that Note to 104.04 was added; I don't remember it as existing way back in the dark ages when I had a slim (very, very slim) professional connection to 14 CFSPDB.  I speculate that it was added more because the CF was unable (or unwilling) to provide equivalent "retraining and rehabilitation" programs (even if civilian institutions do a poor job of proving such)**.  Though there appears to have been a few "prisoners" being housed at the SPDB in recent years and the CFPM's annual reports indicates that "quality rehabilitation and development services to inmates serving sentences ranging from 15 days of detention to two years less a day of imprisonment" are available, an inmate population of "19 detainees and 4 prisoners" (such as the total for 2016) isn't much of a critical mass on which to establish comprehensive and continuing services.

There may have been some objections or legal challenges pertaining to service imprisonment (however. unable to find any in a cursory search) but the prospect of spending two years less a day at "Club Ed" may not appeal to some who know they are to be booted especially if their family (if any) will likely remain in province of current residence while the prisoner is whisked off to Alberta.


**  It was the problems with providing specialized rehabilitation services to "prisoners" who were waiting out their time of completed appeals and transfer to civilian pens that I remember most about my professional connection to 14 CFSPDB, but that was over 30 years ago and undoubtedly they do a better job of it now.


----------



## daftandbarmy

A Toronto-based member of the Armed Forces reserves has been charged with two counts of sexual assault under the Criminal Code and a related offence under the National Defence Act for alleged incidents at CFB Esquimalt’s Naval Fleet School.

The National Defence Act charge is for behaving in a disgraceful manner.

The charges, stemming from the summer of 2017, have been laid against Navy Lt. Ronald Clancy, who is in the reserves with HMCS York.

The case is proceeding toward a possible court-martial date.

“All members of the Canadian Armed Forces — whether they are part of the reserve force of regular force — should expect to serve in a respectful and professional environment safe from harmful and inappropriate sexual behaviour,” said Lt.-Col. Kevin Cadman, commanding officer of the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service.

https://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/member-of-armed-forces-reserves-faces-sexual-assault-charges-1.23417904


----------



## 211RadOp

The Whig-Standard 

Published on: December 13, 2018 | Last Updated: December 13, 2018 11:20 AM EST 



> A cadet from Royal Military College has been charged by the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service following an investigation into a sexual assault that they say occurred last spring on the peninsula.
> 
> CFNIS said in a news release that the incident was reported to have occurred last April against another member of the Canadian Forces at the college.
> 
> Officer cadet Tyler Johnston has been charged with a single count of sexual assault under the Criminal Code of Canada...



More at link

https://www.thewhig.com/news/local-news/canadian-forces-national-investigation-service-charges-rmc-cadet-in-kingston


----------



## kratz

Reference: Operation HONOUR

If our CAF is truely equal...this charge sadly shines a hole.

DND News Release



> Sexual assault charge laid against military member of the Cape Breton Highlanders, NS.
> 
> News release
> June 27, 2019 – Ottawa – National Defence/Canadian Armed Forces
> 
> On 25 June 2019, the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS) charged a member of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) with sexual assault under the Criminal Code of Canada (CCC) pursuant to the National Defence Act (NDA). The charge is in response to an incident which was reported to the Military Police Unit in Halifax, NS, and involves another military member.
> 
> Corporal Kendra L. Christmas, a Primary Reserve Force member with the Cape Breton Highlanders faces the following charges.
> 
> One (1) count of Sexual Assault contrary to section 271(b) of the CCC pursuant to the NDA.
> One (1) count of drunkenness punishable under Section 97 of the NDA.
> The matter is now proceeding through military justice system for possible court martial at a date and location to be determined
> 
> Quotes
> “This investigation resulting in charges demonstrates our commitment to ensure all individuals involved in such criminal activity are brought to justice.”
> Lieutenant-Colonel Kevin Cadman, Commanding Officer, Canadian Forces National Investigation Service
> 
> Quick facts
> In all cases, the subject of charges is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The matter is now proceeding through military justice system for possible court martial at a date and location to be determined.
> 
> The CFNIS is a specialized unit established within Canadian Forces Military Police Group (CFMP Gp). Its primary mandate is to investigate serious and sensitive matters in relation to Department of National Defence (DND) property, DND employees and CAF personnel serving in Canada and around the world. The CFMP Gp and the CFNIS conduct police investigations independently, without interference and in accordance with the highest professional standards.


----------



## daftandbarmy

kratz said:
			
		

> Reference: Operation HONOUR
> 
> If our CAF is truely equal...this charge sadly shines a hole.
> 
> DND News Release



And from the Cape Breton Post: 

https://www.capebretonpost.com/news/local/sexual-assault-charge-laid-against-cape-breton-highlanders-member-327352/


----------



## BeyondTheNow

kratz said:
			
		

> Reference: Operation HONOUR
> 
> If our CAF is truely equal...this charge sadly shines a hole.
> 
> DND News Release



Sorry, please clarify. I don’t understand the context/intent of “...if truly equal...shines a hole.”

I read that a female mbr is facing charges for contraventions relating to Op HONOUR and drunkenness.

I’ve personally witnessed females sexually harassing, and worse, their male counterparts. While the percentage (of reported and otherwise) incidents with females being the aggressors are decidedly fewer, it indeed happens and they should be held to account also. I’m not sure what I’m missing here...


----------



## kratz

BeyondTheNow,

No worries for calling me out.

Op HONOUR's official statistics ect... have been skewed to represent a one-sided narrative.

To hear of a "rare" female charge really is news.


----------



## BeyondTheNow

kratz said:
			
		

> BeyondTheNow,
> 
> No worries for calling me out.
> 
> Op HONOUR's official statistics ect... have been skewed to represent a one-sided narrative.
> 
> To hear of a "rare" female charge really is news.



No honestly, I thought I was completely missing something. I wasn’t intending “to call anyone out”...

But yea, I think it’s important to know that females are being held responsible for unacceptable behaviour also.


----------



## garb811

kratz said:
			
		

> BeyondTheNow,
> 
> No worries for calling me out.
> 
> Op HONOUR's official statistics ect... have been skewed to represent a one-sided narrative.
> 
> To hear of a "rare" female charge really is news.


What stats, exactly, do you think are being skewed to present a "one-sided narrative"?


----------



## RCDtpr

garb811 said:
			
		

> What stats, exactly, do you think are being skewed to present a "one-sided narrative"?



I was an MP before and after the implementation of OP Honour.  I can say with 100% certainty that post OP Honour, charges were laid on a LOT of files that would not of even been investigated pre.

Wanna guess how many of those charges resulted in convictions?

I’m not saying there’s a “narrative” but as a senior member of the branch you know good and well that “stats” are definitely up since OP Honour came to be.....convictions on the other hand.....


----------



## daftandbarmy

exCAFguy said:
			
		

> I was an MP before and after the implementation of OP Honour.  I can say with 100% certainty that post OP Honour, charges were laid on a LOT of files that would not of even been investigated pre.
> 
> Wanna guess how many of those charges resulted in convictions?
> 
> I’m not saying there’s a “narrative” but as a senior member of the branch you know good and well that “stats” are definitely up since OP Honour came to be.....convictions on the other hand.....



And the real deterrent to criminal activity, since antiquity, is a conviction that can stand up to any appeal process, right?


----------



## RCDtpr

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> And the real deterrent to criminal activity, since antiquity, is a conviction that can stand up to any appeal process, right?



Charging someone for the sake of optics with no prospect of conviction isn’t exactly an effective solution either.


----------



## Haggis

exCAFguy said:
			
		

> Charging someone for the sake of optics with no prospect of conviction isn’t exactly an effective solution either.



Ask VAdm Norman how that political process works.


----------



## cld617

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> And the real deterrent to criminal activity, since antiquity, is a conviction that can stand up to any appeal process, right?



I would say no, as we already know that increasing the severity of punishment has little to no effect to act successfully as a deterrent. The risk of consequence is effective in a comparison between potential consequence and none, but increasing the likelihood of that consequence a marginal amount is no different than increasing the length of a prison sentence on crime.


----------



## garb811

exCAFguy said:
			
		

> I was an MP before and after the implementation of OP Honour.  I can say with 100% certainty that post OP Honour, charges were laid on a LOT of files that would not of even been investigated pre.
> 
> Wanna guess how many of those charges resulted in convictions?
> 
> I’m not saying there’s a “narrative” but as a senior member of the branch you know good and well that “stats” are definitely up since OP Honour came to be.....convictions on the other hand.....





			
				exCAFguy said:
			
		

> Charging someone for the sake of optics with no prospect of conviction isn’t exactly an effective solution either.


It isn't our job to decide to lay charges based on what has a reasonable prospect of conviction or not, the decision to prosecute test lies with the prosecutor, not the police. Your statements do a disservice to the folks out there who are doing these investigations on a daily basis by implying they are laying charges simply to drive up stats.

Of course we are investigating things that wouldn't have been investigated before, that tends to happen when our boss issues direction that ALL sexual assault complaints will be fully investigated. That direction predates Op HONOUR by the way... The increase in files is also a result of increased awareness at all levels of the need to actually report sexual assaults when they are disclosed and, hopefully, by an increase in the confidence of the victims that their complaints will be investigated thoroughly instead of being swept under the rug. It stands to reason that as a result of that, more charges are being laid because like it or not, there had been a tendency in the past for unqualified people at the lower levels to make off the cuff decisions on what warranted an investigation or not simply based on their initial perception of the information being provided by the complainant.

Unlike you, I don't believe the conviction rate has had any perceptible change as a result of the charges being laid lacking substance. I also don't think there has been an overly large increase in the number of charges being laid and taken to Courts Martial; if there was, the RMP and Military Judges would be a hell of a lot busier than they are when you take into account the number of sexual assault files that are done on a yearly basis.

But in any case, this still doesn't speak to what stats are supposedly being skewed to provide a one sided narrative based off of a news story about a female service member being charged.


----------



## brihard

garb811 said:
			
		

> It isn't our job to decide to lay charges based on what has a reasonable prospect of conviction or not, the decision to prosecute test lies with the prosecutor, not the police. Your statements do a disservice to the folks out there who are doing these investigations on a daily basis by implying they are laying charges simply to drive up stats.



Question, do MPs have to get charge approval from a prosecutor? I know within my organization we ourselves do charge- or more properly, our court liaison officer - another cop - swears the information that signifies the laying of the charge. But crown generally never sees it (on routine criminal files) before a charge is laid. It's different in B.C., but in much of the country we do charge, and generally it's understood that you aren't going to lay a charge unless the file stands a reasonable chance to the best of your / your supervisor's estimation.


----------



## garb811

Brihard said:
			
		

> Question, do MPs have to get charge approval from a prosecutor? I know within my organization we ourselves do charge- or more properly, our court liaison officer - another cop - swears the information that signifies the laying of the charge. But crown generally never sees it (on routine criminal files) before a charge is laid. It's different in B.C., but in much of the country we do charge, and generally it's understood that you aren't going to lay a charge unless the file stands a reasonable chance to the best of your / your supervisor's estimation.


Errrffff...that depends is the simple answer, lol.

For CSD offences, the only MP authorized to lay charges are those posted to CFNIS, and those are reviewed by RMP prior to them being laid I believe. The rest have to send the report to the member's chain of command and cross their fingers... In some cases, those reports are reviewed by a run of the mill AJAG member prior to being sent to the unit in an effort to increase the likelihood of a charge actually being laid by having a pre-emptive, albeit informal, pre-charge screening done to try to make sure nothing was missed.

For Criminal Code charges downtown, it depends on the province, just as with RCMP.


----------



## RCDtpr

garb811 said:
			
		

> It isn't our job to decide to lay charges based on what has a reasonable prospect of conviction or not, the decision to prosecute test lies with the prosecutor, not the police. Your statements do a disservice to the folks out there who are doing these investigations on a daily basis by implying they are laying charges simply to drive up stats.
> 
> Of course we are investigating things that wouldn't have been investigated before, that tends to happen when our boss issues direction that ALL sexual assault complaints will be fully investigated. That direction predates Op HONOUR by the way... The increase in files is also a result of increased awareness at all levels of the need to actually report sexual assaults when they are disclosed and, hopefully, by an increase in the confidence of the victims that their complaints will be investigated thoroughly instead of being swept under the rug. It stands to reason that as a result of that, more charges are being laid because like it or not, there had been a tendency in the past for unqualified people at the lower levels to make off the cuff decisions on what warranted an investigation or not simply based on their initial perception of the information being provided by the complainant.
> 
> Unlike you, I don't believe the conviction rate has had any perceptible change as a result of the charges being laid lacking substance. I also don't think there has been an overly large increase in the number of charges being laid and taken to Courts Martial; if there was, the RMP and Military Judges would be a hell of a lot busier than they are when you take into account the number of sexual assault files that are done on a yearly basis.
> 
> But in any case, this still doesn't speak to what stats are supposedly being skewed to provide a one sided narrative based off of a news story about a female service member being charged.



To answer the stats question....I’d argue the direction from Delaney that no sexual assault files are ever to be classed as “unfounded” in SAMPIS even if they were unfounded would be an example...


----------



## garb811

exCAFguy said:
			
		

> To answer the stats question....I’d argue the direction from Delaney that no sexual assault files are ever to be classed as “unfounded” in SAMPIS even if they were unfounded would be an example...


I don't recall direction prohibiting the use of unfounded WRT sexual assault files, I do recall the direction that the default is to be that the complaint is founded.  If you look at CCJS, that is fully in line with their definition:


> An incident is founded if, after police investigation, it has been determined that the reported offence did occur or was attempted (even if the charged/suspect chargeable (CSC) is unknown) *or there is no credible evidence to confirm that the reported incident did not take place* (my emphasis). This includes third party reports that fit these criteria.


In other words, even for non-sexual assaults, we "believe" the person reporting the incident and work from the point of view it occurred unless we can conclusively prove it didn't. As such, the use of the unfounded flag should be pretty rare, unless you believe people are in the habit of making false reports on anything and everything.

Let's be honest, SAMPIS is a train wreck WRT CCJS coding and way too much stuff is/was being improperly cleared and flagged as "Unfounded" as the default, including when charges have been laid/recommended because a lot of supervisors don't really seem to know what they are supposed to be doing to properly clear a file.


----------



## RCDtpr

garb811 said:
			
		

> I don't recall direction prohibiting the use of unfounded WRT sexual assault files, I do recall the direction that the default is to be that the complaint is founded.  If you look at CCJS, that is fully in line with their definition:
> In other words, even for non-sexual assaults, we "believe" the person reporting the incident and work from the point of view it occurred unless we can conclusively prove it didn't. As such, the use of the unfounded flag should be pretty rare, unless you believe people are in the habit of making false reports on anything and everything.
> 
> Let's be honest, SAMPIS is a train wreck WRT CCJS coding and way too much stuff is/was being improperly cleared and flagged as "Unfounded" as the default, including when charges have been laid/recommended because a lot of supervisors don't really seem to know what they are supposed to be doing to properly clear a file.



I completely agree that SAMPIS can be a disaster wrt to that.  Having said that, the direction my office received “from the PM” was any and all sexual misconduct related files SHALL not be classed as unfounded for ANY reason.

One particular file the complainant admitted they lied about the entire incident after doing an investigation and I was still directed that the complaint will not go as unfounded based on his order.

Whether that order was misconstrued by the office Capt......that I don’t know.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Interesting discussion gentlemen, I don't doubt for a second that the Military Police have been pressured to place increased effort and resources on Op HONOUR.  That shouldn't really be unexpected as the same things happens in other domains of Law Enforcement all the time.  9/11 caused the repurposing of law enforcement assets towards "Terrorism" from other important files like "Organized Crime" which leaves a void elsewhere.  I don't really think we should be getting upset with Police Officers for this, they are just the ones at the coal face who have to carry out the orders.  

I'm happy we have Police Forces that take crimes seriously and investigate them, it's what happens after they investigate potential crimes and hand the file over to the "Justice" system that it becomes a gong show that is just all around crappy for the people who get investigated, whether they are guilty or not.  The criminal justice system is just terrible in this country, by criminal justice system, I don't mean police either, I'm really talking about the Courts.  It's a complete money racket and how oppressive it can be is 100% dependent on how much money a person has at their disposal.

I think a lot of anger that is directed at Police Forces in this country should really be directed at the Judiciary, Lawyers and Politicians who administer the system and create bad laws and policy that the Police have to enforce.  The laws we have are really designed for the 1-2% of the population that are sociopaths and/or psychopaths that won't change no matter what.  Unfortunately, there are a lot of people that get caught up in this system for a variety of reasons that probably shouldn't be there.


----------



## QV

exCAFguy said:
			
		

> One particular file the complainant admitted they lied about the entire incident after doing an investigation and I was still directed that the complaint will not go as unfounded based on his order.
> 
> Whether that order was misconstrued by the office Capt......that I don’t know.



And in that file the complainant was charged with public mischief?  If not, why not?  Curious to know...


----------



## garb811

exCAFguy said:
			
		

> I completely agree that SAMPIS can be a disaster wrt to that.  Having said that, the direction my office received “from the PM” was any and all sexual misconduct related files SHALL not be classed as unfounded for ANY reason.
> 
> One particular file the complainant admitted they lied about the entire incident after doing an investigation and I was still directed that the complaint will not go as unfounded based on his order.
> 
> Whether that order was misconstrued by the office Capt......that I don’t know.


Seen. I obviously can't speak to what your Capt was told but it certainly wouldn't be the first time the telephone game happened with unintended consequences resulting. 

HB: This isn't the first time there has been a "surge" with regard to sexual assault files, another one happened in the late 90s when the first Macleans article came out. Given that was pre-SAMPIS and everything was hard copy, I have no doubt some complaints are being re-investigated for the 2nd, possibly 3rd, time simply because there wasn't an efficient transfer of historical files into SAMPIS and there is no effective way the old files to be double checked without a lot of effort...

You're absolutely correct in the impact this has WRT available money. That's why in some cases, I think the pre-charge screening built into places like BC is a good thing. Like Brihard said, with the Crown being the authority for Charges, it really reduces the likelihood of charges being laid that won't go to trial. The costs are dramatic, even getting a half-way decent lawyer is likely going to cost $3-5,000 for the initial retainer and that doesn't last long at $3-400 an hour. That's one of the "benefits" of the current policy of primacy of the military justice system; at least a military member who has been charged can obtain free representation from DCS.


----------



## RCDtpr

QV said:
			
		

> And in that file the complainant was charged with public mischief?  If not, why not?  Curious to know...



Nope....I wasn’t allowed to.

I was basically told that if we charge people for lying...it will dissuade truthful victims from coming forward.


----------



## Jarnhamar

exCAFguy said:
			
		

> Nope....I wasn’t allowed to.
> 
> I was basically told that if we charge people for lying...it will dissuade truthful victims from coming forward.



Lol

I believe it.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Lol
> 
> I believe it.



This NY Times article seems to back that approach i.e., better to think twice about charging someone for lying:

When Sexual Assault Victims Are Charged With Lying

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/24/opinion/sunday/sexual-assault-victims-lying.html


----------



## BeyondTheNow

exCAFguy said:
			
		

> Nope....I wasn’t allowed to.
> 
> I was basically told that if we charge people for lying...it will dissuade truthful victims from coming forward.





> Lol
> 
> I believe it.



This may seem a backwards line of thinking, but there’s truth to it...unfortunately.

I don’t in any way condone someone being a shithead and making stuff up to get attention, or to impart distress on another for whatever justified reasoning they’ve managed to create. But the fact remains that practically the number one reason victims refrain from coming forward/placing a formal complaint is because they’re afraid they won’t be believed. And while there are instances of people making stuff up—which again, is absolutely disgusting—there are far MORE instances of those being raked over the coals, having their reputations (personal and professional) destroyed, and being accused of lying for telling their stories. 

Until such time as our environment, both business and non, becomes a place where people (and I stress *people*...this isn’t strictly a male or female-only issue) feel safe to report such incidences, and where consequences for such behaviour match the offence, then there’s going to be severe issues while ironing out how best to let people know they’re able to come forward.


----------



## Jarnhamar

BeyondTheNow said:
			
		

> This may seem a backwards line of thinking, but there’s truth to it...unfortunately.



There's truth to it for sure. Most of us will never understand the situation and suffering victims endure being assaulted and then the circus of coming forward.

At the same time though its accepting trading one victim for another. It's treating an accused service member of being guilty until proven innocent. 

It there isn't a lot of sympathy out there for victims, I think there may be less sympathy for falsely accused victims. 

Shitty situation either way. The CAF though I'd say is obsessed with stats and looking good in the media- which causes even more problems.


----------



## QV

When it is clear and undisputed a complainant attempted to use the police and legal system to bring down the "subject", to cause personal and reputational injury, to possibly see this person lose liberty or worse, it is abhorrent this person is not properly charged with public mischief.  On the off chance some person, somewhere, may be discourage, to report.


----------



## Remius

QV said:
			
		

> When it is clear and undisputed a complainant attempted to use the police and legal system to bring down the "subject", to cause personal and reputational injury, to possibly see this person lose liberty or worse, it is abhorrent this person is not properly charged with public mischief.  On the off chance some person, somewhere, may be discourage, to report.



The problem I think as those examples seem to show, is that it may seem clear and undisputed when in fact it isn't.  all the normal signs of lying and misleading may seem to be present.  It is a case of police unlearning what they learned when it comes to cases like this.


----------



## QV

When the complainant admits to making it all up for revenge, I feel there is a solid case for public mischief.


----------



## garb811

QV said:
			
		

> When the complainant admits to making it all up for revenge, I feel there is a solid case for public mischief.


Sure, if when the confession was made the charters and cautions have been read and the video tape is running with the monitor paying attention and making fulsome and accurate notes... Not a show stopper if that wasn't the case but the hill you need to climb to prove that charge has now turned into a cliff face when she realizes the jeopardy she is suddenly in and refuses to repeat it once all of that is in place.


----------



## brihard

QV said:
			
		

> When the complainant admits to making it all up for revenge, I feel there is a solid case for public mischief.



Did the interviewing officer immediately tell the person to stop, and caution them? The instant such an admission is made, any reasonable officer will now suspect that the person has committed an offense, and the nature of the interview has changed. That doesn't meant he initial unsolicited admission is inadmissible, but it does mean that the individual's jeopardy has changed radically, and they need to be cautioned so as to unequivocally understand their rights not to say anything further and the problems they face.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

exCAFguy said:
			
		

> Nope....I wasn’t allowed to.
> 
> I was basically told that if we charge people for lying...it will dissuade truthful victims from coming forward.



Isn't this 'selective justice' or whatever the term is?  One person is accused of committing some type of offence and is investigated.  The person who makes the false accusation and lied to the police/authorities then admits "It was all a lie"...but with no consequences.

There is something else wrong with the system if we are letting people off the hook for things like this.  If you broke your right leg, would you go to hospital to get it in a cast etc?  Or would you break your other leg...


----------



## RCDtpr

Brihard said:
			
		

> Did the interviewing officer immediately tell the person to stop, and caution them? The instant such an admission is made, any reasonable officer will now suspect that the person has committed an offense, and the nature of the interview has changed. That doesn't meant he initial unsolicited admission is inadmissible, but it does mean that the individual's jeopardy has changed radically, and they need to be cautioned so as to unequivocally understand their rights not to say anything further and the problems they face.



In my office at that point the invest would be concluded and that’s that.  I once asked if I could at least send it to JAG for their opinion on moving forward for public mischief and got yelled at.

Edit....this reply was meant for Eye in the Sky however I clicked Brihard by mistake.  Not tech savvy enough to fix it lol


----------



## Eye In The Sky

This is where I think the "victim" has become the mbr originally thought to be "the accused".  Where is the concern for that individual?  Where are their rights to justice?   ???


----------



## daftandbarmy

QV said:
			
		

> When the complainant admits to making it all up for revenge, I feel there is a solid case for public mischief.



I have seen two occasions when this happened. In each case the reputational damage to the accused was unrecoverable, despite the lies being exposed, which was the greatest tragedy. 

I’m not sure what the best approach might be, but am pretty sure that slamming people into immediate house arrest, or the equivalent, based on an as yet unproven allegation is probably not the way to go.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Severe punishment (career ending perhaps?) handed down to Canadian Forces officer who repeatedly grabbed the genitals of colleagues.

I'm guessing the guilty party making the statement "Oh, I know you like it," had a hand to play in the judges decision.

https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/news/halifax/fondling-of-frigate-mates-earns-navy-officer-a-reprimand-346626/


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Severe punishment (career ending perhaps?) handed down to Canadian Forces officer who repeatedly grabbed the genitals of colleagues.
> 
> I'm guessing the guilty party making the statement "Oh, I know you like it," had a hand to play in the judges decision.
> 
> https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/news/halifax/fondling-of-frigate-mates-earns-navy-officer-a-reprimand-346626/



Meanwhile in Belgium:

*Belgian soldiers and police ‘held orgy’ during Brussels lockdown*
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/30/belgian-soldiers-police-held-orgy-during-brussels-lockdown

 :rofl:

Our world today is a funny mix of Roman Decadence and Victorian Morality


----------



## Navy_Pete

Maybe will be clearer when the actual CM decision is out in a few months, but any reason why something like this couldn't have had sexual assault as the primary, with the behaving in a disgraceful manner as an alternate? Understand there is discretion for the prosecutor but not really clear why this wouldn't meet the elements of the charge.

Does it have to be more sustained or not through clothes or something?  From looking at other CMs seems to be a range of similar behaviour that may or may not hit the threshold.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Maybe will be clearer when the actual CM decision is out in a few months, but any reason why something like this couldn't have had sexual assault as the primary, with the behaving in a disgraceful manner as an alternate? Understand there is discretion for the prosecutor but not really clear why this wouldn't meet the elements of the charge.
> 
> Does it have to be more sustained or not through clothes or something?  From looking at other CMs seems to be a range of similar behaviour that may or may not hit the threshold.



Because cultural/societal biases, that's why.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Meanwhile in Belgium:
> 
> *Belgian soldiers and police ‘held orgy’ during Brussels lockdown*
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/30/belgian-soldiers-police-held-orgy-during-brussels-lockdown
> 
> :rofl:
> 
> Our world today is a funny mix of Roman Decadence and Victorian Morality



Perception vs. reality related to crime is very different oin different countries e.g., https://www.visualcapitalist.com/crime-rate-perception-gap/


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Severe punishment (career ending perhaps?) handed down to Canadian Forces officer who repeatedly grabbed the genitals of colleagues.
> 
> I'm guessing the guilty party making the statement "Oh, I know you like it," had a hand to play in the judges decision.
> 
> https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/news/halifax/fondling-of-frigate-mates-earns-navy-officer-a-reprimand-346626/



A severe reprimand and a $3,000 fine?  That doesn't seem too severe to me.  I wonder if the Officer found guilty had been male and the victims female if the punishment would have been so (IMO) light.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> A severe reprimand and a $3,000 fine?  That doesn't seem too severe to me.  I wonder if the Officer found guilty had been male and the victims female if the punishment would have been so (IMO) light.



I'm tracking a couple of FB groups that are blowing up about that right now....


----------



## brihard

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Maybe will be clearer when the actual CM decision is out in a few months, but any reason why something like this couldn't have had sexual assault as the primary, with the behaving in a disgraceful manner as an alternate? Understand there is discretion for the prosecutor but not really clear why this wouldn't meet the elements of the charge.
> 
> Does it have to be more sustained or not through clothes or something?  From looking at other CMs seems to be a range of similar behaviour that may or may not hit the threshold.



She was charged with Sexual Assault x3, Assault x1, and Disgraceful x3. She pled guilty to disgraceful x3, which suggests a plea deal with the SA/Assault charges being stayed. Many men have gotten that same plea deal. CDS direction suggests that findings of guilt in such cases will probably result in an administrative (vs disciplinary) release from the CAF.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Maybe things have changed, but in my days a Severe reprimand on an officer's file was pretty career limiting.

She may make it to two-ringer, late, on the "automatic" process but extremely unlikely to make it past that rank unless she turns into the superstar of the fleet in all she does. Moreover, in my days, such finding could've security clearance implications. Not sure if that would still be the case today, though.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> A severe reprimand and a $3,000 fine?  That doesn't seem too severe to me.  I wonder if the Officer found guilty had been male and the victims female if the punishment would have been so (IMO) light.



$3000 fine paid in convenient $300 installments.

Would a male officer found guilty of grabbing women's crotches, saying "I knoe you like it" got the same punishment through today's op honour crosshairs? No idea, lots of people don't seem to think so from what I'm reading.

It sounds like she was promoted to LT(N) and redeployed on the same ship, in the same role.


----------



## OldSolduer

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> $3000 fine paid in convenient $300 installments.
> 
> Would a male officer found guilty of grabbing women's crotches, saying "I knoe you like it" got the same punishment through today's op honour crosshairs? No idea, lots of people don't seem to think so from what I'm reading.
> 
> It sounds like she was promoted to LT(N) and redeployed on the same ship, in the same role.



All good questions. Her career will probably stop, at least short term due to the severe reprimand. 

I would not be surprised if she was released administratively. I've been out for over two years now so who knows how they will treat this situation.


----------



## Stoker

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Maybe things have changed, but in my days a Severe reprimand on an officer's file was pretty career limiting.
> 
> She may make it to two-ringer, late, on the "automatic" process but extremely unlikely to make it past that rank unless she turns into the superstar of the fleet in all she does. Moreover, in my days, such finding could've security clearance implications. Not sure if that would still be the case today, though.



The member is now a LT(N).


----------



## Navy_Pete

Brihard said:
			
		

> She was charged with Sexual Assault x3, Assault x1, and Disgraceful x3. She pled guilty to disgraceful x3, which suggests a plea deal with the SA/Assault charges being stayed. Many men have gotten that same plea deal. CDS direction suggests that findings of guilt in such cases will probably result in an administrative (vs disciplinary) release from the CAF.



Thanks, that makes sense. The CMJ site only lists the disgraceful x3; didn't realize they don't list stayed charges from plea bargains on there. Learn something everyday; now I can start my weekend with confidence!  :cheers:

AR with possible release seems reasonable. Seems like a pretty light fine, but guessing this was par for the course with similar cases. On paper, severe reprimand is pretty bad, but kind of a moot point if you will get a dishonourable release anyway. Will be interesting to read the decision and see what the judge had for mitigating/aggravating factors. Speculating before that is available is a waste of time (IMHO).

If she was that close to getting her NOPQ she had enough experience that 'I'm just a dumb Subbie' doesn't wash. Especially to do it multiple times. I'm a fan of the bigger responsibility = bigger hammer if you mess up, so think generally that officers and senior NCMs should get smote for things like this to set an example for the sailors/troops.


----------



## FSTO

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> The member is now a LT(N).



Members are either a physical appendages or in the RCMP.

She's a Naval Officer (although a tainted one now)


----------



## Stoker

FSTO said:
			
		

> Members are either a physical appendages or in the RCMP.
> 
> She's a Naval Officer (although a tainted one now)



Yes this Naval Officer is now a LT(N), my bad.


----------



## PuckChaser

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> All good questions. Her career will probably stop, at least short term due to the severe reprimand.
> 
> I would not be surprised if she was released administratively. I've been out for over two years now so who knows how they will treat this situation.



If she's not released, its grounds for grievance for any male released after having similar charges and findings of guilt. Possibly even brought to a human rights tribunal, if someone was bold enough.


----------



## kratz

Sadly, grievances can only be made while in the service.

Those who were released would have to make use of other methods of recourse. As you suggested, a HRT.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Perception vs. reality related to crime is very different oin different countries e.g., https://www.visualcapitalist.com/crime-rate-perception-gap/


*WARNING: UNPOPULAR OPINION ALERT!*

I'm glad she didn't get convicted of sexual assault, it shows that there actually is some common sense in the legal system.

Yah she did wrong but ffs, she isn't a sex offender and I don't think it's in the public interest to have her on the registered sex offenders list with 3x sexual assault convictions which would essentially destroy her life. 

She is essentially guilty of being pig headed and promiscuous which btw I can go to any bar in town and watch the same thing happen multiple times in one night.  They don't have OP HONOUR in bars though so it's all good there.

Which btw, I think brings up an important point.  The whole purpose of the military justice system is to firstly, maintain discipline in the ranks but also correct behaviour and make someone employable by the CAF again.  

It is not supposed to be step 4 in the 30 step process of modern society's equivalent of tarring and feathering. I would personally offer her counselling and education and give her the chance to prove her worth again and that goes for anyone else OF EITHER SEX who did something similar.  

If everyone were judged by their worst moments, we would all be in prison (shamelessly stole that quote from someone else).  

This is kind of the point of my comment above regarding our society now.  We are a society of excess.  We promote absolute decadence in many instances (our celebrity obsessed culture) and then act all POed when someone acts exactly like the very people we spend most of our time idolizing.  Loudly yelling FOR SHAME!

I won't participate in it, I refuse to.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> She is essentially guilty of being pig headed and promiscuous which btw I can go to any bar in town and watch the same thing happen multiple times in one night.  They don't have OP HONOUR in bars though so it's all good there.



I think you're downplaying what this (commissioned) Officer did.  She is, if what the story says is factual, likely (and hopefully, IMO) looking at an AR for both alcohol misconduct/misuse and sexual misconduct.  Should the AR recommendation be release?  I don't know, and never will, because I don't know her entire CAF career history.  The people who need to know will know and I'll have to be satisfied they took all info into account.

Let's turn the situation around some;  let's say, the Officer who was guilty was a man, and the female he touched more than once was your daughter.  Would you think/feel the same?

Using conduct at a bar downtown as a measuring stick for conduct in the CAF, from Officers especially...is that the benchmark we want to go with?


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Using conduct at a bar downtown as a measuring stick for conduct in the CAF, from Officers especially...is that the benchmark we want to go with?



So CAF personnel can't go to bars and behave like......people in bars.....those places you go to in order to consume alcohol, and often to meet other people?  

That's quite the standard you have there.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

They can, of course.  However, their conduct is still subj to CAF standards, policies, etc.  If they step out of line, on duty or not, they can still face disciplinary/admin consequences.  

But, the point was we should not be using 'conduct in downtown bars' as a benchmark starting point for CAF members *acceptable conduct*, particularly those holding a Commission.  *Just because it happens downtown* isn't a good metric for conduct for CAF members is it?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I think you're downplaying what this Commissioned Officer did.  She is, if what the story says is factual, likely (and hopefully, IMO) looking at an AR for both alcohol misconduct/misuse and sexual misconduct.  Should the AR recommendation be release?  I don't know, and never will, because I don't know her entire CAF career history.  The people who need to know will know and I'll have to be satisfied they took all info into account.
> 
> Let's turn the situation around some;  let's say, the Officer who was guilty was a man, and the female he touched more than once was your daughter.  Would you think/feel the same?
> 
> Using conduct at a bar downtown as a measuring stick for conduct in the CAF, from Officers especially...is that the benchmark we want to go with?



Not downplaying it one bit.  My personal opinion is all are equal before the law.  Which is supposed to be one of the cornerstones of our legal system.  If we wanted her removed from the service, the mechanism to do that is through the court martial and sentencing.  Dismissal is a punishment that can be given.  My pal Rob Semrau was sentenced to dismissal and demoted two ranks for one count of disgraceful conduct.  Her position would be one of the factors considered.

What exactly is the difference between a 23 year old ASlt and a 23 year old Corporal anyways?  

A piece of paper and the fact one most likely spent 4 or 5 years at one of our Nations great institutions of higher learning.  Known for such events as binge drinking, experimentation with narcotics and sexual experimentation.  

The fact we subscribe to this Caste System still is kind of dumb tbh.  I also think it's very Un-Canadian but that's for another discussion.  She is an Officer yes, but just because someone holds some sort of rank or title doesn't somehow make them infallible.  

Also, your logic that an officer should be treated differently than a non-commissioned is flawed.  I'll explain why:

The same people that say "if this was a troop they would be getting the book thrown at them" are the ones who would loudly decree "they are only a corporal so that means they should be punished less".  It's "Rules for thee but not for me" only inversed.

Sexual misconduct isn't a crime btw, it's a term that is used to describe behaviours we have defined as unacceptable for whatever reason, whether it's cultural, spiritual, etc.  These beliefs change and evolve over time.  Being a homosexual used to be considered sexual misconduct btw. 

As I said, we are in a weird period right now.  People have more "freedom" than ever but we are arguably more censored than ever.  I can self-identify as a Cat, be totally useless at my actual job and I can show up and get paid, but heaven forbid I make a poorly worded remark to the wrong person or drink a little too much and make an *** of myself.

I am not saying what she did was right, I am saying a little perspective and analysis from people would be nice.  

What also needs to be a consideration is "can this person be rehabilitated?"  If the answer is yes then the next question is "can this person still be a valuable contributor to the Canadian Armed Forces?" If the answer is again yes, then steps need to be taken to make that happen.

What we seem to be moving slowly towards is an American style criminal justice industry.  We need to give people who screw up the tools to still be valuable contributors to society otherwise we just end up with larger social problems and a certain proportion of our population that is institutionally criminalized.  You know, like what occurred with the Residential School System.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Are we still looking at this from the same perspective I wonder?  I'm looking at it from the Admin/AR side and career consequences aspect, as the criminal/legal side has been determined.  I'm assuming the Sexual Misconduct Incident Management Decision Tree process is already in play, and the CAF/file is at the Step 7.

_A review of the facts of the case is required to determine whether, on a balance of probabilities, an incident, special circumstance, or professional deficiency has occurred. If such a determination is made, then a review of the facts of the case is required in order to ensure that the most appropriate administrative action is selected in accordance with DAOD 5019-2. This includes the CAF member's entire period of service (taking into account their rank, military occupation, experience & position), previous conduct deficiencies, if any, and leadership role, if any, _



			
				Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> What also needs to be a consideration is "can this person be rehabilitated?"  If the answer is yes then the next question is "can this person still be a valuable contributor to the Canadian Armed Forces?" If the answer is again yes, then steps need to be taken to make that happen.
> 
> What we seem to be moving slowly towards is an American style criminal industry.  We need to give people who screw up the tools to still be valuable contributors to society otherwise we just end up with larger social problems and a certain proportion of our population that is institutionally criminalized.  You know, like what occurred with the Residential School System.



I agree 100%.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Are we still looking at this from the same perspective I wonder?  I'm looking at it from the Admin/AR side and career consequences aspect, as the legal side has been determined.



I see your point EITS, I guess my beef is the AR Process has become politicized.  OP HONOUR is 20% an exercise in Justice, 80% an exercise in Political Brinksmanship.  

If a member wasn't sentenced to dismissal during a court martial, how can we then dismiss them administratively?

What's even the point of holding a trial and punishing someone found guilty if we are just going to turn around and administratively nail them no matter what?  

If the military justice system; which is supposed to be independent of the chain of command and is supposedly the most serious form of disciplinary action a member can be subjected to, doesn't think a member should be dismissed, how can the CoC say "nah we know better" and go ahead and do it anyways?

Does that not seriously undermine the legal system itself?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I am going to interrupt this discussion for a small point of ... order?

EITS, you used Commissioned Officer (both words capitalized. I believe you meant that as emphasis. However, in the Navy, Commissioned Officer (capitalized) is (or used to be) a rank: It is/was the rank used to designate an officer who commissioned from the ranks to the level of SLt after achieving the rate of Petty Officer or above. They either wore the same stripes as SLt but were referred to as Commissioned Officer (and in my days, most of them insisted on it as they didn't want to be confused with a mere subbie). The distinction usually ceased when they made Lt or above.

I know that when I released, they were trying to eliminate the usage, but I don't know if they ever were fully successful.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I am going to interrupt this discussion for a small point of ... order?
> 
> EITS, you used Commissioned Officer (both words capitalized. I believe you meant that as emphasis. However, in the Navy, Commissioned Officer (capitalized) is (or used to be) a rank: It is/was the rank used to designate an officer who commissioned from the ranks to the level of SLt after achieving the rate of Petty Officer or above. They either wore the same stripes as SLt but were referred to as Commissioned Officer (and in my days, most of them insisted on it as they didn't want to be confused with a mere subbie). The distinction usually ceased when they made Lt or above.
> 
> I know that when I released, they were trying to eliminate the usage, but I don't know if they ever were fully successful.



Order in the court you say?  This is the internet OGBD, ain't nobody got time for that!

I apologize for ranting a bit (more like a lot)but I was triggered reading CAF Reddit today.


----------



## ballz

Let's be serious, the CDS making a blanket decision that all instances of sexual misconduct will result in release through administrative action was dumb and was pure pandering to the media. It undermined the entire discipline and administrative system for him to score cheap points.

I don't know if the direction was ever watered down after he made those remarks, but I sure hope so.

Onto my actual point for posting....

Interestingly, the same judge made a ruling less than a year ago in a somewhat similar case. I sure do look forward to reading the official court martial decision for this latest case to compare, as having read the prior case I thought she had hit the nail right on the head in that case.

A male Pte who had just arrived at St. Jean was charged with 4 counts of sexual assault on 3 different victims. It was plastered all over the news.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/soldier-sex-assault-charges-1.4068855

Reading the court martial documents, the 4 sexual assaults were similar in nature. The Pte allegedly grazed two girls on the back of their butt with the back of his hand in the Green Room (Charges 1 and 3), the Pte allegedly touched one girls boob while demo'ing how to make a bed (Charge 4), and the Pte allegedly touched one of the girls on the butt with his fist in the elevator room (Charge 3).

These charges were eventually lowered to 129s before going to court (not through a plea deal... but because there was no chance of conviction of sexual assault given the evidence), and he was then found guilty of only one of them (the elevator room incident). The other three, quite honestly, seem a little bit ridiculous, but you can read the whole thing and judge for yourself.
https://decisia.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/jmc-cmj/cm/en/item/346527/index.do?q=taylor

In the end, the Pte was found guilty of ONE charge of 129. He received a fine of $2000. 

In this case, we have a commissioned officer guilty of THREE counts of a disgraceful conduct (a worse charge than a 129) for essentially the same action as Pte Taylor, repeated thrice. She received a $3000 fine, and a severe reprimand (and shortly after was promoted???).

These decisions were made by the same judge, less than a year apart. Like I said, I look forward to reading the decision when it's published, but on the face of it it feels like there are two standards here.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

ballz said:
			
		

> Let's be serious, the CDS making a blanket decision that all instances of sexual misconduct will result in release through administrative action was dumb and was pure pandering to the media. It undermined the entire discipline and administrative system for him to score cheap points.
> 
> I don't know if the direction was ever watered down after he made those remarks, but I sure hope so.
> 
> Onto my actual point for posting....
> 
> Interestingly, the same judge made a ruling earlier in the year in a somewhat similar case. I sure do look forward to reading the official court martial decision for this latest case to compare, as having read the case I thought she had hit the nail right on the head in that case.
> 
> A male Pte who had just arrived at St. Jean was charged with 4 counts of sexual assault on 3 different victims. It was plastered all over the news  (interesting that I don't remember hearing about this Officer on the news).
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/soldier-sex-assault-charges-1.4068855
> 
> Reading the court martial documents, the 4 sexual assaults were similar in nature. The Pte allegedly grazed two girls on the back of their butt with the back of his hand in the Green Room (Charges 1 and 3), the Pte allegedly touched one girls boob while making his bed (Charge 4), and the Pte allegedly touched one of the girls on the butt with his fist in the elevator room (Charge 3).
> 
> These charges were eventually lowered to 129s before going to court (not through a plea deal... but because there was no chance of conviction of sexual assault given the evidence), and he was then found guilty of only one of them (the elevator room incident). The other three, quite honestly, seem a little bit ridiculous, but you can read the whole thing and judge for yourself.
> https://decisia.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/jmc-cmj/cm/en/item/346527/index.do?q=taylor
> 
> In the end, the Pte was found guilty of ONE charge of 129. He received a fine of $2000.
> 
> In this case, we have a commissioned officer guilty of THREE counts of a disgraceful conduct (a worse charge than a 129) for essentially the same action as Pte Taylor, repeated thrice. She received a $3000 fine, and a severe reprimand (and shortly after was promoted???).
> 
> These decisions were made by the same judge, less than a year apart. Like I said, I look forward to reading the decision when it's published, but on the face of it it feels like there are two standards here.



I don't think people even understand what a severe reprimand is.  It's basically saying, you can do a 110% awesome job at whatever your doing now and in the future and no matter how good of a job you do, this will carry over and seriously impact your ability to excel ahead of your peers forever.

Now pretend for a second this individual is not in the military and is in some other career and all of a sudden their career is limited (a vocation they have been trained for) no matter what they do or how they perform?  How is that not a serious punishment?

I also agree 100% with your initial point.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I see your point EITS, I guess my beef is the AR Process has become politicized.  OP HONOUR is 20% an exercise in Justice, 80% an exercise in Political Brinksmanship.
> 
> If a member wasn't sentenced to dismissal during a court martial, how can we then dismiss them administratively?
> 
> What's even the point of holding a trial and punishing someone found guilty if we are just going to turn around and administratively nail them no matter what?
> 
> If the military justice system; which is supposed to be independent of the chain of command and is supposedly the most serious form of disciplinary action a member can be subjected to, doesn't think a member should be dismissed, how can the CoC say "nah we know better" and go ahead and do it anyways?
> 
> Does that not seriously undermine the legal system itself?



I see them as complimentary.  The legal system, to determine guilt/innocence, looks at the evidence as it related only to that alleged crime/action.  Our Admin processes like an AR take into account the members entire service history and all RMs, etc over a mbr's career are taken into consideration.  We've a 400 page Admin Law Manual to guide us in matters of Admin Law, and fairly specific direction on how an AR will happen for any CAF mbr involved with sexual misconduct.

We aren't 'just' civilians at the end of the day.  Because of that distinction, I believe the CAF needs additional disciplinary and administrative tools and options to address conduct on and off duty.  

I also don't have much faith in the Canadian "legal" system which the CAF is more and more in tune with...so, personally, I'm one of those who are thankful we have the administrative law/processes we do.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I don't think people even understand what a severe reprimand is.  It's basically saying, you can do a 110% awesome job at whatever your doing now and in the future and no matter how good of a job you do, this will carry over and seriously impact your ability to excel ahead of your peers forever.
> 
> Now pretend for a second this individual is not in the military and is in some other career and all of a sudden their career is limited (a vocation they have been trained for) no matter what they do or how they perform?  How is that not a serious punishment?
> 
> I also agree 100% with your initial point.



It's not a punishment at all except for you brainwashed military folk......most jobs have no advancement,  that is your job and you get paid for it.
Doing this same job for 30 years, along with thousands of other CO'S,  and we're doing just fine.
A line on a piece of paper 25 years ago would have been about as bothersome as a small cloud on a sunny day.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> It's not a punishment at all except for you brainwashed military folk......most jobs have no advancement,  that is your job and you get paid for it.
> Doing this same job for 30 years, along with thousands of other CO'S,  and we're doing just fine.
> A line on a piece of paper 25 years ago would have been about as bothersome as a small cloud on a sunny day.



Have you ever aspired to be a Supervisor, Warden, Specialist, etc?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Nope.....if I had wanted to push papers I'd have been a clerk.  
It's not like on TV....


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I am going to interrupt this discussion for a small point of ... order?
> 
> EITS, you used Commissioned Officer (both words capitalized. I believe you meant that as emphasis. However, in the Navy, Commissioned Officer (capitalized) is (or used to be) a rank: It is/was the rank used to designate an officer who commissioned from the ranks to the level of SLt after achieving the rate of Petty Officer or above. They either wore the same stripes as SLt but were referred to as Commissioned Officer (and in my days, most of them insisted on it as they didn't want to be confused with a mere subbie). The distinction usually ceased when they made Lt or above.
> 
> I know that when I released, they were trying to eliminate the usage, but I don't know if they ever were fully successful.



I think I was trying to emphasize the commissioned Officer aspect so there was no doubt I meant Officers solely and not Warrant/Petty or non-commissioned ones.   ;D

I know I'm getting grey and close to a 2nd clasp on the CD;  I'm one of those people who still believe "higher rank = higher expectations" for things like conduct, ethics, etc.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I think I was trying to emphasis the commissioned Officer aspect so there was no doubt I meant Officers solely and not Warrant/Petty or non-commissioned ones.   ;D
> 
> I know I'm getting grey and close to a 2nd clasp on the CD;  I'm one of those people who still believe "higher rank = higher expectations" for things like conduct, ethics, etc.



You old dog you!  You are going to need to temper those expectations.  The most I expect now is that someone be good at Rocket League.







Don't knock it, makes you cool with the youths!


----------



## ballz

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I don't think people even understand what a severe reprimand is.  It's basically saying, you can do a 110% awesome job at whatever your doing now and in the future and no matter how good of a job you do, this will carry over and seriously impact your ability to excel ahead of your peers forever.
> 
> Now pretend for a second this individual is not in the military and is in some other career and all of a sudden their career is limited (a vocation they have been trained for) no matter what they do or how they perform?  How is that not a serious punishment?



I know what a severe reprimand is. 

The fact is every disciplinary measure comes with somewhat of a "reprimand" to your career which is essentially however everyone judges you during that time and for how long after they judge you, for those actions that led to disciplinary action.

I can assure your Pte Taylor experienced and is experiencing "severe reprimand" to his career (assuming he still has one) regardless of the judge not having given him one. The severe reprimand is implicit and only measured by those who supervise you afterwards. Having a judge formally acknowledge one makes zero difference.

What "rules" exist surrounding the use of a severe reprimand to ensure it will be respected and to what degree? It's a pure judgement call on the supervisors going forward.


----------



## ModlrMike

Regardless of the outcome, her career as an NWO is effectively torpedoed.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I don't think people even understand what a severe reprimand is.  It's basically saying, you can do a 110% awesome job at whatever your doing now and in the future and no matter how good of a job you do, this will carry over and seriously impact your ability to excel ahead of your peers forever.




Except in this job being female means you might get accepted for a trade you want over a male applicant who's told its closed. 

We also make a show of bragging about gender metrics like (attempting to) deploy 15% females to Mali. 

I'm confident if the CAF wants more female navy officers for their optics a severe repremand on someone's file won't get in the way.


----------



## OldSolduer

Now that I am at my own keyboard I'd like to offer my thoughts, hopefully in a coherent, measured fashion.

1. Being a Commissioned Officer or an NCO in the CAF sets one apart from society in general and the troops you lead. I think we can all agree to that.
2. As leaders, you are entrusted with the welfare of the troops you lead. This includes their well being. This is a trust which should never be broken.
3. By groping her subordinates she broke that trust, pure and simple.

Quite simply, the sons and daughters the CAF commands haven't signed up to be groped or abused. 

My  :2c:


----------



## Ralph

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> We also make a show of bragging about gender metrics like (attempting to) deploy 15% females to Mali.



All countries sending staff and military observers on UN missions are expected to send 15% female personnel.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Ralph said:
			
		

> All countries sending staff and military observers on UN missions are expected to send 15% female personnel.



I'm so old that I remember when it was '50% of reservists to Bosnia/Afghanistsan etc' #differenttimesdifferentequitygroups


----------



## brihard

Man, there's some weird hand-wringing going on in this thread. 

Sexual assault is a crime. It's a pretty straightforward concept, and it has a clear meaning in law. Unfortunately it happens a lot in society you can indeed go out on a weekend evening, and there's a reasonable chance that if you're in the bars, some sexual assaults on the 'lower' end of the spectrum of what that offense covers will occur near you. Being reasonably frequent, and being 'lower end' doesn't make them any less criminal, it just makes them a prevalent problem. I have the right to go to a bar, or the mechanic's, or the library, or to my place of employment, or the furniture store, or to a work party without having my dick touched if I don't want it to be. Everyone does. A victim being male and a perpetrator female doesn't change the gravity of a situation at all. So let's start with that- you grab someone's junk without permission, regardless of the nature or configuration of their junk or of yours, you're offside. If you tell them "You know you like it" and you do it again, it's difficult to suggest it was unintentional or a misread of a sexually charged but still somewhat ambiguous situation. Does it happen a lot in bars? Yes. And if someone comes to me with a credible allegation of that and there's a suspect, I can and will arrest and charge that person. In the strictly criminal law side of the house, there's no differnet, higher standard being applied here simply because it's the CAF and the eyes of society are on us. The conduct was in and of itself sufficient to justify charges,a dn charges were laid. A plea deal resulted, also common in civilian criminal court. Nobody got railroaded here.

The CAF, quite wisely, has decided that for valid institutional reasons, we impose a standard of conduct higher than 'don't get convicted of a criminal offense'. Any employer can and most do. The CAF is hardly unique for having certain situations in which someone will lose their job if it's reasonably believed they engaged in certain conduct. While the CAF is one of only a few employers with its own specific legislation, and its own conduct expectations that have the weight of law, that's not what it has to rely upon to determine that someone is best removed from employment. McDonalds doesn't need a National Fast Food Act passed by a legislature to have the power to fire someone who grabs someone else's dick, either during work hours or at an after hours work function. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the CAF has one of the most rigorously procedural employee administration systems, with some of the strongest oversight mechanisms to be found anywhere. You grope a coworker at TD Bank, watch how fast you're fired. You probably won't be seeing an NOI, there's probably not going to be a grievance procedure. Brief meeting with HR, and here's the banker's box with your personal effects... The CAF has a lot in place to make sure that administrative measures are enacted fairly.

I acknowledge that the role of the CAF justice system is in part rehabilitation. Absolutely, and yes it should be. But that does not obviate the requirement for CAF leadership to identify systemic problems int he institution, and to use the measures they have available to target unacceptable behaviours that fall short of outright criminality. Being fired from a job does not carry the weight of a criminal conviction. It sucks, but when you choose the behaviour you choose the consequences, and there has been nothing unclear about the consequences of not keeping your damned hands to yourself for a fair bit of time now.

An individual who engages in such behaviours against / among CAF members does more than just grab someone's dick. They're wilfully engaging in conduct that perpetuate a type of behaviour that is rightly or wrongly seen as endemic within our ranks, and that has been deemed (rightly) to constitute a threat to the institution. They are wilfully engaging in behaviour that makes some other members uncomfortable at or afraid to come to work, and that has caused some significant psychological distress. In the case of a leader, they are damaging ocnfidence in the integrity of the chain of command and they are damaging the trust that should implicitly be vested both upwards and downwards through the chain of command. I recognize also that institutionally the CAF sees such things from an officer as more egregious. Frankly I tire of that nonsense and I think that as we're all adults (or damned close to it) and professionals, and as our junior ranks are no longer Wellington's 'scum of the earth', we should be able to view misconduct equitably regardless of a degree or a commission. But I digress- that was just the (not quite released yet) NCO in me taking umbrage at the residual classism we still have. In any case, there is no person so lowly in rank or junior in experience who is not aware of where these particular lines are drawn, and whose conduct can be mitigated by being junior.

This is not something 'everyone is guilty of'. Most of us are perfectly capable of keeping our hands to ourselves. Those who can't give me pause- I question their ability to exercise sound judgment, and I question their self control. I won't leave those concerns in the frictionless vacuum of an after work party, because character is character.

Maybe I'm pretty die hard on this, but I don't think we need every single person who enters our organization to stay, and I don't think the recruitng process perfectly weeds in who should and who should not be here. I believe that over time, people will revert to their nature even when they 'wear a mask' in a professional environment. I believe that a small portion of our members, by virtue of their choices and their conduct, eventually show themselves to not be worth the cost of keeping. It might be a one off, it might not. But in an institution where discipline is so key, I fully support the CDS on down in keeping a very tight grip on the consequences of poor choices.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Ralph said:
			
		

> All countries sending staff and military observers on UN missions are expected to send 15% female personnel.



Thanks Ralph. I'd believe it. Is there a source for that though that I can use in the future?


----------



## mariomike

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Is there a source for that though that I can use in the future?



There was this,



			
				PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Unless of course the stated goal for the mission, and inherent ask from the UN, was to have 15% of Staff Officer positions female, and we hit just shy of that mark....



See also,
https://www.google.com/search?biw=1280&bih=641&ei=3H9qXdPxEMWd-gSU35aIBw&q=UN+15%25++female+peacekeeping&oq=UN+15%25++female+peacekeeping&gs_l=psy-ab.3...20414.26224..26563...0.2..0.306.3673.0j7j9j1......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j35i39j33i22i29i30.kwFxApSB6wE&ved=0ahUKEwjTz_vrpK3kAhXFjp4KHZSvBXEQ4dUDCAo&uact=5#spf=1567260666124


----------



## Underway

I'm going to attempt clear up a few incorrect bits of information here so people can discuss the issue with some accuracy as there are important distinctions/details being missed.  The FB and reddit rage is classic mob justice without the actual facts.  I know we expect a higher standard here.

1) Rumor one:  She groped a subordinate.  False.  
Her crime was against mess mates.  She was a SLt at the time (most Jr member of the mess). The complaint came from someone who was not groped but reported one of the incidents.  This was not against a subordinate, it was a peer.

2) Rumour two: She had preferential career progression because of gender.  False.
Career and postings continued as normal after the incident with a swap to _a different ship_ because; the complainant and respondent should be separated. Also as outlined in the HISB process there is a presumption of innocence with no career implications until the truth can be determined through an investigation.  

3) Rumour three: She's free and clear at this point.  Unknown.
No one but her chain of command really knows where the administrative process is on this.  The disciplinary process is now over (aside from fine paying). There are a number of rumours but without a look a the actual file all we can do is speculate.  As directed by the CDS in CANFORGEN 049/19 there may still be an Administrative Review to finish (resulting in an Admin Release).  The initial investigating authority (aka her original ship) may have finished one, or applied other administrative functions (C&P, counselling, coursing, rehab whatever...) we don't know and frankly that information is private to the member.  Complicating the issue was that the HISB policy/program was not as well defined when the incident happened.

4) Rumour four: If she was a man the punishment would have been worse.  False.
The judge in sentencing used at least 4 previous cases to assign the punishment.  Fines in those cases ranged from $1500 to $5000 and all included a severe reprimand.  The most severe was a male Maj who groped their subordinates.  The sentence didn't come out of nowhere, there are presidents.  _The punishment severity was within the spectrum of previous cases and thus cannot be argued to have been reduced by her gender._.


Hopefully this will recenter the discussion on what I believe it should really be about.  Are punishments assigned by the military justice system in these cases severe/appropriate enough?  Is the HISB process as now written dealing with these incidents in an appropriate manner?  How important is the Administrative review process and is it going to be used as supplementary punishment because the military justice system is deemed not harsh or politically sensitive enough?  Should CAF members be allowed to learn from mistakes and resurrect their career over time?

As a PSA:
If you are not familiar with the HISB process I've linked the reference.  I suggest _especially if you are a leader in the CAF_ you make yourself _very_ familiar with the contents.  If you are in the RCN every single board qualification that you attempt will have an HISB component to it, with a hard pass/fail for the scenario. 

HISB Procedure Manual.


----------



## Jarnhamar

I guess the CAF can take that $3000 fine and put it towards that billion dollar pay out were doing (for not treating assault and harassment serious enough in the first place?).


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Brihard said:
			
		

> Man, there's some weird hand-wringing going on in this thread.



Brihard as always, you provide a very articulate and composed post.  There was definitely some intentional hand-wringing on my part but I think I'll be able to home in on a few things in response to what you've said.



> Sexual assault is a crime. It's a pretty straightforward concept, and it has a clear meaning in law. Unfortunately it happens a lot in society you can indeed go out on a weekend evening, and there's a reasonable chance that if you're in the bars, some sexual assaults on the 'lower' end of the spectrum of what that offense covers will occur near you. Being reasonably frequent, and being 'lower end' doesn't make them any less criminal, it just makes them a prevalent problem. I have the right to go to a bar, or the mechanic's, or the library, or to my place of employment, or the furniture store, or to a work party without having my dick touched if I don't want it to be. Everyone does. A victim being male and a perpetrator female doesn't change the gravity of a situation at all. So let's start with that- you grab someone's junk without permission, regardless of the nature or configuration of their junk or of yours, you're offside. If you tell them "You know you like it" and you do it again, it's difficult to suggest it was unintentional or a misread of a sexually charged but still somewhat ambiguous situation. Does it happen a lot in bars? Yes. And if someone comes to me with a credible allegation of that and there's a suspect, I can and will arrest and charge that person. In the strictly criminal law side of the house, there's no differnet, higher standard being applied here simply because it's the CAF and the eyes of society are on us. The conduct was in and of itself sufficient to justify charges,a dn charges were laid. A plea deal resulted, also common in civilian criminal court. Nobody got railroaded here.



You and I are mostly in agreement here; however, you're looking at it from a Police Officer's perspective.  Police Officers are like the nuclear missiles of the justice system and you work exclusively on behalf of the Crown.  Police Officers don't say "Anything you say can be used FOR you" quite the opposite actually.  Luckily Police are only one part of the justice system.  

Police will lay a charge or charge(s) based on one set of facts i.e. the ones they collected and presented but that is not the entire story ever.  We are lucky its not because if it were there would be a lot more people in jail.

I think in the case above, the system has worked as intended.  As you said, a plea bargain was reached and I think the sentencing was proportional and just given what we know about the case and the offender.

I think the real problem is peoples perceptions vs reality.  We should not and cannot treat every case of alleged sexual assault or any other crime for that matter with the same brush every single time.  You only need to read this reddit thread to get a sense of what I'm trying to get at:

https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadianForces/comments/cxacd2/fondling_of_frigatemates_earns_navy_officer_a/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share

Comments ranging from "that's rape" to hatred for officers disguised as outrage over the verdict.  It's a Roman Colosseum mentality.  Luckily again, the judicial system doesn't take this in to consideration and works as intended.



> The CAF, quite wisely, has decided that for valid institutional reasons, we impose a standard of conduct higher than 'don't get convicted of a criminal offense'. Any employer can and most do. The CAF is hardly unique for having certain situations in which someone will lose their job if it's reasonably believed they engaged in certain conduct. While the CAF is one of only a few employers with its own specific legislation, and its own conduct expectations that have the weight of law, that's not what it has to rely upon to determine that someone is best removed from employment. McDonalds doesn't need a National Fast Food Act passed by a legislature to have the power to fire someone who grabs someone else's dick, either during work hours or at an after hours work function. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the CAF has one of the most rigorously procedural employee administration systems, with some of the strongest oversight mechanisms to be found anywhere. You grope a coworker at TD Bank, watch how fast you're fired. You probably won't be seeing an NOI, there's probably not going to be a grievance procedure. Brief meeting with HR, and here's the banker's box with your personal effects... The CAF has a lot in place to make sure that administrative measures are enacted fairly.
> 
> I acknowledge that the role of the CAF justice system is in part rehabilitation. Absolutely, and yes it should be. But that does not obviate the requirement for CAF leadership to identify systemic problems int he institution, and to use the measures they have available to target unacceptable behaviours that fall short of outright criminality. Being fired from a job does not carry the weight of a criminal conviction. It sucks, but when you choose the behaviour you choose the consequences, and there has been nothing unclear about the consequences of not keeping your damned hands to yourself for a fair bit of time now.
> 
> An individual who engages in such behaviours against / among CAF members does more than just grab someone's dick. They're wilfully engaging in conduct that perpetuate a type of behaviour that is rightly or wrongly seen as endemic within our ranks, and that has been deemed (rightly) to constitute a threat to the institution. They are wilfully engaging in behaviour that makes some other members uncomfortable at or afraid to come to work, and that has caused some significant psychological distress. In the case of a leader, they are damaging ocnfidence in the integrity of the chain of command and they are damaging the trust that should implicitly be vested both upwards and downwards through the chain of command. I recognize also that institutionally the CAF sees such things from an officer as more egregious. Frankly I tire of that nonsense and I think that as we're all adults (or damned close to it) and professionals, and as our junior ranks are no longer Wellington's 'scum of the earth', we should be able to view misconduct equitably regardless of a degree or a commission. But I digress- that was just the (not quite released yet) NCO in me taking umbrage at the residual classism we still have. In any case, there is no person so lowly in rank or junior in experience who is not aware of where these particular lines are drawn, and whose conduct can be mitigated by being junior.



Again, I mostly agree with you but the big difference is people don't live at TD Bank or McDonalds and they don't spend 24/7 for months on end with Jimmy or Julie flipping burgers on the line (thank goodness as smelling like Chicken McNuggets 24/7 would be terrible).  

There is a reason the military has its own justice system and its own code of service discipline.  The purpose of which is to maintain "discipline, efficiency and morale" of the Armed Forces.  

IMO if we are keeping people in the Forces with Multiple DUI Convictions (I know a few) and Confirmed Illicit Narcotic Use (and there are many), I cannot objectively look at this (with the facts we know) and say that this individual does not deserve a second chance to remain in the service.  In terms of their actual employability in their actual job (driving ships), I would certainly trust them more than an addict.  

What do I objectively think would be a fair outcome of an administrative review?  12 months C&P and a requirement to undergo a counselling program.   

You and I are in 100% agreement concerning the outdated class system.  Canada has one of the most educated populations in the world.  Expectations concerning conduct should be the same across the board.  I'm not a fan at all of "Rules for thee but not for me" but this is what the CSD is for.  

The fact the individual in question was an Officer would have been a factor in sentencing.  It always is, which is why when General Rouleau had an ND in Iraq, he underwent a Court Martial and received a $2000.00 fine and a new Pte who gets an ND undergoes a Summary Trial and if they are found guilty, receives a $100 fine.

I agree with Ballz that it was wrong to come out and say the CAF would kick everyone out who was implicated for sexual misconduct.  It was short term political calculus and a situation of the estimate.  Administrative Law should not trump the CSD and that's essentially what has happened or at least that's the messaging we are seeing.



> This is not something 'everyone is guilty of'. Most of us are perfectly capable of keeping our hands to ourselves. Those who can't give me pause- I question their ability to exercise sound judgment, and I question their self control. I won't leave those concerns in the frictionless vacuum of an after work party, because character is character.
> 
> Maybe I'm pretty die hard on this, but I don't think we need every single person who enters our organization to stay, and I don't think the recruitng process perfectly weeds in who should and who should not be here. I believe that over time, people will revert to their nature even when they 'wear a mask' in a professional environment. I believe that a small portion of our members, by virtue of their choices and their conduct, eventually show themselves to not be worth the cost of keeping. It might be a one off, it might not. But in an institution where discipline is so key, I fully support the CDS on down in keeping a very tight grip on the consequences of poor choices.



I never said anything different.  People should be able to keep their hands to themselves but unfortunately people aren't computers, they don't respond to algorithms.  I have little doubt that this Officer will from here on out keep their hands to themselves and if they don't, well the consequences will be greater and I would definitely expect them to be separated from the service.

Personally Brihard, I think the fact that you are a Law Enforcement Officer gives you a certain perspective that is different than others.  Everyone has biases that are shaped by their own experiences, including you and I.  You have your viewpoint but it is not the only one.  

One of the things that nobody seems to be talking about here that is a real elephant in the room in the CAF, is fraternization.  It's a chargeable offence but one that seems to have gone by the wayside.   The only people it still seems to apply to are certain senior officers who embarrass the CAF in some way.

I think fraternization does more damage to discipline and morale in the Forces than almost anything else.  Why?  Because it creates a power vaccuum and does real damage to the CoC.  

*Edited for typos, that's what I get for typing on my phone


----------



## daftandbarmy

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> One of the things that nobody seems to be talking about here that is a real elephant in the room in the CAF, is fraternization.  It's a chargeable offence but one that seems to have gone by the wayside.   The only people it still seems to apply to are certain senior officers who embarrass the CAF in some way.
> 
> I think fraternization does more damage to discipline and morale in the Forces than almost anything else.  Why?  Because it creates a power vaccuum and does real damage to the CoC.



Nailed it.  :nod:


----------



## FJAG

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> ... I think the real problem is peoples perceptions vs reality.  We should not and cannot treat every case of alleged sexual assault or any other crime for that matter with the same brush every single time. ...



I think what you say here is the crux of the issue especially when dealing with sexual assaults. A sexual assault in its simplest terms is "unwanted sexual contact".

While simple assaults are generally easy to distinguish in that generally no one wants to be "punched, stabbed or shot" and therefore whatever act happened was most likely non consensual, sexual activity and touching is for the vast number of occasions both wanted and consensual. Hence, consensual sexual contact is not a crime while unwanted sexual contact very well could be. In addition, like an  assault, sexual assault can be one of degree from a minor but improper touch to a very violent event.

Because of the complexities involved it takes a skilled jurist based on evidence before him (often involving credibility and diverging stories) to determine: a) if a sexual assault occurred; and b) where on the severity continuum it lays and how should it be sanctioned.

Media articles rarely give you the full story while a written judgement will provide much of the key evidence. I therefore refrain from commenting at all until I've read the judgement.

On top of that, for many crimes committed there are two aspects that follow the outcome: a) the punishment imposed by the legal system for the crime based on the facts and previous decisions for similar circumstances; and b) the sanctions imposed by the public, including the offender's employer, based on their own perception/guidelines of the circumstances on their particular area of responsibility.

For DND, any circumstance that leads to criminal/service offence charges can lead to an administrative action regardless as to whether the offence is actually proven in court. Remember that there is a wide gap between conviction beyond a reasonable doubt (a criminal standard) and on a balance of probabilities (a civil/administrative standard). Accordingly administrative sanctions may follow even when there isn't a criminal conviction and, where appropriate, the administrative action is usually imposed on a sliding scale based on the severity of the relevant circumstances.

I can't say with a straight face that every administrative action that DND takes is well thought out and based on concrete principles but I can say that in these types of cases such principles are fairly well set down and evaluated based on an adequate investigation and determined under generally accepted standards of procedural fairness. Redress and appeal systems exist.

Our individual sense of outrage in this case may vary but I'm prepared to give the system its time to react and announce its decision rather than jump the gun on what it might or might not do.

 :cheers:


----------



## Journeyman

CAF Reddit is a self-inflicted wound;  finding mob outrage there is no different than being surprised at finding an IQ-challenged comment in a US Presidential discussion, or Inspector Renault finding gambling in Rick's "Café Americaine."

The good news though, is that I can skip Sunday School tomorrow, having gotten my weekly share of preachin' right here.   :nod:


----------



## dimsum

Journeyman said:
			
		

> CAF Reddit is a self-inflicted wound;  finding mob outrage there is no different than being surprised at finding an IQ-challenged comment in a US Presidential discussion, or Inspector Renault finding gambling in Rick's "Café Americaine."



I do like their SCS (Salty Cpl Saturdays) memes though.  Some of them should be PAO folks in 2 Div


----------



## MJP

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I do like their SCS (Salty Cpl Saturdays) memes though.  Some of them should be PAO folks in 2 Div



Indeed, such salty memes!  

Overall, it is very much like a smoke pit, lots of chatter, a few great nuggets of info and lots of bitching and misinformation.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> One of the things that nobody seems to be talking about here that is a real elephant in the room in the CAF, is fraternization.  It's a chargeable offence but one that seems to have gone by the wayside.   The only people it still seems to apply to are certain senior officers who embarrass the CAF in some way.
> 
> I think fraternization does more damage to discipline and morale in the Forces than almost anything else.  Why?  Because it creates a power vaccuum and does real damage to the CoC.



Semantics, I'll admit, sometimes is the proverbial picking flyshit out of pepper, but your use of the term "fraternization" doesn't apply to the situations being discussed.
https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/policies-standards/defence-administrative-orders-directives/5000-series/5019/5019-1-personal-relationships-and-fraternization.html


> 2. Definitions
> 
> fraternization (fraternisation)
> 
> Any relationship between a CAF member and a person from an enemy or belligerent force, or a CAF member and a local inhabitant within a theatre of operations where CAF members are deployed. (Defence Terminology Bank, record number 43080)
> 
> personal relationship (relation personnelle)
> 
> An emotional, romantic, sexual or family relationship, including marriage or a common-law partnership or civil union, between two CAF members, or a CAF member and a DND employee or contractor, or member of an allied force. (Defence Terminology Bank, record number 43170)



And while "fraternization" per se is *not "illegal"* (which would be the only thing that would make it a chargeable offence), it can be situationally inappropriate.



> 4.6 Fraternization can have detrimental effects on unit operation effectiveness due to potential threats to the security, morale, cohesion and discipline of a unit. Task force commanders must issue orders and guidance on fraternization appropriate to the situation in their area of operations.



It is the "disobeying" of any orders about "appropriate" fraternization that is the chargeable part.

On the other hand "personal relationships" (which I assume is what you are referring to when you use fraternization) are also situational.



> 4.5 Commanding officers (COs) must apply appropriate situational-specific criteria when dealing with individual situations or establishing any local policy with respect to personal relationships. Before establishing any local policy, unit authorities should consult with the local representative of the Judge Advocate General (JAG). Any local policy must not be less restrictive than this DAOD.
> . . .
> 
> 5.1 If a personal relationship has a negative effect on the security, cohesion, discipline or morale of a unit, the personal relationship is considered adverse for the purpose of this DAOD.



And while romantic (or consensual sexual) attachments can be messy in the military, it is no different than the normal interactions in a civilian workplace.  And if I may interject a personal comment, if I had been precluded from forming relationships with other Canadian (and a few Allied) servicewomen, then I would have had a very dull career (and life).


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Journeyman said:
			
		

> CAF Reddit is a self-inflicted wound;  finding mob outrage there is no different than being surprised at finding an IQ-challenged comment in a US Presidential discussion, or Inspector Renault finding gambling in Rick's "Café Americaine."
> 
> The good news though, is that I can skip Sunday School tomorrow, having gotten my weekly share of preachin' right here.   :nod:



JM, you and I both know you aren't missing out on Tap of the Day at Spearhead Brewing Company.



			
				FJAG said:
			
		

> I think what you say here is the crux of the issue especially when dealing with sexual assaults. A sexual assault in its simplest terms is "unwanted sexual contact".
> 
> While simple assaults are generally easy to distinguish in that generally no one wants to be "punched, stabbed or shot" and therefore whatever act happened was most likely non consensual, sexual activity and touching is for the vast number of occasions both wanted and consensual. Hence, consensual sexual contact is not a crime while unwanted sexual contact very well could be. In addition, like an  assault, sexual assault can be one of degree from a minor but improper touch to a very violent event.
> 
> Because of the complexities involved it takes a skilled jurist based on evidence before him (often involving credibility and diverging stories) to determine: a) if a sexual assault occurred; and b) where on the severity continuum it lays and how should it be sanctioned.
> 
> Media articles rarely give you the full story while a written judgement will provide much of the key evidence. I therefore refrain from commenting at all until I've read the judgement.
> 
> On top of that, for many crimes committed there are two aspects that follow the outcome: a) the punishment imposed by the legal system for the crime based on the facts and previous decisions for similar circumstances; and b) the sanctions imposed by the public, including the offender's employer, based on their own perception/guidelines of the circumstances on their particular area of responsibility.
> 
> For DND, any circumstance that leads to criminal/service offence charges can lead to an administrative action regardless as to whether the offence is actually proven in court. Remember that there is a wide gap between conviction beyond a reasonable doubt (a criminal standard) and on a balance of probabilities (a civil/administrative standard). Accordingly administrative sanctions may follow even when there isn't a criminal conviction and, where appropriate, the administrative action is usually imposed on a sliding scale based on the severity of the relevant circumstances.
> 
> I can't say with a straight face that every administrative action that DND takes is well thought out and based on concrete principles but I can say that in these types of cases such principles are fairly well set down and evaluated based on an adequate investigation and determined under generally accepted standards of procedural fairness. Redress and appeal systems exist.
> 
> Our individual sense of outrage in this case may vary but I'm prepared to give the system its time to react and announce its decision rather than jump the gun on what it might or might not do.
> 
> :cheers:



FJAG, as always your input is extremely valuable and a reminder why it takes years of training and associated experience to become a lawyer.  



			
				Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Semantics, I'll admit, sometimes is the proverbial picking flyshit out of pepper, but your use of the term "fraternization" doesn't apply to the situations being discussed.
> https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/policies-standards/defence-administrative-orders-directives/5000-series/5019/5019-1-personal-relationships-and-fraternization.html
> And while "fraternization" per se is *not "illegal"* (which would be the only thing that would make it a chargeable offence), it can be situationally inappropriate.
> 
> It is the "disobeying" of any orders about "appropriate" fraternization that is the chargeable part.
> 
> On the other hand "personal relationships" (which I assume is what you are referring to when you use fraternization) are also situational.
> 
> And while romantic (or consensual sexual) attachments can be messy in the military, it is no different than the normal interactions in a civilian workplace.  And if I may interject a personal comment, if I had been precluded from forming relationships with other Canadian (and a few Allied) servicewomen, then I would have had a very dull career (and life).



Thank you for the clarification and I don't really view it as picking fly crap out of pepper.  Semantics and Pedantics is why we have lawyers  8)

Call it what you want.  I have seen a number of "personal relationships" that would be considered inappropriate.  What was formally done about it?  Absolument rien.  Actually doing something about it would certainly solve a number of problems but invites other problems for Commanders so it is easier to do nothing.  

The question is when does it border in to the realm of conduct unbecoming or conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline?  I'm not a lawyer so I cannot answer that.


----------



## dimsum

MJP said:
			
		

> Indeed, such salty memes!
> 
> Overall, it is very much like a smoke pit, lots of chatter, a few great nuggets of info and lots of bitching and misinformation.



I'm honestly surprised it's not renamed to "The Smoke Pit".  

However, they did have some good tips about BGRS, and because how many people are on there, usually you get your answer in a day or less.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

For the record, I'm not condoning this person's behaviour at all.  What she did was wrong and she admitted guilt.  I'm just not certain removal from the service is 100% warranted in this case and I'm not about to jump on the mob bandwagon as I don't think it's helpful or right.  

Any how, good discussion and I want to state that I value everyone's opinion here and appreciate that we can talk about this without resorting to petty name calling or trolling, even if we aren't 100% in agreement on certain things.  It shows a certain level of maturity that other social media platforms lack nowadays.

Regards,
HB


----------



## OldSolduer

For what it’s worth I see sex offenders released from custody daily. 
Some will return. 

Some will not because they’ve made the decision to not sexually offend. 

People can and do change.


----------



## Stoker

Perhaps if her mess mate spoke up about her behavior the other incidents wouldn't of happened. Chances are she's been like that before when she drank and most likely went unreported. Operation Honour is so ingrained in us now perhaps the best course of action is not to drink.


----------



## ballz

Brihard said:
			
		

> Man, there's some weird hand-wringing going on in this thread...
> 
> <Cut> remainder of post to save space </cut>



I don't know if I'm one of these "hand-wringers" but if so, you are off the mark. I have no issue with using administrative actions with the disciplinary system, no issue with kicking people out when they've earned it, etc.

What I have a problem with a CDS who, in order to score cheap points, has _undermined_ the administrative actions system. He took the decisions and judgement out of the hands of those closest to the problem, and applied a blanket standard which is just ridiculous. Sexual misconduct is so broad, trying to use one standard apply to it is like trying to standardize the kit layout for a plane, ship, and tank.



			
				Underway said:
			
		

> 4) Rumour four: If she was a man the punishment would have been worse.  False.
> The judge in sentencing used at least 4 previous cases to assign the punishment.  Fines in those cases ranged from $1500 to $5000 and all included a severe reprimand.  The most severe was a male Maj who groped their subordinates.  The sentence didn't come out of nowhere, there are presidents.  _The punishment severity was within the spectrum of previous cases and thus cannot be argued to have been reduced by her gender._.



I'll make my own judgement on that, thanks. As I said, I look forward to reading the actual decisions. But, the only thing I have readily available to compare it to is the same judge's decision on the Taylor case. At the face of it, there are two standards, but I look forward to getting more info so I can make a more informed judgement. I know how precedents work, and you saying "thus cannot be argued" is just making value-less noise when I think I've demonstrated a pretty comparable case where the outcomes were quite different and you've just arbitrarily stated the cases the Justice applied are more well-suited yet haven't actually provided any details.



			
				FJAG said:
			
		

> I can't say with a straight face that every administrative action that DND takes is well thought out and based on concrete principles but I can say that in these types of cases such principles are fairly well set down and evaluated based on an adequate investigation and determined under generally accepted standards of procedural fairness. Redress and appeal systems exist.



Hard to say that when the CDS has ordered what the decision will be before the administrative process has even started. I can't open the CANFORGEN's right now but I hope the latest CANFORGEN has corrected that.


----------



## Journeyman

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> JM, you and I both know you aren't missing out on Tap of the Day at Spearhead Brewing Company.


Well, I _do_  happen to have "pick up beer" on today's list of chores.
…. probably followed by catching up on some of yesterday's RWC warm-up matches.  :cheers:

/sidetrack


----------



## Underway

ballz said:
			
		

> I'll make my own judgement on that, thanks. As I said, I look forward to reading the actual decisions. But, the only thing I have readily available to compare it to is the same judge's decision on the Taylor case. At the face of it, there are two standards, but I look forward to getting more info so I can make a more informed judgement. I know how precedents work, and you saying "thus cannot be argued" is just making value-less noise when I think I've demonstrated a pretty comparable case where the outcomes were quite different and you've just arbitrarily stated the cases the Justice applied are more well-suited yet haven't actually provided any details.



Yah on re-read it does sound a bit condescending in a different voice.  Perhaps a bit overkill on my part I grant you but overkill was needed IMHO.  What I was trying to get at was a perceived bias without any extra information.  This situation has become an instant trigger issue with opinions via facts.  The judge at the sentencing referenced the previous cases for their reasoning.  We should trust their decision as the professional in the case. That needed to be presented and the arguments for bias need to be restrained until there is more information to prove otherwise.  We will know more when the full decision is released but until then the argument in favour of bias is the real "value-less noise".  Perhaps there is truth to the bias argument when the facts are fully public and persons more learned than myself with law get their mitts on it.


----------



## Jarnhamar

[quote author=Underway]
Career and postings continued as normal after the incident with a swap to _a different ship_ because; the complainant and respondent should be separated. 
[/quote]

Was I wrong? She didn't deploy on the same ship again after the incident?


----------



## Underway

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Was I wrong? She didn't deploy on the same ship again after the incident?



I'm not sure on the time delay afterwards but she did not finish the deployment with her original ship due to the incident.  The ship she was sent to afterwords subsequently deployed a year later.  Hence some of the confusion I think.  That's the general sequence of events as was presented to me.

I also think that the press doesn't know the difference between a deployment and just normal navy sails to Europe for other training/diplomatic reasons.  Some more confusion may have resulted from that as well.


----------



## kratz

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Perhaps if her mess mate spoke up about her behavior the other incidents wouldn't of happened. Chances are she's been like that before when she drank and most likely went unreported. Operation Honour is so ingrained in us now perhaps the best course of action is not to drink.



Yikes !! Where would all the best stories germinate from? It's rare to begin a tall tale with, "We were sober and..."


----------



## Navy_Pete

Underway said:
			
		

> I also think that the press doesn't know the difference between a deployment and just normal navy sails to Europe for other training/diplomatic reasons.  Some more confusion may have resulted from that as well.



Probably because the Navy doesn't really make a distinction or upsells TGEx activities. When we were in the Med a few years ago running around with SNMG2 doing all the things, the big story on the front page of the Lookout was practicing them in Cutlass Fury. Unless there is a specific bust or something, the Navy does a really shite job at communicating anything other than a ship is gone for a while. Was especially annoying as we were actually doing some interesting stuff. Got more coverage in the Russian press then our own. OPsec weeks after the fact is a bit lame when our movements were live streamed or otherwise reported ahead of time by local agencies. If people in Syria, Turkey etc knew where we were, bit silly to worry about Canadians knowing.


----------



## Stoker

kratz said:
			
		

> Yikes !! Where would all the best stories germinate from? It's rare to begin a tall tale with, "We were sober and..."



Big binge drinker here but I realized the RCN wasn't screwing around with excess drinking anymore and it could affect my career. The majority of people are fine even when drunk, its the people who become jerks, violent or in this Officers case grabby. These people should refrain and their bosses, peers should take action either by getting them help or some other action.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Probably because the Navy doesn't really make a distinction or upsells TGEx activities. When we were in the Med a few years ago running around with SNMG2 doing all the things, the big story on the front page of the Lookout was practicing them in Cutlass Fury. Unless there is a specific bust or something, the Navy does a really shite job at communicating anything other than a ship is gone for a while. Was especially annoying as we were actually doing some interesting stuff. Got more coverage in the Russian press then our own. OPsec weeks after the fact is a bit lame when our movements were live streamed or otherwise reported ahead of time by local agencies. If people in Syria, Turkey etc knew where we were, bit silly to worry about Canadians knowing.



Especially when websites like Marine Traffic  can accurately track ships traffic anywhere in the world.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Especially when websites like Marine Traffic  can accurately track ships traffic anywhere in the world.



The 'go to' site for snoopy, retired guys in Victoria


----------



## dapaterson

More charges laid, against two senior individuals:

On September 12, 2019, the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service charged Lieutenant-Colonel Daniel Mainguy, a Reserve Force member with Canadian Force Recruiting Group and based in Borden, ON, with sexual assault pursuant to the Criminal Code and with related offences under the National Defence Act.

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2019/09/sexual-assault-charge-laid-against-military-officer-in-borden-on.html


On September 12, 2019, the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service charge Master-Warrant Officer John Macpherson a Regular Force member with Canadian Army Doctrine and Training Centre (CADTC) currently based in Kingston, ON with sexual assault contrary to National Defence Act, pursuant to the Criminal Code of Canada.

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2019/09/sexual-assault-charge-laid-against-military-member-in-kingston-on.html


----------



## Navy_Pete

Got to be an honest, really not a big fan of the news releases like this. Sure, it's all public record, but the name/shame never results in a follow up if the person is found not guilty or the charges are dropped.  This is more of a political theater act then anything else under the OP HONOUR banner, and in the PR world, this is an active posture, so it's quite deliberate, and they tend to include some details.  If they took the same posture when the results are in, would be fine, but there they always fall back on a reactive posture, with prepared media release lines hanging around in case someone asks a question, but there are no media releases.

Reading the recent judgements, there is usually a better than even odds for an acquittal, and this seems like additional public persecution that undermines the presumption of innocence. Understand that it's a pretty high bar to meet, but they seem to be getting more aggressive about laying charges and going to CM with very little chance of conviction. They at least used to have a throw away line about the presumption of innocence of the accused, but that got binned a while ago.

This kind of stuff very easily veers into the realm of being excessively heavy handed, especially as they can still be punted under an AR even if they are found not guilty.


----------



## mariomike

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> They at least used to have a throw away line about the presumption of innocence of the accused, but that got binned a while ago.





> •In all cases, the subject of charges is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
> https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2019/09/sexual-assault-charge-laid-against-military-officer-in-borden-on.html


----------



## Navy_Pete

D'oh, thanks.  It used to be in the main body; didn't realize there was a 'quick facts' section as the stuff below the multimedia is usually boilerplate BS.

In general, realize this is normal police services practice, but big difference between a police blotter note and a press release from DND.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> In general, realize this is normal police services practice, but big difference between a police blotter note and a press release from DND.



Since the "Media Contact" for this press release is "Public Affairs Officer Canadian Forces Provost Marshal and Canadian Forces Military Police Group", it is de facto no different than any other police service in Canada.  The only difference is that such events are comparatively rare when the "community" is the CAF.  If it was a small city of roughly 70,000 and a prominent citizen was charged or it was any serious offence, the local police service would be making the same statements.  However, since the participants of this forum have a greater interest in all things military (and may have personal acquaintance of the accused and/or victims) then such announcements resonate to a greater extent.


----------



## garb811

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Got to be an honest, really not a big fan of the news releases like this. Sure, it's all public record, but the name/shame never results in a follow up if the person is found not guilty or the charges are dropped.  This is more of a political theater act then anything else under the OP HONOUR banner, and in the PR world, this is an active posture, so it's quite deliberate, and they tend to include some details.  If they took the same posture when the results are in, would be fine, but there they always fall back on a reactive posture, with prepared media release lines hanging around in case someone asks a question, but there are no media releases.
> ...


Wow, I guess Op HONOUR has been underway a lot longer than I realized if that is the reason for these news releases...
Military Police lay charges against a member of the Cadet Instructors Cadre (Feb 2012)
Sexual Assault Charges Laid For Incidents (Sep 2010)

Note that this is not something that is done only for sexual assault charges. A few examples of those:
Soldier Will Face Charges in Shooting Death (Jul 2008)
Charges Laid for Corruption of a Database (Aug 2008)
Canadian Forces National Investigation Service lays drug-related charges against nurse in Edmonton (Sep 2013)
Drug possession for the purpose of trafficking charges laid against civilian community member (Dec 2018)

Some simple examples in the civilian world showing this isn't a practice unique to the CAF:
Ottawa man accused of sexual assault, harassment of teen girls (Ottawa)
Toronto teacher facing new sexual assault charges (Toronto, with a pic of the accused)
Sexual assault charges laid against 70 year old Prince Rupert resident
Additional sexual assault and child exploitation charges laid against Lethbridge man
Blood Tribe officer charged with sexual assault

So, how is this, "...more of a political theater act then anything else under the OP HONOUR banner...," again?


----------



## Eaglelord17

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Got to be an honest, really not a big fan of the news releases like this. Sure, it's all public record, but the name/shame never results in a follow up if the person is found not guilty or the charges are dropped.  This is more of a political theater act then anything else under the OP HONOUR banner, and in the PR world, this is an active posture, so it's quite deliberate, and they tend to include some details.  If they took the same posture when the results are in, would be fine, but there they always fall back on a reactive posture, with prepared media release lines hanging around in case someone asks a question, but there are no media releases.
> 
> Reading the recent judgements, there is usually a better than even odds for an acquittal, and this seems like additional public persecution that undermines the presumption of innocence. Understand that it's a pretty high bar to meet, but they seem to be getting more aggressive about laying charges and going to CM with very little chance of conviction. They at least used to have a throw away line about the presumption of innocence of the accused, but that got binned a while ago.
> 
> This kind of stuff very easily veers into the realm of being excessively heavy handed, especially as they can still be punted under an AR even if they are found not guilty.



Personally I am not really a fan of public news releases of the accused even in civilian context as people judge before the evidence is portrayed. However even if they are found 'not guilty' or the charges dropped, doesn't mean they didn't do it. When they are on the stand they are not proving their innocence (like the French system), they are simply not being proven guilty (which is especially hard in cases of sexual assault, as most come forward years afterwards, and the evidence is mostly witness based) a huge difference. This is a big reason I like the Scottish wording of 'not proven' as you still may have done it, we just failed to prove that you did.


----------



## Brad Sallows

The Scottish "not proven" verdict is one of those things that is not what many people think it is.  In particular, it does not mean "we think you did it, but can't prove it" (most common misrepresentation I've heard).  "Not guilty" and "not proven" are both statements of acquittal in a system which places the burden of proof on the accuser.  The possibility of actual guilt is open regardless how the verdict is stated.  (When proof of innocence arises, charges are usually dropped and a verdict is never required.)

It remains that an accusation of a crime of sexual nature tends to stain the accused almost irreparably.  Because innocence need not be irrefutably proven, those who wish to believe in guilt will always have a reed to grasp.


----------



## garb811

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> ....
> 
> It remains that an accusation of a crime of sexual nature tends to stain the accused almost irreparably.  Because innocence need not be irrefutably proven, those who wish to believe in guilt will always have a reed to grasp.


And lost in the ongoing angst about the "harm" being done to the accused by the publication of the charges being laid is the fact that charges are not laid on a whim. There must be _*reasonable*_ grounds to believe the offence was committed. Although not as high of a standard as the beyond a reasonable doubt required to convict, it is still a fairly high bar which must be cleared and one which requires that any reasonable person, who has access to the same information as the person laying the charge, would form the same opinion. 

When you throw in the process of how we work in the CSD system, the chances of a sexual assault charge being laid by one person on their own volition is exceptionally unlikely. By the time a sexual assault charge is being laid, there have been multiple levels of review on the investigation, both within the CFNIS as well as by the RMP. Any one of those people involved can put the brakes on any charges being laid, either while further information/evidence is gathered, or over all if the elements of the offence just aren't met.


----------



## Brad Sallows

That's reassuring, but someone who was reasonably charged and then reasonably found not guilty is what I wrote about (charges presumably precede a verdict).


----------



## garb811

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> That's reassuring, but someone who was reasonably charged and then reasonably found not guilty is what I wrote about (charges presumably precede a verdict).


And that verdict is publicly accessible, along with the full reasoning by the Military Judge for that finding.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Great.  So there must be no people, then, whose lives and reputations are in ruins despite a lack of a conviction.

Process isn't the issue; pounding on it doesn't fix the problem.


----------



## ballz

garb811 said:
			
		

> There must be _*reasonable*_ grounds to believe the offence was committed. Although not as high of a standard as the beyond a reasonable doubt required to convict, it is still a fairly high bar



Not really sure I agree that is a high bar. I'd be more inclined to agree if the burden of "reasonable prospect of conviction" had been met before a charge is laid. How many times do we see someone charged with something and then by the time it gets to court it's already been lowered because there was no reasonable prospect of a conviction. Not sure you should have your name plastered in the national media for sexual assault when there wasn't even a reasonable prospect of a conviction to begin with.

I'm pretty sure reasonable prospect to believe is actually below balance of probabilities... in other words, the allegation doesn't even need to be 51% likely to be true before you're charged. Hardly seems like a high bar.


----------



## RCDtpr

In my experience the “levels of vetting” were not done in an anyway competent matter by anyone.

I can’t tell you the number of times when I was in the branch that the file was “closely vetted by senior MPs and the RMP to ensure the grounds for a charge were there” only to literally have the charges withdrawn weeks later for no reasonable prospect of conviction.

Of course the damage was done to the person by then though


----------



## dapaterson

garb811 said:
			
		

> And lost in the ongoing angst about the "harm" being done to the accused by the publication of the charges being laid is the fact that charges are not laid on a whim. There must be _*reasonable*_ grounds to believe the offence was committed. Although not as high of a standard as the beyond a reasonable doubt required to convict, it is still a fairly high bar which must be cleared and one which requires that any reasonable person, who has access to the same information as the person laying the charge, would form the same opinion.
> 
> When you throw in the process of how we work in the CSD system, the chances of a sexual assault charge being laid by one person on their own volition is exceptionally unlikely. By the time a sexual assault charge is being laid, there have been multiple levels of review on the investigation, both within the CFNIS as well as by the RMP. Any one of those people involved can put the brakes on any charges being laid, either while further information/evidence is gathered, or over all if the elements of the offence just aren't met.



Except...



> On Thursday August 29, 2019, the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS) charged Chief Warrant Officer Duncan Colin Stewart, a Reserve Force member working at 1 Canadian Air Division Headquarter in Winnipeg, with one charge of sexual assault.
> 
> Further to ongoing investigative actions by the CFNIS, Chief Warrant Officer Stewart is no longer considered a suspect, or person of interest, in relation to this offence.  As such, the charge against CWO Stewart has been withdrawn by military authorities and proceedings against the member were terminated.



https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2019/09/sexual-assault-charge-withdrawn-against-military-member-in-winnipeg-mb.html


----------



## QV

Colour me not surprised. The timing of this could not be better to support Ballz, exCAFguy, and Brad Sallows positions on this.  I wonder how many of those don't make a public news releases.


----------



## RCDtpr

The reality when it comes to sexual assault type investigations is, sadly, the investigator is put in a bad spot and usually wears it quietly after the fact when things go south.

The MP branch right now is plagued with trying to police an organization in which it comes from the top levels that sexual related misconduct be dealt with.  Far too often, myself or my peers (the low-mid rank peasants) would investigate a matter and report up that there was not enough grounds to proceed.  In my current police service, when an investigator says that, that’s it and the matter is done.

The MP on the other hand, is plagued by micromanagement, incompetence, and yes men at the top and, as such, investigators are often ordered by Capt/Maj/MWO Bloggins to go lay the charge (likely because they don’t want to risk PER points if someone has uncomfortable questions as to why a matter was deemed concluded.)  Peoples lives are in turn ruined and turned upside down (see LCol Stalker) and the investigator is labelled as incompetent even though he/she recommended not to move forwarded but was ordered to anyways.  Of course, Capt/Maj/MWO Bloggins doesn’t take responsibility for it and throws the investigator under the bus.

I’m sure I come off as bitter in this post, and that couldn’t be further from the truth.  I enjoyed my time in the branch and left for no reason other than some geographic stability.  Having said that, I’m not afraid to call a spade a spade and I’m concerned the direction the Military Police is heading when it comes to how it’s run and how this sexual misconduct epidemic is being handled.


----------



## garb811

So, if I buy into the idea that we shouldn't be making the names of those who have been charged with sexual assault public, what's the solution? Just not publish names of people who are charged until the court martial is published (which is a requirement)? What about the problem caused when the person is subsequently found not guilty, isn't the damage to their reputation just as bad because they are still simply accused at that point? That likely wouldn't work anyway because one of the usual defence reporters would just put in a standing monthly ATIP for any sexual assault charges and the names would still come out.

For what it is worth, this is what the courts have had to say about publishing the names of those who have been simply charged and I'm inclined to agree with the reasoning, particularly since we in the CAF seem to like to pride ourselves on our logical reasoning skills (emphasis is mine): 


> R v Sauve
> ...
> [27]           It is well-established that a statement that a person has been charged with an offence, as opposed to a statement that a person is guilty of an offence, is deemed not to lower that person in the estimation of a reasonable person, *because a reasonable person “would be mindful that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty”* (Miguna v. Toronto (City) Police Services Board, [2004] O.J. No. 2455 at par. 6 (On. Sup. Ct. J.), aff’d Miguna v. Toronto (City) Police Services Board   [2005] O.J. No. 107 (On. C.A.); see also Hakim v. Laidlaw Transit Ltd., 156 A.C.W.S. (3d) 585, [2007] O.J. No. 1318 at par. 16 (On. Sup. Ct. J.)).
> 
> [28]           The Zoominfo article states that Mr Sauvé has been charged, and that a bail hearing has been held. It does not say that he has been found guilty of anything; indeed a well-informed reader would know that a bail hearing precedes a trial and could only conclude that no finding of guilt can have been made. Thus, as a matter of law, I am of the opinion that the article is not a defamatory statement.
> ...



Charges being laid and then withdrawn is not a uniquely CAF problem. It can even happen with an "all star" investigation and prosecution team. IIRC, the entire case imploded rather spectacularly on this one...:


> Two sexual assault charges withdrawn in Ghomeshi case
> Two sexual assault charges are being withdrawn in the case against disgraced former broadcaster Jian Ghomeshi.
> 
> In an appearance Tuesday at a Toronto court, a Crown lawyer said the charges were being withdrawn because there was no reasonable prospect of conviction on them.





			
				exCAFguy said:
			
		

> ...
> The MP on the other hand, is plagued by micromanagement, incompetence, and yes men at the top and, as such, investigators are often ordered by Capt/Maj/MWO Bloggins to go lay the charge (likely because they don’t want to risk PER points if someone has uncomfortable questions as to why a matter was deemed concluded.)  Peoples lives are in turn ruined and turned upside down (see LCol Stalker) and the investigator is labelled as incompetent even though he/she recommended not to move forwarded but was ordered to anyways.  Of course, Capt/Maj/MWO Bloggins doesn’t take responsibility for it and throws the investigator under the bus.
> ...


LCol Stalker is a particularly bad example to try to make this point with, unless you are insinuating you have some kind of insider knowledge on the case. The investigation and arrest pre-date Op HONOUR, the prosecutor was not military, his charges were laid downtown and he was ordered to stand trial after the prelim... He has also since been promoted and posted to a NATO as the deputy chief of major operations.


----------



## FJAG

garb811 said:
			
		

> So, if I buy into the idea that we shouldn't be making the names of those who have been charged with sexual assault public, what's the solution? ...



Not that this is THE solution but I note that in news articles in Germany there is a greater balance in protecting an individual (even an accused's) privacy which stems from guideline 8.1 of the Press code. See here: https://www.presserat.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Downloads_Dateien/Pressekodex13english_web.pdf

More often than not individuals are identified as "a 38 year old man" or "Heinz B."

Interestingly enough, however, since the massive influx of migrants, several states, in their police reports, are now identifying the accused's national status whether relevant to the case or not. See here for example:

https://www.dw.com/en/police-in-western-german-state-to-reveal-nationality-in-all-crimes/a-50177056

 :cheers:


----------



## ballz

garb811 said:
			
		

> So, if I buy into the idea that we shouldn't be making the names of those who have been charged with sexual assault public, what's the solution?



I can't speak for anybody else but I didn't suggest the names of the accused shouldn't be made public (I also didn't bring this into an MP-related thing, because it's not). As I said, the bar for laying a charge is low. It should be at least balance of probabilities, or even reasonable prospect for conviction.

At the end of the day, if there's a reasonable prospect of conviction, I can at least guess that whether you are guilty or not, you're in that court room for a reason that are a result of your own actions, and I don't think the public should protect your from your own actions even if they aren't determined to be criminal.

But at "reasonable grounds to believe," a couple of corroborating witness statements which really haven't been tested at all for credibility and you've got sexual assault charges that were not a result of anything in the accused's control. I'm sure all the LEOs are going to come tell me that's not true, and all I can say is I know the exact case I can refer you to where that is exactly what happened. If the burden of proof for charges was "reasonable prospect of conviction" this particular incident would not result in the accused having to get his name legally changed after having 4 sexual assault charges against 3 different women plastered all over the national news.


----------



## garb811

FJAG:

That used to be the way it was done but it was changed at some point in the 2000s I believe:

Charges laid - assault, uttering threats, using provoking speech and conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline


> On May 3, the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS) laid charges of assault, uttering threats, using provoking speech and conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline against a former petty-officer second class of HMCS MONTCALM, a naval reserve unit located in Quebec City. The charge results from an incident, which allegedly occurred in Halifax in June 1998 during the Nova Scotia International Tattoo.
> ...
> When the CFNIS lays charges, names can be released only if these charges are laid in civilian courts. This is done by way of an information sworn before a judicial official and filed as a court document. In the case of charges laid in the military system, charges are not laid under oath before a judicial official, nor are charge reports filed as public court records. As such, names of individuals charged under the National Defence Act is information covered by the Privacy Act, and can not be released to the public unless the Privacy Commission Office gives specific authorization.


----------



## Brad Sallows

>because a reasonable person “would be mindful that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty” 

That only works if most people are reasonable, or if "an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty" is hammered home loudly and repeatedly and the people who act otherwise are ridiculed, shunned, and argued into insensibility.  My impression is that there are a lot of loud, unreasonable people dominating the issue.


----------



## ballz

Regardless of innocent until proven guilty, I would say an employer who googles the names of applicants and finds one has been charged with sexual assault in the past is going to be pretty "reasonable" in throwing out that application, even if the charges were dropped the following day because Crown prosecutor looked at the evidence and decided there was no chance of conviction.


----------



## Jarnhamar

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2019/09/sexual-assault-charge-withdrawn-against-military-member-in-winnipeg-mb.html

* Sexual assault charge withdrawn against military member in Winnipeg, MB.*


----------



## OldSolduer

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2019/09/sexual-assault-charge-withdrawn-against-military-member-in-winnipeg-mb.html
> 
> * Sexual assault charge withdrawn against military member in Winnipeg, MB.*



Interesting.


----------



## mariomike

In the news,



> CTV News
> 
> September 30, 2019
> 
> VICTORIA -- A former Canadian Armed Forces corporal has been found guilty of multiple charges, including sexual assault and voyeurism, after investigators say they found several videos in his possession, including video of a sex assault that occurred at CFB Esquimalt in 2011.
> https://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/former-military-corporal-found-guilty-in-esquimalt-sex-assault-1.4617346#_gus&_gucid=&_gup=twitter&_gsc=2LisF1K


----------

