# CANFORGEN 097/19 - IMMEDIATE CHANGES TO THE MILITARY JUSTICE SYSTEM



## Lumber (8 Jul 2019)

See below.

I'm very happy with para 4C.

However, I'm curious about para 4B. Did they just create a regulation whereby two members of the FORCES, of equal position and rank, could receive different punishments based on their cultural identity? I mean, the second sentence seems to negate the first. "You have to consider their indigenous identity, but you also have to pick a punishment that is reasonable and consistent", which means if it is different than what I would get, it's not consistent, in which case, what's the point? Did this get added to the NDA just to make it look like their are doing something without actually doing anything?



> CANFORGEN 097/19 JAG 001/19 041856Z JUL 19
> 
> IMMEDIATE CHANGES TO THE MILITARY JUSTICE SYSTEM
> 
> ...


----------



## dapaterson (8 Jul 2019)

For context on 4B, read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Gladue


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Jul 2019)

>Did they just create a regulation whereby two members of the FORCES, of equal position and rank, could receive different punishments based on their cultural identity?

Not "cultural identity" so much as "history"; I suppose being raised without the aggravating factors and simply claiming aboriginal identity isn't enough.  (Although: the provision ultimately is there to reduce "over-representation", so maybe identity is enough.)  But essentially: yes.  If you were raised poor, abused, discriminated against, etc, and are not aboriginal, you won't get the benefit of the provision.

"THE PUNISHMENTS MUST BE REASONABLE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONSISTENT WITH THE HARM DONE TO VICTIMS OR TO THE COMMUNITY (REF C) "

Punishments should be reasonable (etc) and consistent (etc) for all persons, period.  Should we suppose that unreasonable and inconsistent punishments are OK for non-aboriginals?  If not, then the provision is unnecessary.  But although that's what the text suggests, I doubt it's what is meant.  What is meant boils down to more leniency for aboriginals.


----------



## brihard (8 Jul 2019)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> For context on 4B, read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Gladue



Yup, clearly referring to Gladue. In civilian courts there may be a Gladue Report submitted before sentencing to examine whether there are factors applicable to an aboriginal offender’s personal history.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Jul 2019)

But, if a white member grew up in the same environment gets charged...no consideration is given to their "personal history"?


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Jul 2019)

Reference 4.c., does this mean that if someone were a reservist Sgt say in 1989 and was convicted, got a severe rep and oh, I dunno, say 500 fine (less than monthly salary), then that person would no longer have a criminal record due to this?

Asking for a friend...


----------



## brihard (8 Jul 2019)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Reference 4.c., does this mean that if someone were a reservist Sgt say in 1989 and was convicted, got a severe rep and oh, I dunno, say 500 fine (less than monthly salary), then that person would no longer have a criminal record due to this?
> 
> Asking for a friend...



Has ‘your friend’ applied for a record suspension? (The new term for what was a ‘pardon’)

Unlikely this will cause any automatic expungements of records, but that should be a pardonable matter.


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Jul 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Has ‘your friend’ applied for a record suspension? (The new term for what was a ‘pardon’)
> 
> Unlikely this will cause any automatic expungements of records, but that should be a pardonable matter.



I'll ask him.


*pause*

He says he didn't. 

He thanks you.


----------



## FJAG (8 Jul 2019)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I'll ask him.
> 
> 
> *pause*
> ...



Second  :rofl: of the day.

 :cheers:


----------



## Haggis (8 Jul 2019)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I'll ask him.
> 
> 
> *pause*
> ...



Perhaps your friend should lobby for equal treatment to what occurred to those convicted of simple cannabis possession.


----------



## garb811 (8 Jul 2019)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Reference 4.c., does this mean that if someone were a reservist Sgt say in 1989 and was convicted, got a severe rep and oh, I dunno, say 500 fine (less than monthly salary), then that person would no longer have a criminal record due to this?
> 
> Asking for a friend...


Further to this, missing from the CANFORGEN is the actual wording of the applicable Section of the NDA which would probably have been helpful for a lot of people, including your friend:


> 249.27 (1) A person who is convicted of any of the following offences, *or who has been convicted of any of them before the coming into force of this section*, has not been convicted of a criminal offence:
> 
> a) an offence described in section 85, 86, 87, 89, 90, 91, 95, 96, 97, 99, 101, 101.1, 102, 103, 108, 109, 112, 116, 117, 118, 118.1, 120, 121, 122, 123, 126 or 129 for which the offender is sentenced to
> 
> ...


In short, there is already a provision in place to take care of anything that meets the new criteria...

I'm at a bit of a loss ref this, as there are now two references in the NDA WRT criminal records that do not align. Division 6.2 specifically names CSD offences which are "designated" which enables them to be treated as criminal convictions IAW the Identification of Criminals Act, yet the newest changes imply that some offences which are not designated offences are still going to be treated as causing a "criminal record" under the NDA, yet there is no legal authority to gather the required fingerprints, photographs and other information that may be required to get these "criminal convictions" entered into CPIC.

For ref, designated offences are:


> 196.26 In this Division, designated offence means an offence under any of the following provisions of this Act:
> 
> (a) paragraphs 75(a) to (d) (offences related to security);
> 
> ...


----------



## Navy_Pete (8 Jul 2019)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> But, if a white member grew up in the same environment gets charged...no consideration is given to their "personal history"?



It really should be considered for everyone, but given that there are multiple generations that were destroyed by the residential schools and some other fairly awful things that Canada did to it's own people, seems fair that it's (theoretically) mandatory.  Even with the SJC decision, it's not getting done, and was one of the points for action in both the Truth and Reconciliation report as well as the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women report.  Read the summary for both sometime, absolutely appalling what happened.  Aside from the sexual and physical abuse and neglect of children, forced cultural assimilation, kidnapping and separating them from their families and all the other horrors from that, there was also some really awful things like a sled dog slaughter in northern communities by the RCMP.  There are a lot of people that had similarly bad childhoods, but none of that was the result of a systematic campaign against the FN that started hundreds of years ago when Europeans rolled up and the GoC enthusiastically picked up the torch.  The last school closed in the early 90s, so it's not even like it's ancient history. 

Highly recommend reading the report; absolutely opened my eyes and really knocked the shine of naivety that I had for Canada as an idea and brought it down to reality. I think Canada as a whole is better than most countries, but that is some really ugly history that we need to confront. It's been going on for generations, and when it's that widespread affecting grandparents down to the kids, it's going to take generation to sort out.  

[/end rant]

The Gladue reports are also supposed to provide some alternative sentencing options, are those even an option for the CMJ system? Some of the recommendations are pretty straightforward (ie person likely has Fetal Alcohol system, so should be sent for diagnosis and maybe have counseling/treatment as part of the sentencing), but others are things like release to the community with conditions, healing lodges, etc to deal with underlying mental health issues (ie trauma from being abused in residential schools). I'm not really sure how they are reconciling the Gladue report goals with using it as a mitigating factor, when we don't have the same sentencing tools that you would on civy side, or how you would even go about getting some kind of equivalent for a FN member. It's already a fairly byzantine bureaucratic process on civvie cases with a huge shortage of report writers, so sounds like it could be a pretty messy complication to any otherwise straightforward CM.

PS they aren't free; suppose anyone has figured out whose FIN code one of those would get charged to?


----------



## cld617 (8 Jul 2019)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> But, if a white member grew up in the same environment gets charged...no consideration is given to their "personal history"?



That's not what it says at all, it says "particular attention" is to be afforded, not that leniency or no consideration is to be afforded to anyone of any color or ethnic background. All this additional measure does is create a situation where whoever is dishing out punishments is mandated to consider particulars which evidently have been overlooked so often enough in the past that we've decided they need to be considered, rather than that consideration being optional.


----------



## Navy_Pete (9 Jul 2019)

As an aside, think the Gladue report type scenarios are much less likely/severe for the CMJ anyway; the people that really need them are probably not likely to even walk into a recruiting centre. It's meant for people that find themselves inadvertently in the justice system, and not really for someone that deliberately joined the CAF and became subject to the CSD. From what I can tell, we already do a pretty good job of taking a lot of these things into consideration for everyone, and people that have gotten into issues because of an addiction problem or whatever seem to get treatment before the actual trial rolls around.

This seems more like a token consideration for appearances sake, but would be interested to see what happens if it ever came up in a CM.


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Jul 2019)

If we got rid of the FN reserve system we would have to worry about giving "particular attention" to FN members less and less.

This does seem like a token consideration for appearences sake in the CAF.


----------



## Kilted (9 Jul 2019)

"There was also some really awful things like a sled dog slaughter in northern communities by the RCMP."


I actually covered this in school. It was found that apart from some dogs being put down for safety and health concerns, this never occurred. There weren't even as many dogs in the North as were allegedly killed to begin with.  

http://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/389331/publication.html


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Jul 2019)

>It's meant for people that find themselves inadvertently in the justice system

Aka "people convicted of a crime".  People don't get there "inadvertently", and if we really meant to reduce "over-representation in the system" (which is chiefly a euphemism for "over-represented in prison") then we'd have to start before entry into the "the system" (eg. stop arresting people, or stop charging people).


----------



## Navy_Pete (9 Jul 2019)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >It's meant for people that find themselves inadvertently in the justice system
> 
> Aka "people convicted of a crime".  People don't get there "inadvertently", and if we really meant to reduce "over-representation in the system" (which is chiefly a euphemism for "over-represented in prison") then we'd have to start before entry into the "the system" (eg. stop arresting people, or stop charging people).



I guess I meant that they are part of the justice system as an offender, vice consciously signing up and having the NDA and CMJ system apply.  Poor choice of words I guess.


----------



## Navy_Pete (9 Jul 2019)

Kilted said:
			
		

> "There was also some really awful things like a sled dog slaughter in northern communities by the RCMP."
> 
> 
> I actually covered this in school. It was found that apart from some dogs being put down for safety and health concerns, this never occurred. There weren't even as many dogs in the North as were allegedly killed to begin with.
> ...



Bit more complicated then that, and there was a follow on report done by the Qikiqtani Truth Commission that goes into a lot more detail, and is pretty balanced.  The RCMP report was pretty one sided, and QC ended up paying out a $3M settlement a few years ago.  Basically the Inuit were used to keeping the dogs loose; the RCMP and others said that was a safety issue and put a bunch of them down (probably without the normal warnings or explanation on why the dogs where shot). The whole thing grew into a bit of a mythical proportions, but it wasn't the straightforward 'health and safety' issue the RCMP wrote it off as. 

There wasn't necessarily any kind of deliberate order to cull the sled dogs, but they were a bunch of outsiders applying a bunch of city policies to people that were used to being small groups of hunter gatherers, which was par for the course with the general 'we know better' approach the government takes.

https://www.qtcommission.ca/sites/default/files/public/thematic_reports/thematic_reports_english_rcmp_sled_dog.pdf


----------



## Burrows (9 Jul 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> If we got rid of the FN reserve system we would have to worry about giving "particular attention" to FN members less and less.
> 
> This does seem like a token consideration for appearences sake in the CAF.





As someone who routinely works with First Nations offenders and the justice system, I can tell you that the reserves themselves are not the problem.  There are other issues with the reserve system (which I won't get into), but you cannot blame their existence for criminal behaviours. There are many hard working persons who live on the reserves who share the same or similar values as you and I.  They want to be happy, safe, and loved. 


The contributing factor is more related to what is known as inter-generational trauma, specifically the victimization of new generations by the old, who themselves were victimized.  These behaviours and values are often learned from the caregivers, who themselves have suffered similar.  We see the same types of issues from families of all races and are seem more content to sympathize when we refer to it as "broken homes".  The reality is that the historical marginalization, including the residential school system, of the First Nations was perpetuated by the institution of Canada.  The government has acknowledged this. 


First Nations have reserves because they were here first and we sought to corral them.  Ironically, it was Canadian Governors who enabled this through a rampant misinterpretation of the kings orders that were designed to protect the first nations who helped Britain to claim Canada.  The reality is that while many of these reserves struggle due to a lack of funding, many are also successful.  The idea that a reserve, as a geographical entity, contributes to deviance is flawed.  All that line of thinking seeks to do is perpetuate a false stereotype of the First Nations people as a whole.   What has been stereotyped as universal is an almost involuntarily adapted sub-culture that is caused, in part, by the inter-generational trauma. That subculture is crime, substance abuse, and violence. That subculture is, by and large, the only coping skills they have learned from generation spanning broken homes.  That subculture is prevalent in every race across our society. It is absolute ignorance to consider a geographic location as the cause of it.


You would be surprised how many first nations offenders present very similarly to persons with unmanaged PTSD.  Because it is PTSD.  It is the same PTSD we see in child soldiers, in our own people, in first responders and civilians.  And it is because we have not put systems in place that make it truly a possibility to address these issues in the long term.  Geography is not the cause.  The fact that we continually make mental health care a secondary priority is.  The only time geography comes into play is that when we can barely provide these services in major cities we can't provide them at all in other places where they are still very much needed.


Caveat to my statements this being these:


1) There are First Nations offenders who, like offenders from all other races, are just assholes.  And from what I've seen on the street, the First Nations communities are actually quite remarkable at policing their own in this regard - I have seen individuals excommunicated from groups for crimes that were "too far".


2) The application of Gladue by the courts is flawed when we continually fail to provide a correctional and judicial system that allows for effective correction and re-integration.  An effective judicial system sentences offenders for the time needed to rehabilitate, and an effective correctional system provides the resources and treatment options to do so. The lack of theraputic services and treatment options inside our provincial systems perpetuates this.  A person, any person, shouldn't need to be sentenced to over two years before they have an option to get help.  You know this system is broken when people ask for more time so that they can access these services.  I have seen that happen more than once and it breaks my heart.


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Jul 2019)

Kyle Burrows said:
			
		

> There are other issues with the reserve system (which I won't get into)



Why not Kyle? 
Sort of unfair to argue there are other issues with the reserve system but stop short of explaining what they are. 




> There are many hard working persons who live on the reserves who share the same or similar values as you and I.  They want to be happy, safe, and loved.



Definitely agree. 





> The contributing factor is more related to what is known as inter-generational trauma, specifically the victimization of new generations by the old, who themselves were victimized.  These behaviours and values are often learned from the caregivers, who themselves have suffered similar.



Okay. And the reserve system is a sort of closed circuit community that people "escape from". 
We know the government and other organizations don't like dealing with reserves and/or the culture of abuse that systemically plagues reserves for fear of being called racist. We just launch money at them. 

And it's racist to ask where X millions of dollars are spent. 

I surmise getting rid of the reserve system will force FN members/communities to intrigrate with the rest of our system which will force the systemic abuse out into the open and require it be dealt with. 

I've never heard or read of a positive thing about the reserve system (but I could very well be wrong or misguided)


----------



## Burrows (9 Jul 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Why not Kyle?
> Sort of unfair to argue there are other issues with the reserve system but stop short of explaining what they are.


The topic being discussed is criminal and military justice.  The impact that this CANFORGEN has on aboriginal mbrs directly pertains to it.  The other perceived or real shortcoming of the reserve system does not.




> Okay. And the reserve system is a sort of closed circuit community that people "escape from".


That may be your individual belief, but it is not something that you, as an individual, can assert universally.



> We know the government and other organizations don't like dealing with reserves and/or the culture of abuse that systemically plagues reserves for fear of being called racist. We just launch money at them.
> 
> And it's racist to ask where X millions of dollars are spent.




As stated above, systemic abuse is not something that is limited to reserves.  Tying this back to the reserves is ignorant and a straw man argument.  Moving the same family unit off a reserve would not address the cause. 


Discussing the financial management of the reserve system is not the purpose of this thread.



> I surmise getting rid of the reserve system will force FN members/communities to intrigrate with the rest of our system which will force the systemic abuse out into the open and require it be dealt with.




We tried forced integration before.  It resulted in systemic abuse that Canada still wears the blame for.



> I've never heard or read of a positive thing about the reserve system.


Then you haven't looked.  The news is about as non-partisan to the reserve system as it is to the CAF.


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Jul 2019)

Moved response to a more appropriate area.


----------



## H11F (10 Jul 2019)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> But, if a white member grew up in the same environment gets charged...no consideration is given to their "personal history"?



It is unfortunate that this is how it will likely be interpreted by the vast majority, but hopefully education on the history and purpose of said provision can help alleviate feeling like a two-tier system for sentencing considerations has been created.

First, Aboriginal individuals are under-represented in the population and yet over-represented in the Criminal Justice System. No matter how you spin it, no matter what you think of different groups of people and their history, that should trigger alarm bells for anyone.

Second, the CANFORGEN is poorly constructed. While I appreciate it bringing to light changes to the _NDA_, the manner in which it focuses on those provisions which have entered into force does a disservice to the provisions themselves. The changes that you are concerned about should be read as such:

_National Defence Act_
*203.3* A service tribunal that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles: *(c.1)* all available punishments, _other than imprisonment and detention_, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders


All this is saying is: "Hey, you need to consider all aggravating and mitigating factors when considering a sentence that is appropriate to the case before you and that fits with the objects of the Military Justice System. Oh, and by the way, there are some additional historic factors which should be considered for Aboriginal offenders."

That doesn't mean that such factors could not apply to anyone else, it just means that a Presiding Officer or Judge/Justice should consider historic factors that are unique to Aboriginal culture. The _Gladue Principle_ is not any automatic reduction in sentence. Further, the factors to be considered are not an excuse or justification of criminal conduct.

Also keep in mind that the way the CANFORGEN presents 203.3(c.1) of the _NDA_ is in isolation from the rest of the Division dealing with sentencing. That doesn't work in any context - heck, all of our jobs and tasks are complex, and to have only one piece isolated and explained w/o context would do a disservice to it as well.

Some of those factors that should be considered include: family circumstances, support network, residential schools, unemployment, lack of educational opportunities, dislocation from aboriginal communities, loneliness and community fragmentation, family involvement in a criminal environment, loss of identity, culture and ancestral knowledge, substance abuse, poverty, racism, abuse, and witness to violence.

Some of those could be considered for all offenders, some are a little more specific to Aboriginal offenders.



			
				Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> As an aside, think the Gladue report type scenarios are much less likely/severe for the CMJ anyway; the people that really need them are probably not likely to even walk into a recruiting centre ... This seems more like a token consideration for appearances sake, but would be interested to see what happens if it ever came up in a CM.



I am actually going to disagree with this. There are a number of recruiting initiatives, such as Black Bear, which bring in Aboriginal youth in an attempt to demonstrate that the CAF is a possible career path. These programs have a different entry process than normal entry (not different standards, just a different process as far as I can tell), and there is no reason to believe the _Gladue_ factors wouldn't be worth considering. Further, given the number of individuals in the CAF with all sorts of historical backgrounds that have an effect on them, I wouldn't consider CFRG an effective filtering system.

H11F.


----------



## Navy_Pete (10 Jul 2019)

H11F said:
			
		

> I am actually going to disagree with this. There are a number of recruiting initiatives, such as Black Bear, which bring in Aboriginal youth in an attempt to demonstrate that the CAF is a possible career path. These programs have a different entry process than normal entry (not different standards, just a different process as far as I can tell), and there is no reason to believe the _Gladue_ factors wouldn't be worth considering. Further, given the number of individuals in the CAF with all sorts of historical backgrounds that have an effect on them, I wouldn't consider CFRG an effective filtering system.
> 
> H11F.



Fair point.  Also noticed it is supposed to apply to summary trials, so even if there is a small number of Aboriginal members, theoretically could come up for something as stupid as an AWOL or another one of the 'baby 5' charges.

Read through the NDA changes, and didn't actually see it in any of the ref paras.  May have missed it, but was this consideration officially rolled into the NDA somewhere as a mitigating consideration? 

Reminds me that I need to do the presiding officer course refresher; curious if it will be updated to reflect any of this.

I got curious so actually went and read through the changes to the NDA, but didn't actually see anything


----------



## H11F (10 Jul 2019)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Fair point.  Also noticed it is supposed to apply to summary trials, so even if there is a small number of Aboriginal members, theoretically could come up for something as stupid as an AWOL or another one of the 'baby 5' charges.
> 
> Read through the NDA changes, and didn't actually see it in any of the ref paras.  May have missed it, but was this consideration officially rolled into the NDA somewhere as a mitigating consideration?
> 
> ...



I think it depends on where you are looking. For example, I noticed that some _QR&O_s were updated to reflect the changes (104.19 - Criminal Record has the new 249.27(1)(a) wording), where as the _NDA_ most would access on Justice Law Website doesn't have the 249.27(1)(a) amendment. The Related and Coordinating Amendments to Bill C-77 start at s63(1) I think, but are a pain to go through (IMHO anyways).

H11F.


----------



## Navy_Pete (10 Jul 2019)

No, I agree, reading the bill was brutal.  I tried but gave up after the third time I lost track of what was original/changed.

Sure it makes sense when you see the NDA with edit changes mode, but it's mostly a tarted up 'track changes' record.


----------



## gcclarke (10 Jul 2019)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Fair point.  Also noticed it is supposed to apply to summary trials, so even if there is a small number of Aboriginal members, theoretically could come up for something as stupid as an AWOL or another one of the 'baby 5' charges.
> 
> Read through the NDA changes, and didn't actually see it in any of the ref paras.  May have missed it, but was this consideration officially rolled into the NDA somewhere as a mitigating consideration?
> 
> ...



I don't expect to see much in the way of changes to how summary trials go, considering that folks handing out sentences at summary trials seem to be in the habit of completely ignoring precedent and instead like to just give what they feel like giving, regardless of what everyone else is doing. Expecting anything remotely resembling consistency there is unreasonable.


----------



## H11F (10 Jul 2019)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> I don't expect to see much in the way of changes to how summary trials go, considering that folks handing out sentences at summary trials seem to be in the habit of completely ignoring precedent and instead like to just give what they feel like giving, regardless of what everyone else is doing. Expecting anything remotely resembling consistency there is unreasonable.



Summary trials will eventually be a thing of the past. Bill C-77 even removes the definition from the _NDA_ (if I recall correctly). We will eventually see summary hearings and service infractions.

H11F.


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Jul 2019)

If we mean for unique (to aboriginals) circumstances to be considered, the law should state it ("unique") plainly*.  Otherwise readers will be prone to the reasonable error that "particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders" is approximately "give mitigating evidence greater weight for aboriginals".

*When something "they meant" has to be explained and clarified in articles and discussions and seminars and PD training etc, it's an indicator for a re-draft.


----------



## Navy_Pete (10 Jul 2019)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> I don't expect to see much in the way of changes to how summary trials go, considering that folks handing out sentences at summary trials seem to be in the habit of completely ignoring precedent and instead like to just give what they feel like giving, regardless of what everyone else is doing. Expecting anything remotely resembling consistency there is unreasonable.



That's a pretty broad statement with zero supporting evidence.  I think I've sat through about 20 or so for one reason or another, and even the same charges were apple and orange comparisons, but they generally seemed pretty reasonable and fair in the judgements when you took into account the mitigating/aggravating factors (1st AWOL vs 3rd, for example).  JAGs were consulted for the punishments, so it wasn't done in a bubble.  Even XOs I thought were power mad arseholes were surprisingly fair and reasonable.

JAG reports are pretty consistent stats wise, and unless you review every finding with the facts, pretty hard to make a sweeping statement.  Only a pretty small portion of findings are challenged by the members, and it seems to be a about an even split over time on which ones were quashed, and which ones were upheld, so overall probably working reasonably well.  If 96% never appeal, probably a good indicator that the members generally are okay with the outcomes.  The high 'guity' findings are just an indication that stuff doesn't proceed unless it's pretty clear cut and I've seen a few STs end in not guilty on some of the charges if the evidence didn't support them. Pretty hard to argue AWOL when cameras are pointing at the brow with a DTG though.

Agree this is a weird CANFORGEN, hopefully this is followed up with clarification and actual plain language direction.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (10 Jul 2019)

Navy Pete beat me to it.

There is no such thing as a "going rate" for a particular charge, if a Presiding Officer is doing their job properly and considering all the aggravating and mitigating factors when sentencing.

A sentence must always be the minimum required to both correct behavior and send a message to others.

This is why it is almost impossible to compare sentences arrived at during various summary trials- there are far too many variables.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Jul 2019)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> It really should be considered for everyone, but given that there are multiple generations that were destroyed by the residential schools and some other fairly awful things that Canada did to it's own people, seems fair that it's (theoretically) mandatory.  Even with the SJC decision, it's not getting done, and was one of the points for action in both the Truth and Reconciliation report as well as the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women report.  Read the summary for both sometime, absolutely appalling what happened.  Aside from the sexual and physical abuse and neglect of children, forced cultural assimilation, kidnapping and separating them from their families and all the other horrors from that, there was also some really awful things like a sled dog slaughter in northern communities by the RCMP.  There are a lot of people that had similarly bad childhoods, but none of that was the result of a systematic campaign against the FN that started hundreds of years ago when Europeans rolled up and the GoC enthusiastically picked up the torch.  The last school closed in the early 90s, so it's not even like it's ancient history.
> 
> Highly recommend reading the report; absolutely opened my eyes and really knocked the shine of naivety that I had for Canada as an idea and brought it down to reality. I think Canada as a whole is better than most countries, but that is some really ugly history that we need to confront. It's been going on for generations, and when it's that widespread affecting grandparents down to the kids, it's going to take generation to sort out.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the post and info to consider.  This is a subj I admittedly know very little about;  growing up in a small province (PEI), I've never been aware of the real, national-level history other than broad strokes stuff.  My first awareness of FN issues probably began during the Oka crisis.  At that time I was a young troop in Gagetown and had a fairly one-sided opinion of the situation.



			
				cld617 said:
			
		

> That's not what it says at all, it says "particular attention" is to be afforded, not that leniency or no consideration is to be afforded to anyone of any color or ethnic background. All this additional measure does is create a situation where whoever is dishing out punishments is mandated to consider particulars which evidently have been overlooked so often enough in the past that we've decided they need to be considered, rather than that consideration being optional.



Copy, thanks.


----------

