# Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks



## OceanBonfire (16 Sep 2020)

We'll see if that "explicit direction" will actually be clear. I don't really have my hopes up though.



> *Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks*
> 
> The commander of the Canadian army says he plans to issue a special order that will give individual army units across the country "explicit direction" on how to deal with soldiers suspected of hateful conduct and extremism.
> 
> ...


----------



## Spencer100 (16 Sep 2020)

I wish the Liberals would just get to end state goal and appoint their Zampolit.  Make easier on everyone.


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Sep 2020)

> "explicit direction" on how to deal with soldiers suspected of hateful conduct and extremism.



Investigate and lay charges where it's warranted to do so?

Maybe it's me but the undertone here seems to suggest we're going to skip that due process part.


----------



## SupersonicMax (16 Sep 2020)

Here’s a good debate question:

Given the behaviours we are trying to abolish are already outlawed, is there a need for further directive?


----------



## CBH99 (16 Sep 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Here’s a good debate question:
> 
> Given there the behaviours we are trying to abolish are already outlawed, is there a need for further directive?





I don't think so, no.

But, people in leadership positions often need to be 'seen to be doing something' - even if that something isn't any different than what we can do now.  (As mentioned before, investigate & lay charges as appropriate).


----------



## Colin Parkinson (16 Sep 2020)

and antifa, Communists, Warrior society?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Sep 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Here’s a good debate question:
> 
> Given there the behaviours we are trying to abolish are already outlawed, is there a need for further directive?



Hey!  You!!!!! _ Get_ back in your box!


----------



## ModlrMike (16 Sep 2020)

Here's another debate question:

Are we seeing more because there is more, or are we just better at recognizing it?


----------



## PPCLI Guy (16 Sep 2020)

WE have more cases because we are doing more testing.....


----------



## PuckChaser (16 Sep 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Investigate and lay charges where it's warranted to do so?
> 
> Maybe it's me but the undertone here seems to suggest we're going to skip that due process part.



We already did with sexual misconduct. Automatic AR even if you're found not guilty, with the estimate already situated that the CDS wants you out.


----------



## Quirky (16 Sep 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> We already did with sexual misconduct. Automatic AR even if you're found not guilty, with the estimate already situated that the CDS wants you out.



Guilty until proven innocent...ish. AR just for being accused and having paperwork drawn up.


----------



## MJP (16 Sep 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> We already did with sexual misconduct. Automatic AR even if you're found not guilty, with the estimate already situated that the CDS wants you out.



That is patently untrue and while there are more ARs, not every sexual misconduct ends up at DMCA 2 for AR. A good number of them do because quite frankly they are criminal acts and abhorrent to our values, but it is definitely not automatic.


----------



## BeyondTheNow (16 Sep 2020)

OceanBonfire said:
			
		

> We'll see if that "explicit direction" will actually be clear. I don't really have my hopes up though.



Even if the direction is indeed, “explicit”, I also have reservations about how accurately and uniformly situations would be managed across the board. There are several examples of CoCs taking it upon themselves to introduce their own interpretations into what otherwise should’ve been very simplistic orders/directives for all to follow, so...

We also have several examples of snr leadership not being capable of fully correcting the pre-stated examples because they were never informed and/or simply couldn’t sort out the mishandling of matters due to time, pers availability, etc. and things just stay on the back-burner.


----------



## PuckChaser (16 Sep 2020)

MJP said:
			
		

> That is patently untrue and while there are more ARs, not every sexual misconduct ends up at DMCA 2 for AR. A good number of them do because quite frankly they are criminal acts in nature for many of issues and abhorrent to our values, but it is definitely not automatic.



Maybe Gen Vance should have been more careful with his wording at press conferences then, because its certainly the impression I got, and its pretty clear what DAOD 5019-5 says:



> Initiating an AR
> 4.6 An AR shall be initiated and conducted under DAOD 5019-2 for all reported incidents of sexual misconduct by a CAF member.



Seems patently true to me, I don't know any other definition for the word "all" that means sometimes.


----------



## BeyondTheNow (16 Sep 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Maybe Gen Vance should have been more careful with his wording at press conferences then, because its certainly the impression I got, and its pretty clear what DAOD 5019-5 says:
> 
> Seems patently true to me, I don't know any other definition for the word "all" that means sometimes.



A perfect example of what I mentioned above then, because what MJP stated isn’t inaccurate...


----------



## MJP (17 Sep 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Maybe Gen Vance should have been more careful with his wording at press conferences then, because its certainly the impression I got, and its pretty clear what DAOD 5019-5 says:
> 
> Seems patently true to me, I don't know any other definition for the word "all" that means sometimes.



I am aware of what the DAOD says and I should have included that in the response but despite what it says, from my experience all does not mean all. The cases I have seen even though reported to DMCA 2 have been handled at the unit level including two that became court martials, although the charges that were brought to CM were not sexual assaults or related charges but rather 129 in both cases (that said sexualized behaviour led to both CMs).  There are even more Op HONOUR incidents that do not go to DMCA 2 because they are quite frankly low on the spectrum of behaviours an can be corrected at the unit level.



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Maybe Gen Vance should have been more careful with his wording at press conferences then



In discussion with the analysts at DMCA 2 at the beginning of Op HONOUR it was likely true, however rationale heads have prevailed and the process is more about them reviewing cases at the right level over the past few years. An AR for low spectrum behaviour is not a good use of time, remedial measure it, record it in the tracking system and move on.


----------



## ballz (17 Sep 2020)

Stupid question maybe... what defines an "administrative review."

If DMCA 2 is referring it back to the unit, doesn't that just mean that the unit is doing an AR.

I mean, don't units do "administrative reviews" for certain conduct issues such as an alcohol-related incident? Or do those go straight to DMCA 2... I'm fuzzy, haven't been in that game for a while.


----------



## MJP (17 Sep 2020)

ballz said:
			
		

> Stupid question maybe... what defines an "administrative review."
> 
> If DMCA 2 is referring it back to the unit, doesn't that just mean that the unit is doing an AR.
> 
> I mean, don't units do "administrative reviews" for certain conduct issues such as an alcohol-related incident? Or do those go straight to DMCA 2... I'm fuzzy, haven't been in that game for a while.



AR is the process done by DMCA and their analysts, what units do are not ARs according to the DAOD.  If DMCA refers it back without formal AR (Advisory, Disclosure and Decision being the formal process) then the unit is likely doing a remedial measure which is separate from ARs. 

The process is a bit silly as the process is not well understood because different DAODs (and other references) control different aspects of the administrative measures that the CAF can subject a member to, Remedial Measures, NOI to Release, AR being the main ones. A unit may very well be doing much of the same type of analysis as DMCA, however the quality control can suffer. There can also be the tendency to be too harsh or soft as units deal with limited cases whereas DMCA deals with many, plus the fact different leaders approach the interpretation in different ways.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 Sep 2020)

ballz said:
			
		

> Stupid question maybe... what defines an "administrative review."
> 
> If DMCA 2 is referring it back to the unit, doesn't that just mean that the unit is doing an AR.
> 
> I mean, don't units do "administrative reviews" for certain conduct issues such as an alcohol-related incident?



Without looking at anything...wouldn't those be more along the line of AI/SI/UDI vice AR?  

Question:  If the Army issues a separate order, might that not create  "disparity of treatment" issue?  Sgt Bloggins from the C Army and Sgt Bloginns from the RCAF both commit the same act, one faces harsher consequences because of said "order" from Comd C Army that Comd RCAF did not order?  Should this "specific order" not be applic to ALL CAF members, vice ones serving under Comd C Army?

The *one standard that applies to all equally* idea is much more in line with our Defence Ethics?

Six Core Ethical Obligations

32. The Statement of Defence Ethics contains six core defence ethical obligations: integrity, loyalty, courage, honesty, fairness, and responsibility. There is no hierarchy established among these six ethical obligations. In other words, they have equal weight and, all else being equal; each one must be respected. These obligations embrace fundamental values that run through the military as a profession, the public-service, and our democratic society. These six ethical obligations represent a core of ethical obligations around which other related ethical obligations naturally cluster. In what follows, each obligation is discussed and reference is made to other ethical values related to it.

39. Fairness. In general, fairness implies treating people, groups, and situations justly, equitably, and without bias. To be fair, a decision or outcome must be in accordance with some accepted standard of rightness, which in some circumstances, include criteria of care. For example, decisions adversely affecting the lives of personnel may be objectively necessary and legally justified. However, it would be unfair to implement them with very little care for the lives of the people affected. Fairness, particularly when exercising the public trust, requires decisions and outcomes that focus on others and the public interest without reference to one’s own personal preferences. Fair treatment by superiors and administrators is an indispensable requirement for subordinate trust and loyalty in its leadership and in the organization.

40. The obligation of fairness applies to both administrative and disciplinary matters, and requires not only fair outcomes, but fair procedures for determining those outcomes. In many cases, decisions and outcomes are considered fair if rewards, benefits, penalties, and burdens are distributed according to some objective standard of merit or desert and not arbitrarily. Procedures are considered fair if subordinates are duly informed of the nature of any matter that directly affects them; if they are given adequate notice of any associated hearing or administrative process; if the conduct of hearings and reviews is impartial; if they are given an opportunity to state their views and, if necessary, challenge information presented; and if they have access to an appellate review. The obligation of fairness also means not discriminating against any person or group based on a personal characteristic that is irrelevant to the nature of the decision being rendered or outcome being determined.

41. Since fairness carries with it a requirement to be unbiased, impartiality is an ethical obligation closely related to it. As an obligation to individual members of the public, government suppliers and contractors, and other third parties, impartiality includes providing equality of opportunity in access to employment and services, following fair administrative and management procedures, and applying policies and rules non-preferentially and without bias. For example, in situations where two or more groups or populations are protected by the Canadian Forces, or receive aid and assistance from the Defence Team, impartiality requires that all parties be treated with respect, equal consideration, and without discrimination. However, the obligation to fairness implies avoiding a blind impartiality that is so rigid that it is indifferent and unresponsive to human suffering. Ultimately, fairness requires a fine balance between being impartial and our sense of humanity and justice.


----------



## PuckChaser (17 Sep 2020)

EITS, you were in the Army before if I remember correctly. You're telling me there isn't a marked difference about how a Pte in 3RCR would be disciplined for being late to a parade compared to an Aviator in Greenwood?


----------



## MJP (17 Sep 2020)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Without looking at anything...wouldn't those be more along the line of AI/SI/UDI vice AR?



A CO's investigation (informal mechanism),SI or even BOI may be warranted if it was super serious and there was an indication of something more than individual malfeasance at play (see also Canadian Rangers / Corey Hurren / Erik Myggland). In terms of individual malfeasance generally units do fairly poor on any sort of in-depth analysis of admin measures for infractions (at least in my experience). While there may be a deliberate conversation on what level of RM it is often not guided by actual analysis just a report of the events and some experience around the table.  Which is fine IMHO for 99% of cases.

A UDI if it was a NDA vice civilian issue/charge would play into an AR or other administrative measures in the analysis, but is done separately and not at all (in general) if civilian charges are already at play.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 Sep 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> EITS, you were in the Army before if I remember correctly. You're telling me there isn't a marked difference about how a Pte in 3RCR would be disciplined for being late to a parade compared to an Aviator in Greenwood?



I was.

I'd say "yes" to your question, but the difference is the application of powers of punishment, not the orders/directives written that give more harsh (or lenient) powers to a Delegated O serving in one command or the other; important difference (to me?).

TL;DR summary;  the CAF is required to be 'fair' in imposing judgements.

This would be specific direction for CAF members posted to C Army, and that strikes me as (potentially) unfair.  Related to this (IMO)...a few excerpts from A-LG-007-000/AF-010 (CF Administrative Law Manual), Chap 2 Administrative Law in the CF, Section 3 - General Principles of Procedural Fairness:

26. Even though procedural fairness is “flexible and variable,” a court that is reviewing an administrative decision must assess the entire context of “the particular statute and the rights affected.” In order to determine the specific content of procedural fairness, a court will examine several factors, such as the:
a. nature of the decision being made and process followed in making it;
b. nature of the statutory scheme and the terms of the statute pursuant to which the body operates;
c. importance of the decision to the individual or individuals affected;
d. legitimate expectations of the person challenging the decision; and
e. choice of procedures made by the agency itself

Section 4 - Procedural Fairness in the CF

28. The requirement for procedural fairness in CF administrative decision-making has been established in several court cases at the FCC level. The majority of these judicial review applications have pertained to cases where members have been compulsorily released from the CF. The decisions of the courts have confirmed the overall duty of fairness owed to CF members and provided guidance as to the content of procedural fairness in each case.

30. It is trite to suggest that CF leaders and supervisors who make administrative decisions should do so fairly. That said, the duty to act fairly will vary depending upon the circumstances. An administrative order to impose one day’s forfeiture of pay for every day a member is guilty of being absent without leave engenders no duty of fairness because the law specifies the result: no discretion is involved  In contrast, most discretionary decisions that adversely affect a member, such as whether to revert a non-commissioned member who has been convicted by a civil authority, will engage a duty to act fairly.

CHAPTER 14 - ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION - SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION

1. Supervisors at all levels are generally responsible for promotion of the “welfare, efficiency and good discipline of all subordinates.”  Accordingly, supervisors possess a broad range of administrative authority and a variety of administrative procedures that they can use to correct the inadequate performance or misconduct of CF members. Except for compulsory release, administrative actions are intended to provide an opportunity for a CF member to correct or overcome a personal performance or conduct deficiency and then continue with their military career in a positive and productive manner. Administrative actions are normally progressive; starting with the least severe administrative sanction and progressing onward to more severe sanctions only if the performance or conduct does not improve. The chain of command always has the option of initiating administrative action starting with more severe sanctions when appropriate, taking into consideration the nature and seriousness of the member’s deficiency or misconduct as well as the concept of procedural fairness that underlies all administrative action.

2. The application of the principles of procedural fairness will vary depending on the type of administrative sanction utilized. In general, as the potential consequences of an administrative action become more severe, the member’s entitlement to procedural fairness increases. Within the CF, the highest level of procedural fairness that is most often applied requires the member to receive:
a. notice that the decision is being considered;
b. disclosure of all documents and information that will be considered by the decision-maker when making the decision;
c. the opportunity to make representations; and
d. a fair and unbiased decision by the decision-maker, accompanied with reasons.

So again to my example; Sgt Bloggins (Army) and Sgt Blogins (Air Force) do the same act, and Bloggins is treated more harshly because of a C Army "directive";  does that seem "fair" IAW the CF Admin Law Manual excerpts?  

I'm far from a legal SME, but based on my time in, experiences and interpretation...I'm of the opinion that a 'army specific' order creates the potential for a disparity of treatment or the appearance of a disparity of treatment.  

So...should the order, if indeed required, not be issued by CDS, CMP or some other senior CAF authority so it applies to all CAF members?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 Sep 2020)

MJP said:
			
		

> A CO's investigation (informal mechanism),SI or even BOI may be warranted if it was super serious and there was an indication of something more than individual malfeasance at play (see also Canadian Rangers / Corey Hurren / Erik Myggland). In terms of individual malfeasance generally units do fairly poor on any sort of in-depth analysis of admin measures for infractions (at least in my experience). While there may be a deliberate conversation on what level of RM it is often not guided by actual analysis just a report of the events and some experience around the table.  Which is fine IMHO for 99% of cases.
> 
> A UDI if it was a NDA vice civilian issue/charge would play into an AR or other administrative measures in the analysis, but is done separately and not at all (in general) if civilian charges are already at play.



In the Admin/AR SME world, are unit-level investigations considered ARs?  My experience is an AR is considered to be an "above/outside the unit" level process...I think I was trying to make that distinction with Ballz with a statement/question combination...


----------



## MJP (17 Sep 2020)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> In the Admin/AR SME world, are unit-level investigations considered ARs?  My experience is an AR is considered to be an "above/outside the unit" level process...I think I was trying to make that distinction with Ballz with a statement/question combination...



Not at all, ARs are above the unit level.  Units may use the AR nomenclature but it is not an AR.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 Sep 2020)

Check, so "AR" is used in the smoke-pit for what are really AI/SI/UDIs, it is an 'accepted' misnomer...one of many in the CAF.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 Sep 2020)

Forgot another part from the CF Admin Law Manual:

CHAPTER 14 - ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION - SECTION 1

4. Career Management  Procedural fairness has a limited application in respect of career management decisions because the outcomes of such decisions are not considered to be sanctions or penalties and such decisions are not being made as a result of any misconduct or inadequate performance on the part of the member. The vast majority of these types of decisions are made routinely and are accepted by the affected members, notwithstanding that the individual members may not have been consulted or informed prior to the decision being made. Those few members who disagree with a career management decision are entitled to apply for redress through the CF grievance process.  [included only to sp "contrast" to next para]

6. Administrative Sanction In contrast to career management, procedural fairness plays a significant role when serious administrative sanctions are being taken against a CF member. Such sanctions can impair a member’s career progression or, ultimately, lead to the termination of the member’s military service career by way of compulsory release. Accordingly, as the administrative sanctions become progressively more severe, procedural fairness requirements are enhanced for the benefit and protection of the member.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (18 Sep 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> and antifa, Communists, Warrior society?



Apparently this is not a problem, and this is the one of the issues I have ... why is only "right wing" extremism being singled out and why is "left wing" extremism not a problem?

This is not just a CAF thing. In the US, there are riots and burning of building happened in several cities at the behest of Antifa and other left-wing extremists. A group of them even occupied a part of downtown Seattle and harassed residents. Yet law enforcement is telling us these are not threats and only the bogeyman of "right wing extremists" is what warrants attention and concern. I say bogeyman because I am not convinced that "right wing extremists" actually exist in any significant numbers given their lack of activity compared to the left-wing groups.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (18 Sep 2020)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Here's another debate question:
> 
> Are we seeing more because there is more, or are we just better at recognizing it?



Or I would offer a third alternative ... are we seeing more because the range of acceptable political opinion has shifted and the definition of what constitutes "right wing extremism" has also shifted, therefore capturing many groups and views that were not deemed dangerous or criminal as recently as a year or two ago?


----------



## blacktriangle (18 Sep 2020)

LittleBlackDevil said:
			
		

> Apparently this is not a problem, and this is the one of the issues I have ... why is only "right wing" extremism being singled out and why is "left wing" extremism not a problem?
> 
> This is not just a CAF thing. In the US, there are riots and burning of building happened in several cities at the behest of Antifa and other left-wing extremists. A group of them even occupied a part of downtown Seattle and harassed residents. Yet law enforcement is telling us these are not threats and only the bogeyman of "right wing extremists" is what warrants attention and concern. I say bogeyman because I am not convinced that "right wing extremists" actually exist in any significant numbers given their lack of activity compared to the left-wing groups.



Perhaps right-wing extremists are more likely to conduct lone wolf style attacks (shootings), whereas the left wing extremists operate in mobs and mostly smash/burn things?

It may be easier to attribute the motivations of individual acts, and harder to attribute the motivations of large groups (especially if they operate among legitimate protesters)

The left also seems to control the narrative, and from a military standpoint, there probably are more right-wing extremists than antifa types...

 :2c:


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Sep 2020)

LittleBlackDevil said:
			
		

> Apparently this is not a problem, and this is the one of the issues I have ... why is only "right wing" extremism being singled out and why is "left wing" extremism not a problem?



Look to Ottawa and our 'political leadership' for the answer to that one... :nod:


----------



## Donald H (19 Sep 2020)

LittleBlackDevil said:
			
		

> Apparently this is not a problem, and this is the one of the issues I have ... why is only "right wing" extremism being singled out and why is "left wing" extremism not a problem?



Leftwing extremism hasn't even been defined in Canada yet. America is no longer a marker on which to judge other countries' position on the political spectrum. They've strayed so far right they're being widely accused by many now as becoming a fascist regime. Normal is Canada and the other world countries that lead in social progress that affords their people a high quality of life.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (19 Sep 2020)

Good points, reveng.



			
				reveng said:
			
		

> Perhaps right-wing extremists are more likely to conduct lone wolf style attacks (shootings), whereas the left wing extremists operate in mobs and mostly smash/burn things?



One would think this from the way that the media portrays things, but aside from the very highly popularized Anders Brevik case, I can't think of any others that truly fit the "right wing extremist" narrative.

Alexandre Bissonnette has been portrayed as "far-right extremist" because he targeted Muslims, however police said they found no content created by the killer that “could link him to the white supremacist or the neo-Nazi ideology.” Bissonet did lots of google searches of Donald Trump and the Ecole Polytechnique massacre but do google searches = adherence to any ideology? From his behaviour it sounds like mental health and prescription of the wrong medications played a larger role than any political beliefs. The fact that I did some google searches on Bissonet and Brevik this morning mean I'm a right-wing extremist? I sure hope not!

If you look at the Wikipedia page for "massacres in Canada", aside from Bissonette, you've got Minassian in the Toronto Van Attack ("incel" not right-wing politics), and then the rest are biker gang shootings, an estranged husband shooting up the wedding party of his wife's second marriage. NB Minassian washed out of Canadian Army training after 16 days.

That Wikipedia page does not include the 2014 shootings at Parliament Hill which certainly wasn't "right wing extremism" it was Islamic extremism but that is not considered a matter of concern for the CDS (not that it should be -- I think guys like that would never make it through training, like Minassian, plus I also think these cases have other underlying issues that should be addressed but not necessitating a purge of those with unpopular political or religious views).



			
				reveng said:
			
		

> It may be easier to attribute the motivations of individual acts, and harder to attribute the motivations of large groups (especially if they operate among legitimate protesters)



This is no doubt true. Very good point.



			
				reveng said:
			
		

> The left also seems to control the narrative, and from a military standpoint, there probably are more right-wing extremists than antifa types...



I think this is absolutely the case, and this is really the crux of the issue. The media, and therefore the narrative, is almost completely controlled by (at its most moderate) left-of-centre. Therefore these people downplay or even approve of the likes of antifa, whereas if news articles on Axenandre Bissonette are anything to go by, are so anti-right that they view even very moderate guys like Ben Shapiro as "extremists" (watching videos of Shapiro was one of the items cited to say that Bissonette was a right-wing extremist).


----------



## Infanteer (19 Sep 2020)

It's funny that folks are eager to put "mainstream media" as "left of centre."  Perhaps the problem is where folks are choosing to put centre of mass.

We do not have a "far left extremism" problem in the CAF, and I've yet to see a case where "growth of antifa ideology/communist viewpoints/etc/etc threatens the good order and discipline of the CAF."  Those of you twisting your underwear in a knot here are just creating a red herring.  

However, we do have specific cases of members identifying with nativist/supremist ideologies.  And there are enough serious case studies in the ranks of our allies to cause concern.  The recent incidents and trends in the U.S. and German Armed Forces give us good understanding as to where this can lead if left unchecked by leadership.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Sep 2020)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> We do not have a known/exposed "far left extremism" problem in the CAF



Like COVID 19, you don't know until you know.   :Tin-Foil-Hat:

With the 'control of the message' stuff lately from...CBC, others...I'm not sure if a case was discovered, it would be widely publicized anyways.


----------



## brihard (19 Sep 2020)

A few thoughts...

First- on the whole right/left thing; I think the reason - in this context - that we hear about right wing extremism more than left is simply because dds are we aren't going to find (m)any of the latter serving in the military. Not saying it'll never happen, but those particular extremist views are unlikely to be aligned with military service in Canada. On the flip side, those with right wing extremists views do seem in some cases to serve int he military- either as a related part of their personal values, or in some cases specifically to acquire skills/knowledge. Military service has been explicitly advocated in right wing circles as a way to prepare for whatever violent conflict it is they imagine is coming. It's not hard to quickly come up with a list of names of former (or even current) CAF members who have been publicly outed as having such views, either in the course of criminal investigations (Matthews, Hurren), or through being 'outed' or doxxed by thsoe who do such things (the MARLANT 'Proud Boys', the other sailor I believe out west, etc). In the absence of real data, the numerous anecdotes at least cause us to cast our eye in a certain direction.

Regarding releasing these individuals from CAF, procedural fairness, due process, etc... There's a different standard applied to terminating employment than there is to being charged with an offense.  It's very much in CAF's (and arguably Canada's) interest to be able to efficiently release people from military service who don't serve the unique needs thereof, or who are otherwise an undue liability or administrative burden. The courts have tested the administrative release process, and it holds up. Given the real security concerns attendant to people who have extremist political views of any bent, I think it's necessary and appropriate that the upper chain of command support and champion efforts to clear the ranks of those with an ethos contradictory to what the military requires. Bear in mind that any further obstacle to releasing these members who apply equally to those we might categorize as '****birds', the guys who all have known and worked with who just shouldn't be in but have somehow not quite yet managed to get kicked out. These are still individuals that take up positions, that create administrative burdens, and that harm the efficiency and effectiveness of the total force. Some greater degree of protection of extremists from the consequences of their choices would also extend protections to all of these other individuals. Just bear that in mind. Any employer, generally speaking, can with sufficient documentation properly articulate and defend the termination of employment of someone who is known to espouse and/or act on views contrary to the employers principles and ethics. CAF is really no different, although a CAF member gets considerably more bureaucratic protection than employees for many other organizations would see.


----------



## Infanteer (19 Sep 2020)

Brihard said it better than I above.



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Like COVID 19, you don't know until you know.   :Tin-Foil-Hat:



Why would someone who feels the state is corrupt, oppressive and/or racist join the one organization of the state that has a monopoly on violence?


----------



## Infanteer (19 Sep 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Regarding releasing these individuals from CAF, procedural fairness, due process, etc... There's a different standard applied to terminating employment than there is to being charged with an offense.  It's very much in CAF's (and arguably Canada's) interest to be able to efficiently release people from military service who don't serve the unique needs thereof, or who are otherwise an undue liability or administrative burden. The courts have tested the administrative release process, and it holds up.



Correct.  And people who whine that "Admin Measures" are another form of punishment need to understand this.

Break the law (Code of Service Discipline) - military justice system
Conduct does not meet the bar set by policy and regulations - administrative measures
Performance does not meet the bar set by policy and regulations - administrative measures

Three distinct things, and a combination of the first and either of the latter two may be required in some cases.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Sep 2020)

[quote author=Infanteer]
Why would someone who feels the state is corrupt, oppressive and/or racist join the one organization of the state that has a monopoly on violence?
[/quote]

Perhaps along the lines of the same attitude from members who incessantly disparage NCOs, Officers and the CAF in general but like the pay check.


----------



## Infanteer (19 Sep 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Perhaps along the lines of the same attitude from members who incessantly disparage NCOs, Officers and the CAF in general but like the pay check.



That isn't a political ideology, that is a personal attitude that they are good to go and everyone else is incompetent.  Most of the times this isn't matched by reality - in fact it is generally the other way around.


----------



## mariomike (19 Sep 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Any employer, generally speaking, can with sufficient documentation properly articulate and defend the termination of employment of someone who is known to espouse and/or act on views contrary to the employers principles and ethics. CAF is really no different, although a CAF member gets considerably more bureaucratic protection than employees for many other organizations would see.



My employer would tolerate almost anything. They didn't care what your prejudices were. But, outside of the station ( where basically anything was tolerated, especially in the old days ) if you treated anyone with disrespect on a call - you were history. You likely wouldn't lose your job. But, would find yourself shovelling sh^t in the sewers. Literally. 

Sure there was a union. They'd send a rep to hold your hand. But, that was about it. 

Towards the end on my career, a number of guys committed career suicide via social media.


----------



## brihard (19 Sep 2020)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Towards the end on my career, a number of guys committed career suicide via social media.



Yup, this is an increasing phenomenon for sure.


----------



## Donald H (19 Sep 2020)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> It's funny that folks are eager to put "mainstream media" as "left of centre."  Perhaps the problem is where folks are choosing to put centre of mass.



You nailed it! The US has moved right and tradionally the rest of the world would recognize that which they try to define as the middle of the political spectrum as correct.

But it's no longer correct and now Canada and the world's other leading capitalist democracies are defining the middle. I see this as more and more big problems for the Nato alliance if Trump is re-elected. Already trouble is brewing in European countries, vis a vis Iran and the situation with Turkey.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Sep 2020)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> That isn't a political ideology, that is a personal attitude that they are good to go and everyone else is incompetent.  Most of the times this isn't matched by reality - in fact it is generally the other way around.



Right. Not a political ideology. I wonder how many of our white supremacist losers view it as a legitimate political type movement and how many just get off on being assholes. The same way people got off on the cpl bloggins shit.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Sep 2020)

I wonder if our soldiers deployed to Europe inadvertently cross paths with neo-nazis or white supremacist units when we train with other European countries. 

And if they do and it's obvious, what our SOPs are. I would imagine since we're issuing special orders to weed out extremists in our own ranks we will flat out refuse to operate along side with or especially train extremists over there.


----------



## blacktriangle (19 Sep 2020)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Brihard said it better than I above.
> 
> Why would someone who feels the state is corrupt, oppressive and/or racist join the one organization of the state that has a monopoly on violence?



Very well said. It's more likely that extremists on the right would gravitate towards organizations such as the CAF. Perhaps this would apply to LE as well, not sure. 

If I was a police officer, I'd be concerned about getting in a gun fight with a right wing extremist (lone wolf, maybe small group) - but I'd also be concerned about mass social unrest and people that want to burn society to the ground. 

As a former CAF member now enjoying civilian life, who owns property, has a spouse and elderly parents...I'm most worried about unrest/revolution/mass violence. I will let people make their own assumptions about which side of the political spectrum I'm concerned about in that respect. 

 :2c:


----------



## Brad Sallows (19 Sep 2020)

>Why would someone who feels the state is corrupt, oppressive and/or racist join the one organization of the state that has a monopoly on violence?

They don't, of course.  Leftists don't join the armed and police forces of the middle-ist state they are trying to overthrow; they overthrow it and then staff the armed and police forces of their own.


----------



## Donald H (19 Sep 2020)

reveng said:
			
		

> Very well said. It's more likely that extremists on the right would gravitate towards organizations such as the CAF. Perhaps this would apply to LE as well, not sure.
> 
> If I was a police officer, I'd be concerned about getting in a gun fight with a right wing extremist (lone wolf, maybe small group) - but I'd also be concerned about mass social unrest and people that want to burn society to the ground.
> 
> ...



I'll make the assumption you've suggested. In America it could be hotly debated on which side to be most concerned about.

But this is Canada so where's the concern?


----------



## Navy_Pete (19 Sep 2020)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> It's funny that folks are eager to put "mainstream media" as "left of centre."  Perhaps the problem is where folks are choosing to put centre of mass.
> 
> We do not have a "far left extremism" problem in the CAF, and I've yet to see a case where "growth of antifa ideology/communist viewpoints/etc/etc threatens the good order and discipline of the CAF."  Those of you twisting your underwear in a knot here are just creating a red herring.
> 
> However, we do have specific cases of members identifying with nativist/supremist ideologies.  And there are enough serious case studies in the ranks of our allies to cause concern.  The recent incidents and trends in the U.S. and German Armed Forces give us good understanding as to where this can lead if left unchecked by leadership.



Also, we don't need any new tools to deal with the existing issue of possible nazi/supremacist type ideologies, and really nothing stopping anyone from applying it to personnel that are found to be extremists anywhere on the spectrum that are causing a problem.

No one is saying we are protecting antifa or whomever just that there is a known issue of right wing extremists deliberately looking to infiltrate police/military forces, and we need to kick it in the teeth.

Not really sure what is wrong with being anti fascist though; the CAF was a big part of that from 1939-1945 which we memorialize every year, and anyone who enjoys personal liberties and freedoms should be inherently against fascism as well as racism, so I think it's probably important to separate a general belief that Nazis are bad with violent extremism.


----------



## mariomike (19 Sep 2020)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Not really sure what is wrong with being anti fascist though; the CAF was a big part of that from 1939-1945 which we memorialize every year, and anyone who enjoys personal liberties and freedoms should be inherently against fascism as well as racism, so I think it's probably important to separate a general belief that Nazis are bad with violent extremism.



I'm not really sure either. Other than constantly reading antifa this and antifa that on here.

I've always been proud that my father, and my mother's father, fought overseas for Canada ( Navy and Army respectively ) in WW2. Especially of an uncle in the RCAF who never made it back to Canada and is interred in France.


----------



## Kat Stevens (19 Sep 2020)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Also, we don't need any new tools to deal with the existing issue of possible nazi/supremacist type ideologies, and really nothing stopping anyone from applying it to personnel that are found to be extremists anywhere on the spectrum that are causing a problem.
> 
> No one is saying we are protecting antifa or whomever just that there is a known issue of right wing extremists deliberately looking to infiltrate police/military forces, and we need to kick it in the teeth.
> 
> Not really sure what is wrong with being anti fascist though; the CAF was a big part of that from 1939-1945 which we memorialize every year, and anyone who enjoys personal liberties and freedoms should be inherently against fascism as well as racism, so I think it's probably important to separate a general belief that Nazis are bad with violent extremism.



Maybe because these days anything to the right of Groucho Marx is labelled a nazi and a fascist? Also that monuments to those guys who went over there and did the deed are vandalized and defaced by today’s current group of anti fascists?


----------



## MJP (19 Sep 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Regarding releasing these individuals from CAF, procedural fairness, due process, etc... There's a different standard applied to terminating employment than there is to being charged with an offense.  It's very much in CAF's (and arguably Canada's) interest to be able to efficiently release people from military service who don't serve the unique needs thereof, or who are otherwise an undue liability or administrative burden. The courts have tested the administrative release process, and it holds up. Given the real security concerns attendant to people who have extremist political views of any bent, I think it's necessary and appropriate that the upper chain of command support and champion efforts to clear the ranks of those with an ethos contradictory to what the military requires. Bear in mind that any further obstacle to releasing these members who apply equally to those we might categorize as '****birds', the guys who all have known and worked with who just shouldn't be in but have somehow not quite yet managed to get kicked out. These are still individuals that take up positions, that create administrative burdens, and that harm the efficiency and effectiveness of the total force. Some greater degree of protection of extremists from the consequences of their choices would also extend protections to all of these other individuals. Just bear that in mind. Any employer, generally speaking, can with sufficient documentation properly articulate and defend the termination of employment of someone who is known to espouse and/or act on views contrary to the employers principles and ethics. CAF is really no different, although a CAF member gets considerably more bureaucratic protection than employees for many other organizations would see.





			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Correct.  And people who whine that "Admin Measures" are another form of punishment need to understand this.
> 
> Break the law (Code of Service Discipline) - military justice system
> Conduct does not meet the bar set by policy and regulations - administrative measures
> ...



Well said Brihard and Infanteer! Part of the issue is many CoCs don't fully understand the process, are given faulty advice regarding the process or have their own views/interpretations that they imposed on the process.  The one thing with the process in my opinion is it is almost too slow and procedurally fair. We take an incredible amount of time and energy to remove someone that would have been fired in any other job


----------



## Donald H (19 Sep 2020)

Target Up said:
			
		

> Maybe because these days anything to the right of Groucho Marx is labelled a nazi and a fascist? Also that monuments to those guys who went over there and did the deed are vandalized and defaced by today’s current group of anti fascists?



This incident? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/17/canada-nazi-monument-vandalism-hate-crime

If not then were there other instances? I'm asking because I want to search out just who was responsible. My question only applies to Canada of course.


----------



## brihard (19 Sep 2020)

So now that I’ve been out for a bit, are any ‘new tools’ actually being developed and deployed on this? Or is this merely firm direction from on high to apply the tools and procedures that exist, and to curb leniency on this particular category of behaviour?


----------



## MJP (19 Sep 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> So now that I’ve been out for a bit, are any ‘new tools’ actually being developed and deployed on this? Or is this merely firm direction from on high to apply the tools and procedures that exist, and to curb leniency on this particular category of behaviour?



There is a tracking tool for Operation HONOUR breaches which can be readily adapted for really anything misconduct, that might be worthwhile to do as long as they make the instructions better as it is still a bit unwieldy (see also Monitor Mass).

 The actual AR process is still owned by Director Military Careers Administration 2 (DMCA 2) and the admin policy hasn't changed. Really the speed a case is adjudicated is directly related to the amount of command pressure or imperative due to seriousness of the incident to push the file within the bounds of procedural fairness. My experience is that often the slow nature of the cases stems from the units themselves who are slow at requesting an AR (along with proper supporting documentation) or they misunderstand or forget steps of the admin process along the way.


----------



## Haggis (19 Sep 2020)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Towards the end on my career, a number of guys committed career suicide via social media.


A little over half of the terminations for cause in my agency last year (not including recruits still on probation) were the result of social media posts.


----------



## Haggis (19 Sep 2020)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Correct.  And people who whine that "Admin Measures" are another form of punishment need to understand this.
> 
> Break the law (Code of Service Discipline) - military justice system
> Conduct does not meet the bar set by policy and regulations - administrative measures
> ...



In many cases this well explained distinction only becomes apparent later in one's career when one begins to deliver administrative sanctions to their subordinates.

From a soldier's perspective, whether an AR, RM, CM or ST you're either in sh*t or you're not.


----------



## mariomike (19 Sep 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> A little over half of the terminations for cause in my agency last year (not including recruits still on probation) were the result of social media posts.



The three I'm thinking of were let go over some light-hearted banter with each other quoting a couple of TV shows: The Office and South Park.


----------



## shawn5o (20 Sep 2020)

If i may relate to these quotes



> Many of the cases to date have been dealt with quietly through the military's administrative and disciplinary process — but Kirzner-Roberts said it's clear from the Myggland case that a "safe space" has been created for racism and intolerance to fester in the ranks. Lt.-Gen. Wayne Eyre



and



			
				ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Here's another debate question:
> 
> Are we seeing more because there is more, or are we just better at recognizing it?




Back in the early 70s after battle school, I joined my Bn and I know there was a certain sgt-maj who was a racist. We had a Black sgt and i recall after one waincon, some young private would tell this sgt he still had on camo on his face. Another young private complained to the company NCOs that he had a Black room mate. Which was weird cause that Black soldier loved country music, could barely dance, loved to tinker on his car, and couldn't sing to save his life.

In my view, ModlrMike is right.

 :2c:


----------



## Donald H (20 Sep 2020)

shawn5o said:
			
		

> If i may relate to these quotes
> 
> and
> 
> ...



Shawn, it seems that you're agreeing with ModlrMike's question, even though I would agree that it's suggestive of his opinion.

Are you of the opinion that extremism is on the increase?

I think it is, or at least the army commander is being proactive on the possibility because of the definite increas in extremism in the US. That increase is quite undeniable and almost certainly going to spill across our border, if it hasn't already.

But of course those actively serving now will have the best answer.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Sep 2020)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Brihard said it better than I above.
> 
> Why would someone who feels the state is corrupt, oppressive and/or racist join the one organization of the state that has a monopoly on violence?



Maybe they didn't think that way when the joined, and got into 'real life' with mortgages, kids and bills, need the money and are close to a pension?  There's a few different scenarios that aren't entirely unbelievable or impossible...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Sep 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Regarding releasing these individuals from CAF, procedural fairness, due process, etc... There's a different standard applied to terminating employment than there is to being charged with an offense.  It's very much in CAF's (and arguably Canada's) interest to be able to efficiently release people from military service who don't serve the unique needs thereof, or who are otherwise an undue liability or administrative burden. The courts have tested the administrative release process, and it holds up. Given the real security concerns attendant to people who have extremist political views of any bent, I think it's necessary and appropriate that the upper chain of command support and champion efforts to clear the ranks of those with an ethos contradictory to what the military requires. Bear in mind that any further obstacle to releasing these members who apply equally to those we might categorize as '****birds', the guys who all have known and worked with who just shouldn't be in but have somehow not quite yet managed to get kicked out. These are still individuals that take up positions, that create administrative burdens, and that harm the efficiency and effectiveness of the total force. Some greater degree of protection of extremists from the consequences of their choices would also extend protections to all of these other individuals. Just bear that in mind. Any employer, generally speaking, can with sufficient documentation properly articulate and defend the termination of employment of someone who is known to espouse and/or act on views contrary to the employers principles and ethics.



Regarding my earlier posts, mainly I just wanted to point out those excerpts are all from the CF Administrative Law Manual; it holds many more details, case law, etc on the subj and does also talk about the "standard of proof" topic as well.

Chap 2, Sect 4, Para's 52-53

Standard of Proof for Decision-Makers
52. Those CF personnel who have completed the Presiding Officer Certification Training (POCT) course have been exposed to the concept of applying a ‘standard of proof’ when making a decision with significant consequences to the subject of the decision. As emphasized in that course, an individual cannot be convicted of a criminal or service offence unless the presiding officer is convinced “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the accused committed the offence.59 In civil cases, the standard is somewhat lower (i.e., the decision-maker(s) must be satisfied on a ‘balance of probabilities’ that an incident occurred). An equivalent phrase that is used is ‘based on the preponderance of evidence.’ Generally, this is the standard that is to be applied in most administrative decisions.

53. There is an intermediate standard of proof, falling between the criminal standard and the civil standard, that applies to decisions that are administrative in nature but, nevertheless, have serious implications for the individual:

*The standard of proof required in cases such as this is high. It is not the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But it is something more than a bare balance of probabilities.* The authorities establish that the case against a professional person on a disciplinary hearing must be proved by a fair and reasonable preponderance of credible evidence. The evidence must be sufficiently cogent to make it safe to uphold the findings, with all of the consequences for the professional person’s career and status in the community [having been taken into account].60
*Certain types of CF administrative decisions with serious adverse consequences to a CF member, such as release for involvement with drugs, must be based on clear and convincing evidence.
*


> CAF is really no different, although a CAF member gets considerably more bureaucratic protection than employees for many other organizations would see.



Yes, and if the direction in the CF Admin Law Manual are observed and followed, the correct procedural fairness levels will be afforded.  If the end result is still 'release', then the member will have little recourse with success (judicial review, etc) after the fact.

Specifically on this point...



> Some greater degree of protection of extremists from the consequences of their choices would also extend protections to all of these other individuals. Just bear that in mind.



The...enhanced?...levels of procedural fairness, should be based on the career jeopardy (unless I complete misunderstand the Admin Law Man) that could result.  Intention to release for "drug use" or "hateful behaviour" would, in theory, mean the same level of careful attention to the procedural fairness considerations.  Am I on the right line of thought?

If I am right, then I believe that, even if it is slower, the centralized approach to ARs the CAF uses now is the best COA;  consistency, quality control and avoids the 'reasonable apprehension of bias' issue (or, it is at least better than ARs at the unit or 'next HHQ' level WRT to that aspect).

Personally, I think we need to show these people the door, and as quickly as possible.  However, they must be given the same treatment anyone would expect when they are on the wrong side of policy and expected conduct.  I still think an 'army only' order that isn't matched by RCAF, RCN, CANSOF, etc isn't the best COA.


----------



## Nuggs (20 Sep 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Perhaps along the lines of the same attitude from members who incessantly disparage NCOs, Officers and the CAF in general but like the pay check.


But then we would have no Warrants left [emoji14]


----------



## ArmyRick (21 Sep 2020)

Here is my view on this whole issue which is right across Canadian society.

Their are extreme Right wing people, their are extreme Left wing people, NEITHER ARE ACCEPTABLE when their opinions become actions. in case of the CAF, watch what you say and post as well.

The 80-90% of us Canadians are somewhere in the center (or slightly right or slightly left values) which is good (balance!) 

We must be the example and leadership to Canadian society.


----------



## lenaitch (21 Sep 2020)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Here is my view on this whole issue which is right across Canadian society.
> 
> Their are extreme Right wing people, their are extreme Left wing people, NEITHER ARE ACCEPTABLE when their opinions become actions. in case of the CAF, watch what you say and post as well.
> 
> ...



Well said.  The military and law enforcement, on very different levels, represent and guard the state, and both sides need to have that perspective.  Once they becomes just another job with just another employer, they are degraded.


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Sep 2020)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Here is my view on this whole issue which is right across Canadian society.
> 
> Their are extreme Right wing people, their are extreme Left wing people, NEITHER ARE ACCEPTABLE when their opinions become actions. in case of the CAF, watch what you say and post as well.
> 
> ...



Well said Rick - who da thought back in 1994 you'd be a beacon of hope?  ;D


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (23 Sep 2020)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Here is my view on this whole issue which is right across Canadian society.
> 
> Their are extreme Right wing people, their are extreme Left wing people, NEITHER ARE ACCEPTABLE when their opinions become actions. in case of the CAF, watch what you say and post as well.



Agreed. Re: the highlighted part, my understanding of what the Commander of the Army is saying is that people will be purged out of the Forces for holding the wrong opinions, regardless of whether they ever acted on that, and also only targeting one end of the "political spectrum".

I am greatly concerned with such a broad brush as targeting anything that's "extreme right" versus targeting specific things. "Extreme right" is pretty nebulous, whereas calling for violence against certain racial or religious groups is specific, and is also independent of where one's politics fall on the left/right axis. There have been avowed socialists who have made hateful comments towards certain groups for example, racism isn't necessarily a "right wing" thing.

I also think the bigger problem is, what is the definition of "extreme right"?



			
				ArmyRick said:
			
		

> We must be the example and leadership to Canadian society.



Agreed, and in that regard, I think that members of the CAF, like members of the judiciary or police, should be outwardly largely a-political. But I think they should still have the right to privately held beliefs and what I would rather see targeted/sanctioned is actions not beliefs.


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 Sep 2020)

LittleBlackDevil said:
			
		

> Agreed, and in that regard, I think that members of the CAF, like members of the judiciary or police, should be outwardly largely a-political. But I think they should still have the right to privately held beliefs and what I would rather see targeted/sanctioned is actions not beliefs.



Which reminds me of a famous quote on the subject of intolerance:

“Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings.”

― Heinrich Heine


----------



## Donald H (23 Sep 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Which reminds me of a famous quote on the subject of intolerance:
> 
> “Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings.”
> 
> ― Heinrich Heine



Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you're saying that all people should express themselves freely and then be prepared to take their licks for their opinions. 

I would agree totally with that, with few exceptions. My signature is an attempt to express that opinion.


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 Sep 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you're saying that all people should express themselves freely and then be prepared to take their licks for their opinions.
> 
> I would agree totally with that, with few exceptions. My signature is an attempt to express that opinion.



Well, no. As I recall, Heine was referring to the persecution of Muslims/ Moors in medieval Spain during the Inquisition, which started with Koran burning then led to the killing of Muslims. Thousands of them.

Heine was Jewish, in 19th C Germany, too so experienced some of that intolerance personally, like being more or less forced to convert to Protestantism.

So, I'm guessing he believed that if we do nothing when some bad mouth others for racist/ homophobic other intolerant reasons, what follows might be even worse.


----------



## lenaitch (23 Sep 2020)

Strictly speaking, 'privately held views' should only be known oneself - perhaps immediate family.  Once they are expressed, through whatever means, that line has been crossed.  Until I expressed the foregoing view, no one was able to be aware of it.  Those who exercise or protect the power of the state should not be able to cloud or colour that authority, either on or off the clock.  Whether and to what extent these become reasonable limitations under the Charter, I suppose time will tell.


----------



## Donald H (23 Sep 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Well, no. As I recall, Heine was referring to the persecution of Muslims/ Moors in medieval Spain during the Inquisition, which started with Koran burning then led to the killing of Muslims. Thousands of them.
> 
> Heine was Jewish, in 19th C Germany, too so experienced some of that intolerance personally, like being more or less forced to convert to Protestantism.
> 
> So, I'm guessing he believed that if we do nothing when some bad mouth others for racist/ homophobic other intolerant reasons, what follows might be even worse.



Thanks for that! and so I did a little research:



> That was mere foreplay
> Heinrich Heine made the statement “That was mere foreplay. Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings.” He couldn't have been more correct. They tried to eliminate the ideas by burning the books but just ended up having to go straight to the messenger themselves and take care of it that way.



I find your explanation sufficiently correct, but the above adds to it.

 :cheers:


----------



## OldSolduer (23 Sep 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Which reminds me of a famous quote on the subject of intolerance:
> 
> “Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings.”
> 
> ― Heinrich Heine



I always liked Edmund Burkes quote "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men people to do nothing"


----------



## TCM621 (23 Sep 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Well, no. As I recall, Heine was referring to the persecution of Muslims/ Moors in medieval Spain during the Inquisition, which started with Koran burning then led to the killing of Muslims. Thousands of them.
> 
> Heine was Jewish, in 19th C Germany, too so experienced some of that intolerance personally, like being more or less forced to convert to Protestantism.
> 
> So, I'm guessing he believed that if we do nothing when some bad mouth others for racist/ homophobic other intolerant reasons, what follows might be even worse.



I think you are missing the point of the lines. He is saying when you burn all the books because your don't like they ideas, next you will burn the people suspected of holding those ideas. There is no racism or homophobia stated nor implied. In fact, I would argue you have it completely backwards. If you burn all the books you think are racist, eventually you will end up burning everyone you think is racist. The problem is that all these descriptions are subjective in nature. There are two competing definitions of what racism is and the only thing they have in common is that they are about race. The one I grew up with was that racism was intolerance + hate. It wasn't about outcome but intention. Anyone who hated a person based on their race could be racist. Now the prevailing definition that racism was power based and could only flow down hill in the power chain. Robin DiAngelo, of white fragility fame, defines racism, in Is Everybody equal, as 


> "Racism: White racial and cultural prejudice and discrimination, supported by institutional power and authority, used to the advantage of Whites and the disadvantage of people of Color. Racism encompasses economic, political, social, and institutional actions and beliefs that systematize and perpetuate an unequal distribution of privileges, resources, and power between Whites and people of Color.



Those ideas need to be hashed out. Currently, the people in power (government, universities, etc) are using the second definition and attempting to censure anyone who believes the first definition.


----------



## FJAG (23 Sep 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Well, no. As I recall, Heine was referring to the persecution of Muslims/ Moors in medieval Spain during the Inquisition, which started with Koran burning then led to the killing of Muslims. Thousands of them.
> 
> Heine was Jewish, in 19th C Germany, too so experienced some of that intolerance personally, like being more or less forced to convert to Protestantism.
> 
> So, I'm guessing he believed that if we do nothing when some bad mouth others for racist/ homophobic other intolerant reasons, what follows might be even worse.



For those wishing to read more about Heine's Almonsor: A Tragedy and the context of the quote see below. Note the last two are in German. For those of you not fluent in German just hit Google translate (real easy if you're Chrome user).

https://www.ceu.edu/article/2014-03-13/tale-two-book-burnings-heines-warning-context

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almansor_(Heine)

http://www.ibn-rushd.org/typo3/cms/de/magazine/10th-issue-summer-2010/tawfiq-dawani/

Racism, nationalism and religious intolerance were very much in the forefront of the times and his thoughts. His works were amongst those banned and burned or anonymized by the Nazis who singled him out in particular for denunciation.

 :cheers:


----------



## daftandbarmy (24 Sep 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> For those wishing to read more about Heine's Almonsor: A Tragedy and the context of the quote see below. Note the last two are in German. For those of you not fluent in German just hit Google translate (real easy if you're Chrome user).
> 
> https://www.ceu.edu/article/2014-03-13/tale-two-book-burnings-heines-warning-context
> 
> ...



History tangent!

And it wasn't just the Germans... the word 'pogrom', widely associated with the destruction of Jewish ghettos in the pre-19th C period, is Russian.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (24 Sep 2020)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> I think you are missing the point of the lines. He is saying when you burn all the books because your don't like they ideas, next you will burn the people suspected of holding those ideas. There is no racism or homophobia stated nor implied. In fact, I would argue you have it completely backwards. If you burn all the books you think are racist, eventually you will end up burning everyone you think is racist. The problem is that all these descriptions are subjective in nature. There are two competing definitions of what racism is and the only thing they have in common is that they are about race. The one I grew up with was that racism was intolerance + hate. It wasn't about outcome but intention. Anyone who hated a person based on their race could be racist. Now the prevailing definition that racism was power based and could only flow down hill in the power chain. Robin DiAngelo, of white fragility fame, defines racism, in Is Everybody equal, as
> 
> Those ideas need to be hashed out. Currently, the people in power (government, universities, etc) are using the second definition and attempting to censure anyone who believes the first definition.



The second definition is a attempt by RACISTS to change the definition so their actions aren't racist. 

There is a movement active to change the definition of words from their true meaning to something else to confuse others and justify their actions. When you actually start breaking down movements to what the true (i.e. original, uncorrupted) definition of the words are you start to see how insidious their actions really are. The Liberals in their current form are socialists. The 'Anti-Fascists' are fascists (their playbook would make the brown shirts proud). The Anti-racists, are actually racists. It is all basically straight out of '1984' and it is 'doublespeak'.


----------



## FJAG (24 Sep 2020)

Could someone post a copy of the Army Commander's 25 page order on this subject or identify a public link to it?

 :cheers:


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Sep 2020)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> . The 'Anti-Fascists' are fascists (their playbook would make the brown shirts proud).



The Brownshirts or SA were an organized arm of the Nazis, and wore uniforms that were very military in nature. In my opinion real Nazis -the pre WW2 variety - would mop the floor with Antifa.

The SA leadership were arrested during The Night of the Long Knives (IIRC) and the leader, Ernest Rohm, although a devoted and loyal Nazi, was executed.
The SS under failed chicken farmer Heinrich Himmler convinced Hitler that Rohm was going to overthrow him and action had to be taken.
I might be in error so any historians please set me straight. Thanks!


----------



## Cloud Cover (25 Sep 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Could someone post a copy of the Army Commander's 25 page order on this subject or identify a public link to it?
> 
> :cheers:



Yes I would like to see this document as well.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (25 Sep 2020)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> The Brownshirts or SA were an organized arm of the Nazis, and wore uniforms that were very military in nature. In my opinion real Nazis -the pre WW2 variety - would mop the floor with Antifa.
> 
> The SA leadership were arrested during The Night of the Long Knives (IIRC) and the leader, Ernest Rohm, although a devoted and loyal Nazi, was executed.
> The SS under failed chicken farmer Heinrich Himmler convinced Hitler that Rohm was going to overthrow him and action had to be taken.
> I might be in error so any historians please set me straight. Thanks!



Not saying that they are as organized, just simply that much of their basic tactics are similar. Intimidation, assault, and threats levelled against people who they perceive are against them (basically anyone right of a socialist/communist), coupled with a belief their actions are righteousness and justified.


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Sep 2020)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> The Brownshirts or SA were an organized arm of the Nazis, and wore uniforms that were very military in nature. In my opinion real Nazis -the pre WW2 variety - would mop the floor with Antifa.
> 
> The SA leadership were arrested during The Night of the Long Knives (IIRC) and the leader, Ernest Rohm, although a devoted and loyal Nazi, was executed.
> The SS under failed chicken farmer Heinrich Himmler convinced Hitler that Rohm was going to overthrow him and action had to be taken.
> I might be in error so any historians please set me straight. Thanks!



AFAIK you are quite accurate.

And, while not trying to diminish the gravity of the subject, the current situation with neo-Nazis in the CF is quite different from pre-WW2 Germany and the rise of Hitler to power.


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Sep 2020)

Rohm was also a homosexual. That didn’t help. The SA were well organized and this current crop of neo Nazis would be eaten alive by the SA or SS.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 Sep 2020)

A lot of the organisers and low level leaders of the SA would have been ex WWI vets, so they would instill some discipline and direction. Would be a nasty bunch to confront.


----------



## Ralph (25 Sep 2020)

CloudCover said:
			
		

> Yes I would like to see this document as well.



http://army.forces.gc.ca/assets/ARMY_Internet/docs/en/national/2020-09-hateful-conduct-with-annexes.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1Z-W0efSLrxTLnvvZeX27vV2imSPfWkJWriJFG3yd-Ceu78fDUGWDNtAI

FYI, the only times the word "right" are used are in relation to human rights, being forthright, and "what right looks like". Not "right-wing".


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Sep 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> A lot of the organisers and low level leaders of the SA would have been ex WWI vets, so they would instill some discipline and direction. Would be a nasty bunch to confront.



They'd have been a tough nasty lot. Add to the belief in their cause and their behavior around anyone who didn't agree with Hitler.

As far as I can remember they were unarmed - basically a club wielding bunch.


----------



## FJAG (25 Sep 2020)

One needs a lot of context whenever discussing the SA.

Remember that they were formed in the immediate aftermath of defeat in WW1 during a great movement of socialist activity rejecting the previous monarchies that had governed the primary European powers. There were numerous socialist organizations with the primary opponents being the nascent Nazi party, the Communist Party and the Social Democrat Party. All were a very fractious bunch vying for power and there was much armed unrest in the streets of Germany which resulted in the formation of various security detachments to protect their rallies. 

Again, for context, the 25 point program of the NSDAP is described here

Those organizations grew with time and became more sophisticated. At the height of the SA's power it had some 3 million members which greatly outnumbered the then limited regular army of 100,000. 

As the SA grew beyond it's pure security functions separate organizations spun off to provide security for Hitler primarily the SS under Schreck and then Himmler and the gradual pulling in of the various state and regional police agencies and their resultant factions, power struggles etc.

At the core of the movement was a wave of German nationalism which resulted in many of the vile acts for which the Nazi's are rightfully vilified today.

All that is to say that neither the current Neo-Nazi/Extreme Right nor the AntiFa/Extreme Left are in my mind a form of fascism. Fascism is is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy. Neither the Neo-Nazis nor  AntiFa is a political movement with an aim of building a political structure for society. Their nearest kin, IMHO, are anarchists such as the Black Bloc who involve themselves in mindless violence against property or persons to gather attention to their various disparate and frequently unrelated causes. Their aim is usually to tear down parts of society that they do not agree with whether it be multiculturalism or international globalisation. Neither group has a vision that would be capable of building any form of society that would or could function.

:worms:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (25 Sep 2020)

Is it just me, or did this discussion drift far away from the Army commander special order?

BTW, Is it really 15 pages long? I have a hard time with orders that are that long-winded. I find it incredibly difficult to see how they can be comprehended and applied by the people that they apply to - simple sailor, air people and soldiers (and that includes the officers AFAI am concerned: anybody remember Major Dad? "I am a Marine, ma'am: Simple.Straightforward: See the hill - Take the hill.")


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Sep 2020)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> BTW, Is it really 15 pages long? I have a hard time with orders that are that long-winded. I find it incredibly difficult to see how they can be comprehended and applied by the people that they apply to - simple sailor, air people and soldiers (and that includes the officers AFAI am concerned: anybody remember Major Dad? "I am a Marine, ma'am: Simple.Straightforward: See the hill - Take the hill.")



You clearly haven't seen or heard some of the 'Commander's Intent' paragraphs delivered by the Infantry lately


----------



## FJAG (25 Sep 2020)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Is it just me, or did this discussion drift far away from the Army commander special order?
> 
> BTW, Is it really 15 pages long? I have a hard time with orders that are that long-winded. I find it incredibly difficult to see how they can be comprehended and applied by the people that they apply to - simple sailor, air people and soldiers (and that includes the officers AFAI am concerned: anybody remember Major Dad? "I am a Marine, ma'am: Simple.Straightforward: See the hill - Take the hill.")



It's actually 17 pages long and 25 with the annexes (including lovely flow-charts). There also seems to be a new app (HCITS) for tracking cases.

I'm with you on this. I'm a firm believer that, like ROEs, you need a full version for all the commanders and lawyers and a pocket card that hits the key highlights for the bulk of the force from field officers on down. Too much detail and legalese breeds disinterest and, at worst, negativity. 

Again, IMHO, all that is needed is a simple statement of what constitutes hateful conduct and a simple direction that under QR&Os 4.02; 5.01; and 19.56 individuals have a duty to report such conduct to their CO through the CoC. As to the full version, there are already numerous orders and directives that are CAF wide that state how that conduct is to be dealt with. A simple one-pager directed to COs stating that upon a hateful conduct report action will be taken IAW Ref x, y or z and perhaps a short para each on training and reprisals (and perhaps attaching the lovely flow-chart) should suffice.

One problem with lengthy orders like this that depend heavily on existing CAF references is that should a CAF reference change the order may get out of sync. As such such orders need to be constantly reviewed and updated. (And we all know how well that happens)

op:


----------



## dangerboy (25 Sep 2020)

I am wondering if now that the Canadian Army has released this as an order if the other elements will do the same and thing and then shouldn't this mean the CAF should expand upon DAOD 5019 (Reference A in the Order


----------



## MJP (25 Sep 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> There also seems to be a new app (HCITS) for tracking cases.



Oh frig man....that is 3 separate "apps for tracking. One for grievances, harassments, human rights etc (ICRITS), Op HONOUR (OPHTAS)and now HCITS.  I feel bad for the staff at all levels that have to deal with the flip flopping between systems. If anything OPHTAS can easily be adapted to deal with anything misconduct and go from there. We love to have individual high-level HQ staffs (or offices charged with execution) inundate people with a bunch different ways of reporting and then are surprised pikachus when they suck at it.  

The cause is noble but the methods to get there are so CAF it hurts....


*Apologies for the tangent


----------



## Infanteer (26 Sep 2020)

MJP said:
			
		

> If anything OPHTAS can easily be adapted to deal with anything misconduct and go from there.



I believe, don't quote me, that this is where MPC plans to go.


----------



## dapaterson (26 Sep 2020)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> I am wondering if now that the Canadian Army has released this as an order if the other elements will do the same and thing and then shouldn't this mean the CAF should expand upon DAOD 5019 (Reference A in the Order



Comd RCN tweeted his endorsement and announcement that he has his staff working on the same.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (26 Sep 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> You clearly haven't seen or heard some of the 'Commander's Intent' paragraphs delivered by the Infantry lately



When I was a young subbie freshly watch qualified, with no other assigned function than watch keeping, it was my job, and the job of subbies in the same situation in the other ships of the squadron, to draft the OCS* intention messages when we were responsible for a given serial. 

At some point, the Squadron Commander got cheesed off at the length and verbose OCS Intent Msg coming out of all of us, so he decided that for one week, all such messages would be sent by flashing light and the subbies in all ships would be the ones passing them at both end (send/receive). The length of messages was cut by 75% by the end of that week.  ;D

* : Officer Conducting Serial - OCS


----------



## Nuggs (26 Sep 2020)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> When I was a young subbie freshly watch qualified, with no other assigned function than watch keeping, it was my job, and the job of subbies in the same situation in the other ships of the squadron, to draft the OCS* intention messages when we were responsible for a given serial.
> 
> At some point, the Squadron Commander got cheesed off at the length and verbose OCS Intent Msg coming out of all of us, so he decided that for one week, all such messages would be sent by flashing light and the subbies in all ships would be the ones passing them at both end (send/receive). The length of messages was cut by 75% by the end of that week.  ;D
> 
> * : Officer Conducting Serial - OCS


Awesome [emoji4]


----------



## daftandbarmy (26 Sep 2020)

MJP said:
			
		

> Oh frig man....that is 3 separate "apps for tracking. One for grievances, harassments, human rights etc (ICRITS), Op HONOUR (OPHTAS)and now HCITS.  I feel bad for the staff at all levels that have to deal with the flip flopping between systems. If anything OPHTAS can easily be adapted to deal with anything misconduct and go from there. We love to have individual high-level HQ staffs (or offices charged with execution) inundate people with a bunch different ways of reporting and then are surprised pikachus when they suck at it.
> 
> The cause is noble but the methods to get there are so CAF it hurts....
> 
> ...



And, if you're a reservist, there goes a few pay sheets worth of time that can't be invested preparing troops for war.


----------



## kev994 (26 Sep 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> And, if you're a reservist, there goes a few pay sheets worth of time that can't be invested preparing troops for war.


We work in an organization where labour is free [emoji12]


----------



## daftandbarmy (26 Sep 2020)

kev994 said:
			
		

> We work in an organization where labour is free [emoji12]



Except where you are limited to 37 man days per year, of course.


----------



## Navy_Pete (26 Sep 2020)

Maybe a dumb question, but noticed this near the end on 'Note 7'



> 7. Regardless of whether disciplinary action was taken, including where charges were laid and an accused perpetrator was found not guilty, if the facts suggest that there is ‘balance of probability’ that the accused perpetrator engaged in hateful conduct, appropriate administrative actions should be taken, determined by the nature and severity of the incident.



If I read this correctly, someone could be found not guilty and still have admin measures taken against them. I could see a few scenarios where you could do something but maybe not meet the threshold for a hate crime, but not really clear how they balance out the intent of stamping out racism with 'innocent until proven guilty', and could easily see over reactions causing permanent career implications as the definition of hateful conduct is pretty broad (and could conceivably include following a facebook group or something fairly benign). 

For instance, are they going to publish lists of groups that are considered hate groups so people know? Some are pretty obvious, but others are pretty good at having a pretty benign public face, and sometimes not really clear where exactly they fit on the spectrum. La Meute is probably a pretty good example; depends who you listen to but they could be anywhere between a loose coalition of quebecers or a dangerous hate group (and not really sure myself where they sit).  If we are expecting people to not belong to hate groups, and also report those who do, it would be good to have some clarity IMHO (especially when there is a 25 page order).

Also I really don't see anything new here enforcement wise, other then yet another tracking tool, but guess it doesn't hurt to be crystal clear so some dumbass can't argue that they didn't know.

The only thing that bothers me about this is that in some of the news articles pundits are suggesting that military intelligence actively search CAF pers social media for this stuff. Fair game if someone has a public profile and makes public posts, but a lot of people don't, and think it would be an invasion of privacy to expect pers to allow CAF access to all that by default. Don't see any suggestion of that in the orders, but would be against that principle if it was to come down the chain.


----------



## ballz (26 Sep 2020)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Maybe a dumb question, but noticed this near the end on 'Note 7'
> 
> If I read this correctly, someone could be found not guilty and still have admin measures taken against them.



This is and has always been the case for remedial measures / other admin measures. Administrative law uses the balance of probabilities and to be quite honest I don't know how it could function any other way.



			
				Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> For instance, are they going to publish lists of groups that are considered hate groups so people know? Some are pretty obvious, but others are pretty good at having a pretty benign public face, and sometimes not really clear where exactly they fit on the spectrum. La Meute is probably a pretty good example; depends who you listen to but they could be anywhere between a loose coalition of quebecers or a dangerous hate group (and not really sure myself where they sit).  If we are expecting people to not belong to hate groups, and also report those who do, it would be good to have some clarity IMHO (especially when there is a 25 page order).



That will indeed be the problem with this... the goalposts are continually being moved. It's remarkable that Joe Rogan has gone this long without attracting too much heat, likely because he has so much popular support they were hesitant to go after him. But, it was only a matter of time, and now the sharks are circling around him too with Spotify employees threatening to strike if he isn't censored by the company. Watch as it catches momentum, it's only a matter of time before he's labelled "alt right" or "neo nazi" or "insert buzzword of the day here."

We'll see the same thing with various groups, the goalposts will move leaving more and more groups on the "outside" of what is acceptable.


----------



## MJP (26 Sep 2020)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Maybe a dumb question, but noticed this near the end on 'Note 7'
> 
> If I read this correctly, someone could be found not guilty and still have admin measures taken against them. I could see a few scenarios where you could do something but maybe not meet the threshold for a hate crime, but not really clear how they balance out the intent of stamping out racism with 'innocent until proven guilty', and could easily see over reactions causing permanent career implications as the definition of hateful conduct is pretty broad (and could conceivably include following a facebook group or something fairly benign).



I haven't read the order but admin measures by their nature don't have the same burden of proof as disciplinary/courts, it is the balance of probability of whether it likely happened or not. There is no innocent until found guilty, it is the reason for example that often if a soldier gets a DUI hey are given a corresponding admin measure long before they go to trial.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Sep 2020)

MJP said:
			
		

> it is the balance of probability of whether it likely happened or not.



Not quite, or at least not as the jeopardy to the member increases; my quotes from the CAF Admin Law Manual.

https://army.ca/forums/threads/132996/post-1629044.html#msg1629044

53. There is an intermediate standard of proof, falling between the criminal standard and the civil standard, that applies to decisions that are administrative in nature but, nevertheless, have serious implications for the individual:

The standard of proof required in cases such as this is high. It is not the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But it is something more than a bare balance of probabilities. The authorities establish that the case against a professional person on a disciplinary hearing must be proved by a fair and reasonable preponderance of credible evidence. The evidence must be sufficiently cogent to make it safe to uphold the findings, with all of the consequences for the professional person’s career and status in the community [having been taken into account].

60. Certain types of CF administrative decisions with serious adverse consequences to a CF member, such as release for involvement with drugs, must be based on clear and convincing evidence.


----------



## Kat Stevens (26 Sep 2020)

Why was my post removed, too accurate?


----------



## MJP (26 Sep 2020)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Not quite, or at least not as the jeopardy to the member increases; my quotes from the CAF Admin Law Manual.
> 
> https://army.ca/forums/threads/132996/post-1629044.html#msg1629044
> 
> ...



Yes but that is the standard applied during the Admin Review process done by DMCA. It is a much more in-depth review and application as listed in the admin manual. A unit putting someone on a remedial measure has only to consider the balance of probabilities.

DAOD 5019-4 Remedial Measures

Requirement for a Remedial Measure
4.1 A remedial measure may be initiated if there is reliable evidence that establishes on a balance of probabilities that a CAF member has demonstrated:

a conduct deficiency based on an applicable standard of conduct; or
a performance deficiency whereby, over a reasonable period of time, the CAF member has not met the applicable standard of performance.

DAD 5019-2 Admin Review 

Standard of Proof and Evidence
5.6 The standard of proof in an AR is a balance of probabilities as set out in the following table:  Table attached as picture due to copy paste issues


----------



## Infanteer (26 Sep 2020)

Target Up said:
			
		

> Why was my post removed, too accurate?



No, it was removed because it was tangential and is better suited to the reddit page it came from.


----------



## Kat Stevens (26 Sep 2020)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> No, it was removed because it was tangential and is better suited to the reddit page it came from.



In what way? It points out the hypocrisy of vowing to hunt down racism while embracing a policy that is clearly based on race. Either it’s bad or it isn’t, and I didn’t get it from Reddit, so there’s that. But I get it.


----------



## Navy_Pete (26 Sep 2020)

MJP said:
			
		

> I haven't read the order but admin measures by their nature don't have the same burden of proof as disciplinary/courts, it is the balance of probability of whether it likely happened or not. There is no innocent until found guilty, it is the reason for example that often if a soldier gets a DUI hey are given a corresponding admin measure long before they go to trial.



I totally understand that, but if someone gets a DUI there is usually a certain level of proof required to get to that point.

The admin order includes online activities and microaggressions, along with straight up racist acts, so it's a pretty broad brush. No issue kicking someone out for say, running a neo nazi chat board, but it could also apply to a lot of things that are much less blatant. Which in and of itself isn't a bad thing, but there is always the risk it could go too far. Having said that, haven't seen anything like that with Op Honour, so optimistic that common sense will apply and we won't be doing stupid things like slapping an RW on someone for liking a FB post years ago just because the group is now banned*, but sometimes that is weirdly absent.

*for clarification, seems to be a common tactic to have pretty benign statements for those stupid shareable posts as gateways to some of the hate groups. i.e. Do you disagree with illegal immagration? (or whatever fairly non-controversial statement they can find).


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Sep 2020)

> CoC will facilitate focused awareness and bystander training, ensuring that our members recognize their responsibilities when incidentsarise, including the repercussions for not addressing situations in a timely manner. Although this training and associated resources are still being developed, I expect the CoC to be proactive in developing vignettes and educating their members;



I hope this is a legitimate thing and not just fluff. I especially hope it's not just another tired DLN course that people speed-click through to challenge the test and report to higher that it's good to go so someone in brigade can populate a spread sheet and everyone call it mission accomplished.


----------



## ballz (27 Sep 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I especially hope it's not just another tired DLN course that people speed-click through to challenge the test and report to higher that it's good to go so someone in brigade can populate a spread sheet and everyone call it mission accomplished.



It's almost like, after years of seeing the same thing over and over again, you know the CAF's playbook...


----------



## Haggis (27 Sep 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Except where you are limited to 37 man peoplekind days per year, of course.


FTFY.


----------



## daftandbarmy (27 Sep 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> FTFY.



 :rofl:


----------



## MJP (27 Sep 2020)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> I totally understand that, but if someone gets a DUI there is usually a certain level of proof required to get to that point.
> 
> The admin order includes online activities and microaggressions, along with straight up racist acts, so it's a pretty broad brush. No issue kicking someone out for say, running a neo nazi chat board, but it could also apply to a lot of things that are much less blatant. Which in and of itself isn't a bad thing, but there is always the risk it could go too far. Having said that, haven't seen anything like that with Op Honour, so optimistic that common sense will apply and we won't be doing stupid things like slapping an RW on someone for liking a FB post years ago just because the group is now banned*, but sometimes that is weirdly absent.



I see where you are coming from and apologies if I came across as overly simplistic, have run across too many senior military folks who are fairly clueless on how admin measures work so I try not to make assumptions.

The real problem with racist or sexist or sexualized behaviour is not the big overt acts, we can all easily identify, it is those micro-aggression (believe me I scoffed when I first heard the term) and their effect on people, the org and the culture over time. The key to stamping it out much like Op HONOUR is a strong show by the leadership that these behaviours are unacceptable, hence orders like this one or Op HONOUR.  



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I hope this is a legitimate thing and not just fluff. I especially hope it's not just another tired DLN course that people speed-click through to challenge the test and report to higher that it's good to go so someone in brigade can populate a spread sheet and everyone call it mission accomplished.



I hope so too, bystander intervention and Respect in the CAF were great training products and I feel the latter can easily be adapt for racist conduct. Regardless of how the content is delivered there is always resistance to directed training on behavioural matters for a variety of reasons:

1.	Loss of status quo - They see change as a net loss for them
2.	Intergroup anxiety - The fear of saying or being accused of doing something wrong and being labelled for it
3.	Denial of need for change - They associate the issue with overt action and don't  associate  micro-transgressions to being a problem
4.	Identity Threat - Fear of loss of identity or assimilation from both all sides
5.	Non-Supportive Corporate/organizational culture  - Change not linked to strategic goals, lack of leadership ownership.

If it is to be effective it needs:

1.	To almost be voluntary (very hard in the CAF for that condition admittedly) at least in the start. RitCAF IIRC work was/is voluntary ATT for example; 

2.	When you do the trg, the beginning should be about dispelling myths of what is or isn’t an issue (misinformed, false, or incorrect beliefs concerning motives, behavior, and victims that form a social lens);

3.	Ensure that the organization is aligned properly to have a culture that wants to reduce misconduct. This makes intuitive sense because if an org is just paying lip service to the issue then there is no effect on the motivation of a person taking the training; and

4.	Initial efforts in training should be done cautiously and should be done in concert with other initiatives within the org like removal of leadership that tolerate such behaviour, introduction or revamping of key policy and bringing in external consultants to deliver the trg or other initiatives.


----------



## ballz (27 Sep 2020)

I'm enjoying a Facebook thread now between a friend and an acquaintance where my friend shared the Canadian Army's post on this, sans comment. He is now being accosted, not by CAF members but by a socially progressive / anti-racism type. Essentially, his support for this is some sign of his white privilege, and that he's naive enough to think this is enough, blah blah blah.

What I've learned is, this person doesn't like hateful conduct, and also doesn't like that the Canadian Army is trying to combat hateful conduct.  :facepalm:

Outrage culture at it's finest.


----------



## shawn5o (27 Sep 2020)

Some thoughts


A main criticism of “soldiers suspected of hateful conduct and extremism” seem to be based on terms such as hate speech and disinformation, with the exemption of neo-Nazis (why would anyone subscribe to that ideology???), anti-Semitism, etc. My worry is that those enforcing the rules (CoC) can censor anything they disagree with or don’t want to address by simply labelling it as hateful conduct and extremism. 

Another question is about whether CoCs possess the objectivity that need to be brought to mind when deciding the line between prohibited hate speech and uneducated, horrible, objectionable speech (no group identified).

Does the CoC (and/or higher) allow the presumption of innocence and the requirement that the charge be proved beyond a reasonable doubt?

Do the CoC (and/or higher) decisions meet the threshold of hate and contempt as determined by the Supreme Court?


Just curious


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (27 Sep 2020)

ballz said:
			
		

> I'm enjoying a Facebook thread now between a friend and an acquaintance where my friend shared the Canadian Army's post on this, sans comment. He is now being accosted, not by CAF members but by a socially progressive / anti-racism type. Essentially, his support for this is some sign of his white privilege, and that he's naive enough to think this is enough, blah blah blah.
> 
> What I've learned is, this person doesn't like hateful conduct, and also doesn't like that the Canadian Army is trying to combat hateful conduct.  :facepalm:
> 
> Outrage culture at it's finest.



I've stopped posting entirely on Social Media other than pictures of vacations I take, events I attend, etc.

I am strongly considering deleting Facebook and just keeping instagram as it's the only platform I really follow.  I just need to rid myself of some SM duties I have with work which should happen soon.


----------



## Donald H (27 Sep 2020)

shawn5o said:
			
		

> Some thoughts
> 
> 
> A main criticism of “soldiers suspected of hateful conduct and extremism” seem to be based on terms such as hate speech and disinformation, with the exemption of neo-Nazis (why would anyone subscribe to that ideology???), anti-Semitism, etc. My worry is that those enforcing the rules (CoC) can censor anything they disagree with or don’t want to address by simply labelling it as hateful conduct and extremism.
> ...



I think it calls for defining neo-Nazi ideology Shawn. Does this photo define it adequately enough? I think it does and dog forbid that ever comes to Canada. And just wait until both sides get the guns out, as is predicted by Colin's friend. This is really, really bad my friend.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/2020/9/23/21452846/facebook-negligence-kenosha-shootings-lawsuit-kyle-rittenhouse

There's just no way of playing down that kind of behaviour in my opinion!

 :worms:


----------



## shawn5o (27 Sep 2020)

Donald H said:
			
		

> I think it calls for defining neo-Nazi ideology Shawn. Does this photo define it adequately enough? I think it does and dog forbid that ever comes to Canada. And just wait until both sides get the guns out, as is predicted by Colin's friend. This is really, really bad my friend.
> 
> https://chicago.suntimes.com/2020/9/23/21452846/facebook-negligence-kenosha-shootings-lawsuit-kyle-rittenhouse
> 
> ...



I don't get what you're saying Don

This thread is about the army comd orders to stop hateful conduct and extremism. You brought up Kyle and FB. Frankly, I once suscribed to FB and quickly opted out; never did like it and never went back.


----------



## MJP (27 Sep 2020)

shawn5o said:
			
		

> Some thoughts
> 
> 
> A main criticism of “soldiers suspected of hateful conduct and extremism” seem to be based on terms such as hate speech and disinformation, with the exemption of neo-Nazis (why would anyone subscribe to that ideology???), anti-Semitism, etc. My worry is that those enforcing the rules (CoC) can censor anything they disagree with or don’t want to address by simply labelling it as hateful conduct and extremism.
> ...



No they don't, nor do they have too.


----------



## Donald H (27 Sep 2020)

shawn5o said:
			
		

> I don't get what you're saying Don
> 
> This thread is about the army comd orders to stop hateful conduct and extremism. You brought up Kyle and FB. Frankly, I once suscribed to FB and quickly opted out; never did like it and never went back.



I was responding to your reference to neo-Nazi behaviour Shawn and how it was left open to interpretation.


----------



## FJAG (27 Sep 2020)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I've stopped posting entirely on Social Media other than pictures of vacations I take, events I attend, etc.
> 
> I am strongly considering deleting Facebook and just keeping instagram as it's the only platform I really follow.  I just need to rid myself of some SM duties I have with work which should happen soon.



I'm still on Facebook but I've been using the "unfollow" function a lot more lately.

 :clubinhand:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Sep 2020)

ballz said:
			
		

> It's almost like, after years of seeing the same thing over and over again, you know the CAF's playbook...



Yes his insight is deep and wise. I suspect that the deciding factor is whether NDHQ is feeling political/social heat for anything that might said or posted by a member and the real message is that: "we will throw you under the bus" regardless of how questionable the original statement/action is.


----------



## shawn5o (27 Sep 2020)

MJP said:
			
		

> No they don't, nor do they have too.



Hi MJP

I don't get it. Doesn't CF or the NDA have to be consistent with the Charter? And if I understand you, the CF doesn't have to allow the presumption of innocence and the requirement that the charge be proved beyond a reasonable doubt? Okay military is different but it begs the question why not? And if a service member faces a charge of say "hateful conduct", he/she has the onus placed on them and not the other way around?

Forgive me - I'm confused.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (27 Sep 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> I'm still on Facebook but I've been using the "unfollow" function a lot more lately.
> 
> :clubinhand:



Oh heck yes, I don't want to look at anything political on there.  It's never what the platform was originally about but it's slowly descended in to complete garbage.


----------



## dapaterson (27 Sep 2020)

Admin actions are not disciplinary.  Don't confuse DAOD 5019 with QR&O volume II.


----------



## shawn5o (27 Sep 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Admin actions are not disciplinary.  Don't confuse DAOD 5019 with QR&O volume II.



Thanks DA

Still over my head but I'm used to that 

 :cheers:


----------



## Kat Stevens (27 Sep 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Admin actions are not disciplinary.  Don't confuse DAOD 5019 with QR&O volume II.



Perhaps not by design. I've know several, as in more than a couple, of members who were given 6 months C&P, got their shit wired tight and checked every box on the supervising officers score card. After the 6 months? Punted, two of them off base within 72 hours. Once the all seeing eye of Mordor is on you and up your ass, that's punitive. Make a guy squirm for six months, see the finish line ahead and get to just to have it turn out to be a garrote. I'd call that more than punitive.


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Sep 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I hope this is a legitimate thing and not just fluff. I especially hope it's not just another tired DLN course that people speed-click through to challenge the test and report to higher that it's good to go so someone in brigade can populate a spread sheet and everyone call it mission accomplished.



After reading the Commander's Intent, I think you're probably right that this will just be a lip service order. It is naive to think we can eliminate hateful conduct within the CA. As pointed out earlier, we're a microcosm of Canadian society and we will have extremists slip through into the ranks. When your intent is unachievable, it greatly reduces the value of the the rest of the order. 

What CCA should have said (IMO) was that he wants create a culture within the CA that makes hateful conduct unacceptable meaning those individuals harbouring extremist views can either get with the program or leave and also where everyone in uniform feels impowered to call out hateful conduct at any rank or experience level. We will be dealing with racists in the CAF until the end of time, no matter how many CCA's intend on removing all racists and it never be a problem again. It makes it easier to identify those extremists when we create that proper culture, not perpetually running witch hunts for racists.


----------



## Navy_Pete (27 Sep 2020)

MJP said:
			
		

> I see where you are coming from and apologies if I came across as overly simplistic, have run across too many senior military folks who are fairly clueless on how admin measures work so I try not to make assumptions.
> 
> The real problem with racist or sexist or sexualized behaviour is not the big overt acts, we can all easily identify, it is those micro-aggression (believe me I scoffed when I first heard the term) and their effect on people, the org and the culture over time. The key to stamping it out much like Op HONOUR is a strong show by the leadership that these behaviours are unacceptable, hence orders like this one or Op HONOUR.



Yeah, agree with you there; similarly scoffed about microaggressions until I had a discussion with a friend and he explained what it was like, and realized it was similar to some of the bullying I had as a kid (just with grownups). No reason anyone should have to put up with that as work.

Think microaggressions can be like 'tone' in emails; a lot of times it's intentional, but sometimes it's not. The question 'Where are you from' in the CAF context is totally different the on normal civie street, as very few of us are actually posted in our home town (and I joined the Navy specifically to see somewhere other then my home town). Anyway, not really too worried about it, as it's not a bad thing if people think for a second before saying/posting something.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Sep 2020)

Guess they might deem me a racist, as I love asking people where they/their family are from, as it gives me a chance to hear interesting stories and learn new things. Also a way to humanize people, personally I think we should spend more time learning about people's backgrounds as we will realize we all have commonalities.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (28 Sep 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Admin actions are not disciplinary.  Don't confuse DAOD 5019 with QR&O volume II.



They have 100% become punitive in nature.  Admin Action is honestly worse than the CSD.


----------



## QV (28 Sep 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Guess they might deem me a racist, as I love asking people where they/their family are from, as it gives me a chance to hear interesting stories and learn new things. Also a way to humanize people, personally I think we should spend more time learning about people's backgrounds as we will realize we all have commonalities.



Imagine a world where simply asking someone where they are from has become verboten.


----------



## ballz (28 Sep 2020)

QV said:
			
		

> Imagine a world where simply asking someone where they are from has become verboten.



It actually seems like a very North American thing to identify with where your ancestors immigrated here from. My experience with Europeans is that if you say you're "Irish" they actually think you were born in Ireland. And they find it downright strange that you'd consider yourself "Irish" as a result. When you say it Canada, it might mean your family moved here from Ireland 300 years ago and we just kinda know that that's what we meant.

I do have a friend of Asian descent who finds it extremely irritating (maybe even racist) to ask him where he's from. His answer is "Canada." His parents/family are from Hong Kong and he hates China so I dunno how much of it is also because he doesn't want to be associated with China. I take no side on this. Seems like a simple misunderstanding between two cultures that both sides can solve by simply being more in tune with each other. And being more "aware" is great. 

I do take issue with the term "micro-aggression." This is deliberately trying to redefine the word "aggression" so that you can justify retaliating against it with actual aggression. I may, out of pure ignorance, not be aware that what I am saying or doing is not received well by someone from another culture background. I'm more than happy to talk about it, be corrected, work together to work it out, talk about it over a beer, whatever. But my ignorance does not equal aggression or hateful conduct. I can't know what I don't know, and supporting idea that it is "aggression" just legitimizes outrage culture. We should be trying to bring back some reason, like assuming the best in people, and allowing them the opportunity to redeem themselves, not legitimizing outrage / cancel culture which encourages people to assume the worst of everyone and "stay outraged" even if the person apologizes and wants to make amends.


----------



## OldSolduer (28 Sep 2020)

QV said:
			
		

> Imagine a world where simply asking someone where they are from has become verboten.



Actually we should define ourselves as Canadians - not Irish Canadian, Scottish Canadian etc etc.

I'm a Canadian pure and simple, as are several of my coworkers whose families originate from Asia.

BTW I'm a Jedi too if we are counting religious stuff as well.


----------



## Infanteer (28 Sep 2020)

ballz said:
			
		

> I do have a friend of Asian descent who finds it extremely irritating (maybe even racist) to ask him where he's from. His answer is "Canada."



I just ask "What is your family heritage" as a good way of tackling that one - "Irish," "Hong Kong," or "Pakistan by way of Africa" are some of the responses I've gotten.


----------



## daftandbarmy (28 Sep 2020)

ballz said:
			
		

> It actually seems like a very North American thing to identify with where your ancestors immigrated here from.



It's common to Europe too where immigrants might come from, you know, the next county (20 kms away) and can be identified by their weird customs... and accents. 

(It makes it easier to pick them out when you systematically discriminate against them, though. For centuries.)

Believe me, Canada is better  :nod:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Sep 2020)

Technically lumping all whitey's together is a "micro-aggression" as well. we should demand they identify us by our roots. From now on I demand they call me "white, English, Scots dogs breakfast"


----------



## shawn5o (28 Sep 2020)

MJP said:
			
		

> No they don't, nor do they have too.



and



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> Admin actions are not disciplinary.  Don't confuse DAOD 5019 with QR&O volume II.



Hi dapaterson

I meant serious offences; not late for parade charges if that is what you meant.

Hi MJP

I finally found it.

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/reports-publications/military-law/an-overview-of-canadas-military-justice-system.html

Things certainly has changed over the years. Back in the early 70s, an MP informed me that "rape, murder, and manslaughter" cannot be tried in the military justice system. And child abduction is added or so I understand.


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Sep 2020)

QV said:
			
		

> Imagine a world where simply asking someone where they are from has become verboten.



Especially when you mean where in Canada they're from, its kind of a big country.


----------



## MJP (28 Sep 2020)

Micro aggression is certainly a nuanced and in some cases much misused word. I find most that scoff/complain about it don't really understand it (see also my other post where people believe myths regarding an actual issue). It certainly doesn't mean one has to perfect, rather that they are aware of their implicit and exhibited biases in how they behave and act. There are certainly some who will use anything to their advantage and feed an outrage train no question about it.  There are just as many (more IMHO) willing to put their head in the sand and not see their actions and behaviors, the institutions or the cultures inhibits people from fully being part of a diverse team.

Both need to be dealt with to make the team better....

https://www.apa.org/monitor/2009/02/microaggression

Meanwhile, social psychologists Jack Dovidio, PhD, of Yale University, and Samuel L. Gaertner, PhD, of the University of Delaware, have demonstrated across several studies that many well-intentioned whites who consciously believe in and profess equality unconsciously act in a racist manner, particularly in ambiguous circumstances. In experimental job interviews, for example, whites tend not to discriminate against black candidates when their qualifications are as strong or as weak as whites'. But when candidates' qualifications are similarly ambiguous, whites tend to favor white over black candidates, the team has found. The team calls this pattern "aversive racism," referring in part to whites' aversion to being seen as prejudiced, given their conscious adherence to egalitarian principles.

Sue adds to these findings by naming, detailing and classifying the actual manifestations of aversive racism. His work illuminates the internal experiences of people affected by microaggressions—a new direction, since past research on prejudice and discrimination has focused on whites' attitudes and behaviors, notes Dovidio.





			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> I just ask "What is your family heritage" as a good way of tackling that one - "Irish," "Hong Kong," or "Pakistan by way of Africa" are some of the responses I've gotten.



Imagine having the emotional capacity, leadership and and understanding of how people work to have solid communication skills, mannerisms and behaviour across a broad spectrum to create an inclusive and diverse team instead of not changing and defending your communications skills for just innocence or the way you always did something?


----------



## Infanteer (28 Sep 2020)

MJP said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, social psychologists Jack Dovidio, PhD, of Yale University, and Samuel L. Gaertner, PhD, of the University of Delaware, have demonstrated across several studies that many well-intentioned whites who consciously believe in and profess equality unconsciously act in a racist manner, particularly in ambiguous circumstances. In experimental job interviews, for example, whites tend not to discriminate against black candidates when their qualifications are as strong or as weak as whites'. But when candidates' qualifications are similarly ambiguous, whites tend to favor white over black candidates, the team has found. The team calls this pattern "aversive racism," referring in part to whites' aversion to being seen as prejudiced, given their conscious adherence to egalitarian principles.



I am willing to bet that this isn't a "white" phenomenon, but exists in any society where a majority group interacts with a minority group.  Francis Fukuyama's masterpiece, The Origins of Political Order, explores the two human psycho-social phenomenon that human societies and political order are built upon: kinship selection and reciprocal altruism.

Kinship selection is the old Bedouin proverb my brother before my cousin, my cousin before my neighbour, my neighbour before my tribe, etc, etc.  Humans prefer those closer in terms of kinship.  Reciprocal altruism is the phenomenon where humans will make themselves vulnerable to others (physically, materially, etc) under the expectation that the other will return the favour.  I will give you this, and you will give me that in return.  Reciprocal altruism is how humans drop their guard to go beyond their immediate kinship groups, and consistent instances of it make future instances more likely - the more we deal on fair terms, the more I am apt to trust you.  If you haven't dealt with someone much, you are less likely to trust them in an interaction.

Unfortunately, humans are visual species - we take in 90% of our information through sight.  So visible differences in physical features and melanin levels are apt to trip our sense of kinship selection - this person looks much different than I, and I don't know him, so he must be on an outside ring.  I imagine, if we were an auditory species, we would discriminate based on tonal pitch or something....

Its not an excuse for activities, only a pretty good explanation (to me) of why racism and racial bias are so embedded in the human condition, around the world (and yes, even in liberal whites in the West).  Humans can overcome these behaviours (like they overcome many other innate behaviours) but I suspect if they are raised to disdain those who look different, it only makes the behaviour that much harder to overcome.  As well, socio-economic segregation (like ghettos) probably make kinship selection harder to overcome - if all the folks of that group live on that side of the town, the sense of us and them is heightened.

No links to back this up - just my theorizing from a few decades of reading.


----------



## MJP (28 Sep 2020)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I am willing to bet that this isn't a "white" phenomenon, but exists in any society where a majority group interacts with a minority group.  Francis Fukuyama's masterpiece, The Origins of Political Order, explores the two human psycho-social phenomenon that human societies and political order are built upon: kinship selection and reciprocal altruism.


Great post and I think you are on the mark. I have no doubt that what happens/is perceived in NA/Europe as a white problem is a problem in non- white countries for the same reasons (and more).


----------



## QV (29 Sep 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Especially when you mean where in Canada they're from, its kind of a big country.



When I ask a colleague where they’re from, I’m expecting an answer like; Toronto or New Brunswick.


----------



## ballz (29 Sep 2020)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I just ask "What is your family heritage" as a good way of tackling that one - "Irish," "Hong Kong," or "Pakistan by way of Africa" are some of the responses I've gotten.



I was going to mention that, but he actually gets irritated when you re-phrase it that way too  and I can't figure out if maybe that's just him or if it's because the line of questioning in general is poorly received by others and they just don't say so openly.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> I am willing to bet that this isn't a "white" phenomenon, but exists in any society where a majority group interacts with a minority group.  Francis Fukuyama's masterpiece, The Origins of Political Order, explores the two human psycho-social phenomenon that human societies and political order are built upon: kinship selection and reciprocal altruism.



I don't know if it's the same thing, sounds like it's coming from the same thing anyway, but there is also novelty aversion or in it's extreme form, neophobia, which is a fear/anxiety of new things / things you are not familiar with. Like a fear of heights, everyone has got some level of novelty aversion engrained in the lizard part of their brain, as it's the "unknown" that always presents a new danger so it was a useful characteristic for surviving. It's why we take a liking to the same coffee mug, and it happens relatively quickly (i.e. once you've used the same cup once or twice, you'll be more likely to pick that one over the others to my understanding), and partly why children are more prone to being picky eaters (food neophobia).

Note: I know very little of what I just wrote, other than Wikipedia and a podcast that talked about it, but I find it interesting.


----------



## daftandbarmy (29 Sep 2020)

ballz said:
			
		

> I was going to mention that, but he actually gets irritated when you re-phrase it that way too  and I can't figure out if maybe that's just him or if it's because the line of questioning in general is poorly received by others and they just don't say so openly.
> 
> I don't know if it's the same thing, sounds like it's coming from the same thing anyway, but there is also novelty aversion or in it's extreme form, neophobia, which is a fear/anxiety of new things / things you are not familiar with. Like a fear of heights, everyone has got some level of novelty aversion engrained in the lizard part of their brain, as it's the "unknown" that always presents a new danger so it was a useful characteristic for surviving. It's why we take a liking to the same coffee mug, and it happens relatively quickly (i.e. once you've used the same cup once or twice, you'll be more likely to pick that one over the others to my understanding), and partly why children are more prone to being picky eaters (food neophobia).
> 
> Note: I know very little of what I just wrote, other than Wikipedia and a podcast that talked about it, but I find it interesting.



In Canada we can forget that in some countries, your whole life can change depending on how you answer the question 'where are you from?', or, in fact, what type of accent you have.

G.B. Shaw wrote a pretty popular play about that subject: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7714.Pygmalion


----------



## Eye In The Sky (2 Oct 2020)

MJP said:
			
		

> Yes but that is the standard applied during the Admin Review process done by DMCA. It is a much more in-depth review and application as listed in the admin manual. A unit putting someone on a remedial measure has only to consider the balance of probabilities.
> 
> DAOD 5019-4 Remedial Measures
> 
> ...



100% agree.  I'm thinking that anyone who is found colouring outside the lines of these new "hateful conduct" will be worrying about more severe consequences than a IC or RW;  I'm likely looking at it from the 'worst case scenario' view.

Better to look at it and consider both ends of the spectrum like you are.


----------



## lenaitch (2 Oct 2020)

QV said:
			
		

> When I ask a colleague where they’re from, I’m expecting an answer like; Toronto or New Brunswick.



I suppose we have to recognize that, sometimes, those on the receiving end interpret the question differently based on their life experience.  A few years ago, I asked that question to a colleague I had just met who's heritage was obviously Caribbean, but my perhaps naïve 'angle of curiosity' was similar to yours. Unfortunately, she apparently had a lifetime of that question with less-than-innocent undertones.  Her face kind of darkened and replied 'what do you mean'.  I quickly realized what had happened and said 'well, I'm from Toronto'.  Her demeanor relaxed and replied what area of Ontario she was from.


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Oct 2020)

Hey Stella, where are you from? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crAv5ttax2I


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Oct 2020)

Canadian Forces in the USA Twitter account offering up a different take on #ProudBoys

https://mobile.twitter.com/CAFinUS/status/1312734325104873473?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet






That's bound to ruffle some feathers.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (4 Oct 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Canadian Forces in the USA Twitter account offering up a different take on #ProudBoys
> 
> https://mobile.twitter.com/CAFinUS/status/1312734325104873473?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
> 
> ...



Why would it ruffle feathers?


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Oct 2020)

I'd guess some people don't like the sight of two guys in uniform kissing. Some will argue it violates DAOD 5901. Some probably just don't think PDA while in uniform is acceptable.
Then again maybe no one will care one bit. 

I thought the #ProudBoys hashtag was hilarious.


----------



## dapaterson (4 Oct 2020)

Well, only one is in uniform, and if you scan that hastag, you'll see see @CAFInUS is just joining a large group that's flooding social media.


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Oct 2020)

What's the larger group flooding social media about? Some kind of hostile take over of the hashtag or something else?


----------



## Infanteer (4 Oct 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Some probably just don't think PDA while in uniform is acceptable.



 :rofl:

http://100photos.time.com/photos/kiss-v-j-day-times-square-alfred-eisenstaedt


----------



## ballz (4 Oct 2020)

The gay community is basically trolling the Proud Boys group, it's a pretty funny troll actually.

That said I'm not a huge fan of people making out in public and yes, that extends to all varieties of people, although sometimes the occasion calls for it (like coming home after winning WW2!)... if this was done just to troll I'm on board.


----------



## dapaterson (4 Oct 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> What's the larger group flooding social media about? Some kind of hostile take over of the hashtag or something else?



Click through the hashtag and you'll see a wide array of gay men in a wide array of circumstances.


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Oct 2020)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> :rofl:
> 
> http://100photos.time.com/photos/kiss-v-j-day-times-square-alfred-eisenstaedt



I think that falls under sexual assault these days.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> The gay community is basically trolling the Proud Boys group, it's a pretty funny troll actually.
> 
> That said I'm not a huge fan of people making out in public and yes, that extends to all varieties of people, although sometimes the occasion calls for it (like coming home after winning WW2!)... if this was done just to troll I'm on board.



Interesting troll for sure. I know even less of the US proud boys than the Canadian group. From what I understand neither mentions gay men not being welcomed in their group. 

I'll wear a rain jacket in the winter with a toque and no gloves, I've lost my moral authority to be upset over disobeying rules  ;D


----------



## dimsum (4 Oct 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I'd guess some people don't like the sight of two guys in uniform kissing. Some will argue it violates DAOD 5901. Some probably just don't think PDA while in uniform is acceptable.
> Then again maybe no one will care one bit.
> 
> I thought the #ProudBoys hashtag was hilarious.



That picture was taken when HMCS Winnipeg returned from deployment in 2016.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/historic-kiss-same-sex-canadian-navy-1.3461219


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Oct 2020)

Thanks for the explication. I liked the picture more when it looked spontaneous and didn't have Combat camera up in their face. Unless they photograph every first kiss ashore.


Speaking of the Proud Boys and the army commanders new special order, what happens if someone joins the Proud Boys (or stormguard or whoever) and the CoC is made aware now? 

Are they looking at a 5f release?


----------



## blacktriangle (4 Oct 2020)

Would it be a release under item 5, or more likely under items(s) 1 or 2? 

I wonder if the CAF will release people for wearing aloha shirts?  ;D


----------



## MJP (5 Oct 2020)

reveng said:
			
		

> Would it be a release under item 5, or more likely under items(s) 1 or 2?
> 
> I wonder if the CAF will release people for wearing aloha shirts?  ;D



Well items 1&2 are generally the result of court martial/service tribunal while item 5 is purely administrative and handled by DMCA 2. If someone fell afoul of the CCA order I would expect that the mostly like COA is Admin Review by DMCA 2 for likely 5F release.


----------



## blacktriangle (5 Oct 2020)

MJP said:
			
		

> Well items 1&2 are generally the result of court martial/service tribunal while item 5 is purely administrative and handled by DMCA 2. If someone fell afoul of the CCA order I would expect that the mostly like COA is Admin Review by DMCA 2 for likely 5F release.



Seen, thanks. 

Aren't members released under 5F still considered "honourably" released? Do they still get their pension/transfer value, access to VAC benefits etc? If so, a 5F doesn't really seem like it's sending a very strong message.


----------



## MJP (5 Oct 2020)

reveng said:
			
		

> Seen, thanks.
> 
> Aren't members released under 5F still considered "honourably" released? Do they still get their pension/transfer value, access to VAC benefits etc? If so, a 5F doesn't really seem like it's sending a very strong message.



All other release are honourable less 1 which is dishonourable and 2 which is simply annotated service terminated.  Considering the process for 5 series is protected B, it is a strong message to the person being released only anyway. 

Releasing someone doesn't deprived them of their entitlements due to them due to injury from service or their pension for any of the release items, nor should it IMHO.

(4) Where an officer or non-commissioned member is released, the notation on his record of service shall be as follows:

if he is released under Item 1(a), the notation "Dismissed with Disgrace for Misconduct" or "Dismissed for Misconduct", as applicable;
if he is released under Item 1 for any reason other than Item 1(a), the notation "Released for Misconduct";
where he is released under Item 2, the notation "Service Terminated"; or
where he is released under Item 3, 4 or 5, the notation "Honourably Released".


----------



## TCM621 (5 Oct 2020)

Why would that picture ruffle some feathers? One reason is I don't think any official CAF account (which I think CAFinUS is) should be involving itself in Politics, especially American politics.

Second, it's stupid. This all stems from the US debate where Trump was asked to denounce white supremacy. He did twice and then they asked specifically about the proud boys, which is run by a brown dude. Worst. White supremacists. Ever. If some people what to troll the president on Twitter over something like that, that is their right but the CAF should stay out of it.


----------



## BeyondTheNow (5 Oct 2020)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Why would that picture ruffle some feathers? One reason is I don't think any official CAF account (which I think CAFinUS is) should be involving itself in Politics, especially American politics.
> 
> Second, it's stupid. This all stems from the US debate where Trump was asked to denounce white supremacy. He did twice and then they asked specifically about the proud boys, which is run by a brown dude. Worst. White supremacists. Ever. If some people what to troll the president on Twitter over something like that, that is their right but the CAF should stay out of it.



No, you’re way off. CAFinUS was not trolling POTUS, nor was the post political. While the original intent, yes, was to hijack the hashtag to represent a LGBTQ+ spin—initiated by several thousand before CAFinUS jumped in—CAFinUS proudly took the opportunity to join the ‘new’ trending hashtag once its revised purpose had been well established by highlighting the points CAF is trying very hard to integrate—equality, inclusivity and tolerance.

Further, CAF seems to have no issues with the content CAFinUS tweets/posts, including the message of the tweet in discussion and/or the #ProudBoys ‘rebranding’, as evidenced by CAF bodies & accts who liked and/or retweeted the post/referenced the subject matter—individual and unit/cmd accounts alike.

-Royal Canadian Navy
-HMCS Winnipeg
-LCol Jennifer Stadnyk
-BGen Sean T Doyle ...just a couple to get started...

(For context, I’ve included the tweet in its entirety again, as that seems to be needed—unfortunately.)

What is truly sad is the hateful remarks trolls and other sad, angry and lonely people felt it necessary to make. ‘Still shows just how far we have to go.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Oct 2020)

BeyondTheNow said:
			
		

> ... CAF seems to have no issues with the content CAFinUS tweets/posts, including the message of the tweet in discussion and/or the #ProudBoys ‘rebranding’ ...


Which makes sense, given that the poster is, himself, a CF Public Affairs Officer, someone (one hopes) who's _well_ aware of what can and can't make it through the information machine's filters.


----------



## Furniture (5 Oct 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Thanks for the explication. I liked the picture more when it looked spontaneous and didn't have Combat camera up in their face. Unless they photograph every first kiss ashore.



They do after a deployment. There was a draw held for who would have the chance to cross the brow first, and have the first kiss. The MS won, and so he crossed the brow first.


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Oct 2020)

[quote author=Tcm62] This all stems from the US debate where Trump was asked to denounce white supremacy. He did twice and then they asked specifically about the proud boys, which is run by a brown dude. 
[/quote]







Curious pick for a chairman of a white supremicist group. 

I wonder if this hashtag troll attempt will actually net the ProudBoys more interested members. 

(not sure how to shrink the picture sorry)


----------



## Remius (5 Oct 2020)

More on the hashtag takeover.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/gay-men-proud-boys-hashtag/?fbclid=IwAR08D95k_jf3ym-rSSUt4t7DxuepY-MDNsIXvkvZj1WEqNwgiicjwWxhO3w


----------



## Eaglelord17 (6 Oct 2020)

reveng said:
			
		

> Seen, thanks.
> 
> Aren't members released under 5F still considered "honourably" released? Do they still get their pension/transfer value, access to VAC benefits etc? If so, a 5F doesn't really seem like it's sending a very strong message.



Yeah because someone who well serving, having committed NO CRIME (having a differing political opinion isn't a crime as much as many believe it is), possibly having a otherwise shining service record, should be kicked out dishonourably without trial and lose access to all the other benefits that come with being released  :

Should we start kicking out people who vote Conservative or Liberal because both those parties were complicit in genocide up until 1996? 

From a legal standpoint I wonder if this could be seen as violating a members Charter Rights as every citizen has the right to Freedom of Thought, Opinion, and Expression.


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Oct 2020)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> Yeah because someone who well serving, having committed NO CRIME (having a differing political opinion isn't a crime as much as many believe it is), possibly having a otherwise shining service record, should be kicked out dishonourably without trial and lose access to all the other benefits that come with being released  :



What do you mean having a differing political opinion?


----------



## SupersonicMax (6 Oct 2020)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> Yeah because someone who well serving, having committed NO CRIME (having a differing political opinion isn't a crime as much as many believe it is), possibly having a otherwise shining service record, should be kicked out dishonourably without trial and lose access to all the other benefits that come with being released  :
> 
> Should we start kicking out people who vote Conservative or Liberal because both those parties were complicit in genocide up until 1996?
> 
> From a legal standpoint I wonder if this could be seen as violating a members Charter Rights as every citizen has the right to Freedom of Thought, Opinion, and Expression.



Hateful speech or promoting hatred is a crime in Canada.


----------



## TCM621 (6 Oct 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Hateful speech or promoting hatred is a crime in Canada.



If someone commits a crime under the CCC, and is convicted, that is one thing. Arbitrarily, deciding someone posting "all loves matter" on Facebook is hate speech and administratively releasing them dishonourably is completely another. 

In the CAF today we can not even refuse someone further terms of service for performance or disciplinary reasons but we are ok with ruining someone's life because they don't agree with the current, popular, vision of racism, or that 15 dead unarmed people out of 42 million does not equal an epidemic, or that a genocide happened in Rwanda not Canada.

Let me be clear, if you advocate for violence against someone based on skin colour you deserve consequences as determined by the courts. If you harass members of your unit because of their rave, you deserve consequences. However, I have seen people do things that literally could get people killed with very little consequence (despite every effort). How can we allow that while ruining the career, and possibly life, of someone who has an unwanted opinion?


----------



## brihard (6 Oct 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Hateful speech or promoting hatred is a crime in Canada.



'Hate speech is not a crime in Canada.

Wilful incitement of hatred is a crime, as is promoting genocide. 'Mere' hate speech is not a criminal offense.


----------



## SupersonicMax (6 Oct 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> 'Hate speech is not a crime in Canada.
> 
> Wilful incitement of hatred is a crime, as is promoting genocide. 'Mere' hate speech is not a criminal offense.



In a public place, hate speech is a criminal offense.

note:Wilful promotion of hatred

319(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.


----------



## MJP (6 Oct 2020)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> If someone commits a crime under the CCC, and is convicted, that is one thing. Arbitrarily, deciding someone posting "all loves matter" on Facebook is hate speech and administratively releasing them dishonourably is completely another.
> 
> In the CAF today we can not even refuse someone further terms of service for performance or disciplinary reasons but we are ok with ruining someone's life because they don't agree with the current, popular, vision of racism, or that 15 dead unarmed people out of 42 million does not equal an epidemic, or that a genocide happened in Rwanda not Canada.



It takes quite a bit to get to the release stage and like the denial of TOS, it is removed from the CoC to adjudicate anyway.

They are quite allowed to hold whatever personal view they want. Quite simply though as a member inside an institution representing the Government of Canada, when their personal views become public and are not compatible with the Government and the CAF's policy then they may be removed.  That is no different than any organization.

At the end of the day a 5F/D which most of these would be are not dishonorable and is annotated as honourable. They can then carry on holding and expressing whatever viewpoint they want as a private citizen as long as it does not include wilful promotion of hatred.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (6 Oct 2020)

Is the order available online for public consumption?

I've looked through this thread and been unable to locate a link to the actual order.

All I've found via google is an article written by a CBC reporter who says he was given a copy of the order and based his story upon that (cf.https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/army-racism-order-1.5737384?cmp=rss)

Based off the article, one thing that concerns me a bit is all the stuff about how troops are expected to denounce their comrades if they see "racist conduct", to wit:



> Soldiers "at all levels will be expected to intervene and report incidents," he said ...
> 
> "Failure to act is considered complicity in the event."



Maybe I am reading too much into this without seeing the actual orders, but it seems to me that it could be quite detrimental to morale and unit cohesion to have troops monitoring each other for whether their political views are currently acceptable.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (6 Oct 2020)

LittleBlackDevil said:
			
		

> Is the order available online for public consumption?
> 
> I've looked through this thread and been unable to locate a link to the actual order.



https://army.ca/forums/threads/132996/post-1629664.html#msg1629664


----------



## brihard (6 Oct 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> In a public place, hate speech is a criminal offense.
> 
> note:Wilful promotion of hatred
> 
> ...



Yes, that’s basically what I said. Merely uttering hate speech doesn’t cut it. It needs to incite hate or make it likely that other people will adopt those views. There has to be wilful promotion of the hatred in question, and outside of the context of private communication. The SCC dealt with this most famously in _Keegstra_ and has further developed it in other cases. This distinction is what keeps the law compliant with the Charter protections on conscience, belief, and expression.


----------



## HiTechComms (6 Oct 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> In a public place, hate speech is a criminal offense.
> 
> note:Wilful promotion of hatred
> 
> ...




I find the following interesting.

*wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of*

So what determines Identifiable? race, skin, eyes, hair, age, gender, sex? 

More importantly who gets to determine Identifiable? (A literal Racist? rly

What happens when you identify as part of that group yet objectively are not part of the group under the provisions of C16? :Tin-Foil-Hat:

Oh Canadian law. You make so much sense...

I guess if everyone is special eventually no one is special.  :facepalm:


----------



## Halifax Tar (6 Oct 2020)

My big fear is this will migrate from an attempt to correct acts racism and hate and morph into prosecuting wrong political think. 

Couple this with the almost incessant brow beating of "institutional leadership"; and the neutering of the CPO2/MWO and below; and I worry where we are headed.


----------



## SupersonicMax (6 Oct 2020)

Identifiable group is defined in the CCC:

Definition of identifiable group. (4) In this section, identifiable group means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability.


----------



## Cloud Cover (6 Oct 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Yes, that’s basically what I said. Merely uttering hate speech doesn’t cut it. It needs to incite hate or make it likely that other people will adopt those views. There has to be wilful promotion of the hatred in question, and outside of the context of private communication. The SCC dealt with this most famously in _Keegstra_ and has further developed it in other cases. This distinction is what keeps the law compliant with the Charter protections on conscience, belief, and expression.


You’re referring to criminal law, whereas institutional racism rarely is riseable to that level anymore, but the civil human rights standard is where the CAF is really more concerned. (If you’re interested in case law then Whatcot is the gold standard of decision making on dissemination of hate speech in the context of freedom of expression and actual hateful conduct.)

Where things will and have become murky in the past 3-4 years is the friction between freedom of expression (and limits thereto) and freedom of thought, conscience, belief and opinion. It does appear that to some extent the CAF is attempting to dictate by force of order what opinions people must hold and what members should believe and the process by which they should think by criminalizing thoughts, beliefs and opinions that may differ from what is written in an order or shouted out on Twitter.


----------



## Kat Stevens (6 Oct 2020)

Think of all the captain positions that will open up once every unit and sub unit has a political officer on staff. счастливые дни товарищи!


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 Oct 2020)

Yes we might see more of this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IQJY5SsJ64


----------



## SupersonicMax (6 Oct 2020)

CloudCover said:
			
		

> You’re referring to criminal law, whereas institutional racism rarely is riseable to that level anymore, but the civil human rights standard is where the CAF is really more concerned. (If you’re interested in case law then Whatcot is the gold standard of decision making on dissemination of hate speech in the context of freedom of expression and actual hateful conduct.)
> 
> Where things will and have become murky in the past 3-4 years is the friction between freedom of expression (and limits thereto) and freedom of thought, conscience, belief and opinion. It does appear that to some extent the CAF is attempting to dictate by force of order what opinions people must hold and what members should believe and the process by which they should think by criminalizing thoughts, beliefs and opinions that may differ from what is written in an order or shouted out on Twitter.



If you have racist, sexist or any other discriminatory views, your belief system is not compatible with the CAF ethos.  Either you adapt and change your views, keep your views for a private audience outside of work and toe the line at work or get out of the military (or be kicked out).  In this day an age, discrimination against identifiable groups is not acceptable.


----------



## Cloud Cover (6 Oct 2020)

For clarity I don’t have those views and will not tolerate anybody telling me that I do.  Treat others as you would be treated and I can’t fathom somebody wanting or agreeing to be discriminated against.


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Oct 2020)

CAF Ethos includes:
-SENIOR CAF leadership ignoring the unethical behavior on the "party plane" and leaving a JNCO holding the bag. 
-Unethical behavior by a senior judge resulting in our justice system being dumped on its head. 
-Over familiarity with clerks and secretaries while away from home and so on.


----------



## SupersonicMax (6 Oct 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> CAF Ethos includes:
> -SENIOR CAF leadership ignoring the unethical behavior on the "party plane" and leaving a JNCO holding the bag.
> -Unethical behavior by a senior judge resulting in our justice system being dumped on its head.
> -Over familiarity with clerks and secretaries while away from home and so on.



Sure, this is not excusable.  But violating CAF ethos at ALL levels is inacceptable.  Pointing out flaws in one group is a weak argument against not imposing disciplinary/administrative actions against another group.


----------



## brihard (6 Oct 2020)

CloudCover said:
			
		

> You’re referring to criminal law, whereas institutional racism rarely is riseable to that level anymore, but the civil human rights standard is where the CAF is really more concerned. (If you’re interested in case law then Whatcot is the gold standard of decision making on dissemination of hate speech in the context of freedom of expression and actual hateful conduct.)
> 
> Where things will and have become murky in the past 3-4 years is the friction between freedom of expression (and limits thereto) and freedom of thought, conscience, belief and opinion. It does appear that to some extent the CAF is attempting to dictate by force of order what opinions people must hold and what members should believe and the process by which they should think by criminalizing thoughts, beliefs and opinions that may differ from what is written in an order or shouted out on Twitter.



That's right, but I was answering a post specifically where another member spoke about 'hate speech' being a crime. The criminal sphere was exactly what I was speaking to, so I limited myself to that.

You're right that _Whatcott_ is another very important case that may be more usefully applicable, dealing as it does with non-criminal provincial human rights legislation. but even at that it still has limits, as what we're talking about doesn't fit properly into that realm either, but rather is a matter of employment law.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 Oct 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> If you have racist, sexist or any other discriminatory views, your belief system is not compatible with the CAF ethos.  Either you adapt and change your views, keep your views for a private audience outside of work and toe the line at work or get out of the military (or be kicked out).  In this day an age, discrimination against identifiable groups is not acceptable.



That's sounds nice, but is not discriminatory to be claiming that because you are a descendent of white Europeans, you are guilty of everything your ancestor might have done and that you will be actively discriminated against based on your racial background, because they want to meet quotas for various ethnic groups and sexes?
If you oppose abortion based on the belief that a fetus is a human being and deserves rights as well, are you being discriminatory?
If you oppose the actions of a FN Elder Council, but support the position of the Band Council, are you being discriminatory?   

The devil happily lurks in the details.


----------



## brihard (6 Oct 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> That's sounds nice, but is not discriminatory to be claiming that because you are a descendent of white Europeans, you are guilty of everything your ancestor might have done and that you will be actively discriminated against based on your racial background, because they want to meet quotas for various ethnic groups and sexes?
> If you oppose abortion based on the belief that a fetus is a human being and deserves rights as well, are you being discriminatory?
> If you oppose the actions of a FN Elder Council, but support the position of the Band Council, are you being discriminatory?
> 
> The devil happily lurks in the details.



Some of these details are already accounted for. S.15(2) of the Charter stipulates that the equality provisions in S.15(1), “ does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.” It’s recognized and written in that, as of the enactment of the Charter in 1982, not all groups of people are on an equal footing with regards to the opportunities they have, due in part to historical discrimination and systemic disadvantages that built up over time.

To the rest of your points, (abortion; FN governance), those don’t seem to automatically fit into the sort of behaviour being captured here. No an individual could always be enough of a turd in how they espouse those views and could get themselves in crap that way, but they aren’t views that should inherently subject someone to jeopardy. So I think you’re off track with regards to the Army’s new policy. The ‘slippery slope’ concept, or the ‘devil being in the details’ are not things that should paralyze appropriate actions and policies. They’re jut reasons to exercise caution.


----------



## Infanteer (6 Oct 2020)

...not to mention huge red herrings.  The policy isn't targeting people with an opinion on abortion policy or indigenous relations in the CAF, nor are these really "hot-button" issues discussed in the mess....


----------



## daftandbarmy (6 Oct 2020)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> ...not to mention huge red herrings.  The policy isn't targeting people with an opinion on abortion policy or indigenous relations in the CAF, nor are these really "hot-button" issues discussed in the mess....



Absolutely.

The good thing about the policy is that it should - hopefully - shut down any 'barrack room BS', or other types of offhanded or deliberately targeted verbal/other racially tinged bullying perpetrated by d*ckheads who think they can get away with it.


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Oct 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Sure, this is not excusable.  But violating CAF ethos at ALL levels is inacceptable.  Pointing out flaws in one group is a weak argument against not imposing disciplinary/administrative actions against another group.




No disagreements here. I'm just pointing out the troops can tell when the CO isn't following his own 2-drink limit rule.


----------



## daftandbarmy (7 Oct 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> No disagreements here. I'm just pointing out the troops can tell when the CO isn't following his own 2-drink limit rule.



'A leader leads by example, not force.' Sun Tzu 

(and alot of other great leaders through history)


----------



## dapaterson (7 Oct 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> No disagreements here. I'm just pointing out the troops can tell when the CO isn't following his own 2-drink limit rule.



In the immortal words of Sgt Korpan of The RCR, at the Infantry School circa 1992, "You're always an example.  Try to be a good one."


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Oct 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Sure, this is not excusable.  But violating CAF ethos at ALL levels is inacceptable.  Pointing out flaws in one group senior ranks and leadership, who aren't punished for their transgressions is a weak argument against not imposing disciplinary/administrative actions against another group junior Officers and all NCM ranks who commit less serious breeches in conduct.



Because there's nothing like a double standard to raise morale...

 ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Oct 2020)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> ...not to mention huge red herrings.  The policy isn't targeting people with an opinion on abortion policy or indigenous relations in the CAF, nor are these really "hot-button" issues discussed in the mess....


Yet, the interpretations by the politicians/Commanders is all that matters for them to come down on members. The whole concept of "hate speech/hate crimes " is wishy washy and will be prone to misuse.


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Oct 2020)

It can be misused; I doubt it will be widespread.  Still, to watch one of the people euphemistically known as "administrative burdens" use policy to cast a net of misery and suspicion is to learn why control measures must themselves be controlled.


----------



## lenaitch (7 Oct 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> In the immortal words of Sgt Korpan of The RCR, at the Infantry School circa 1992, "You're always an example.  Try to be a good one."



We each have a choice to a good example or warning to others.


----------



## MJP (7 Oct 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Yet, the interpretations by the politicians/Commanders is all that matters for them to come down on members. The whole concept of "hate speech/hate crimes " is wishy washy and will be prone to misuse.



Same thing was said about Op HONOUR. Magically people who don't say dodgy shit in the first place have no issues.


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Dec 2020)

*Fighting systemic racism, extremism will be priority for next military chief: Trudeau *


> OTTAWA — Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says priorities for the next commander of the Canadian Armed Forces include tackling systemic racism and rooting extremism from the ranks.
> 
> This is the first time Trudeau has shared his vision for the role since Gen. Jonathan Vance announced in July he was getting ready to step down as chief of the defence staff.
> 
> ...



https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/fighting-systemic-racism-extremism-will-be-priority-for-next-military-chief-trudeau/ar-BB1bZswM?li=AAggXBV


Extremism is a problem, is it being blown out of proportion in the CAF?

I can think of the MCpl reservist case. 
Couple Navy guys showing up at a Proud Boys protest.
Canadian Ranger showing up at the PM's place.

These guys apparently


> Matthews’s case is not isolated. Global News reported in 2019 that an internal Armed Forces investigation found at *least 16 members had links to six different hate groups since 2013 *including La Meute, the Soldiers of Odin, and Atomwaffen Division — a neo-Nazi terrorist group linked to attempted bombings, hate crimes and at least one murder in the United States.


https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2020/09/25/canadian-armed-forces-moves-to-crack-down-on-racism-and-extremism-within-its-ranks.html

So we're looking at 20ish members since 2013 out of approximately 95,000 regular force and reserve members. 
Is the Canadian Forces hiding the true number of extremists in our ranks? Are there dozens? Hundreds? 
Is stamping out extremism and racism _not_ a priority for our current CDS?


----------



## Remius (16 Dec 2020)

This happened over a decade ago.  I had to deal with two members of a reserve unit I won’t name,  they weren’t too keen on having a black section 2ic.  So they put up a confederate flag in their room.  Said they were civil war buffs when questioned.  They could not actually say when the civil war actually happened or name a single battle upon further questioning.  They also carved a swastika in their drill boots so when their 2ic would look down he would see it.  A MCpl from that same unit who was a bit more enlightened stated that sort of crap was common at his unit.  

You may be right Jarn.  Maybe it is specific cases as this unit was from a mostly out skirt rural area and not urban or regular force where it would be easier to stamp out.  

I have no doubt it exists.  The CAF is a large organisation. And the reserves is a good place for extremists to get into for whatever reason. 

But there have been enough public cases and likely not so public under watch cases to merit scrutiny.

I don’t know though.  I’m out of the loop on this and came from a unit where this wasn’t tolerated.  Peers would have handled it before it ever got to the CoC.


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Dec 2020)

Release the Sociologists!!!



Investigating hateful ideologies and extremism in the Canadian Armed Forces

Author: UNB Research

University of New Brunswick researcher, Dr. David Hofmann, and Ontario Tech University researcher, Dr. Barbara Perry, have been granted $750,000 in April to investigate hateful ideologies and extremism within the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) over the next three years.

From this understanding, they will provide recommendations and insight to CAF leadership to help address these concerning ideologies.

“Anyone paying attention to the news lately knows that this is an issue that keeps cropping up. I think this is a chance to create meaningful change within the CAF as an institution, and I have to commend them; they’re putting a lot of time and effort into actively trying to deal with this issue. It’s not like they’re sweeping it under the rug. They are also willing to listen to outside expertise, which not everyone is open to doing,” said Dr. Hofmann.

Before the project officially launched this past fall, the team had been in ongoing conversations with General Jonathan Vance, the Chief of the Defence Staff of the CAF, last year as he sought their guidance and expertise on how to respond to right-wing extremism within the military. They were encouraged by the Chief of Defence Staff to apply for a grant from the Department of National Defence’s Mobilizing insights in Defence and Security Program (MINDS).

Dr. Hofmann and Dr. Perry are the co-leads on the project and will be working with research hubs in British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada.

Their goal is to form a research network connecting diverse experts across Canada. They will be conducting several phased projects over the next three years to examine the extent, depth and breadth of hateful conduct in the CAF, and will use their findings to provide policy and practical recommendations for the CAF who are actively trying to combat extremists within the military.

“This project really excites me because we’re funded by the Department of National Defence to make real, empirically, scientifically informed recommendations that will be heard by the highest levels. This means that we have a chance to really help the CAF combat this worrisome trend,” said Dr. Hofmann.

The first phase of the project will consist of a media and environmental scan of the phenomenon. The team will be conducting as many interviews with CAF members as possible, followed by statistical analyses and surveys in the second phase.

In order to build a comprehensive understanding of hateful conduct within the CAF, Dr. Hofmann describes the interview method with an analogy of a radar signal to gauge what CAF members may have seen, heard and think.

“It’s not like we can walk up to them and ask them, ‘Hey, are you a neo-Nazi, do you want to talk to me about being a neo-Nazi in the CAF?, Even if they hold those ideas, they’re not going to share it.

“When a radar signal goes out, you don’t literally see the object you’re looking for, but you get an idea of what the object is or where you need to go based upon everything that’s around it,” he adds.

He is also planning on contributing his expertise on social network analysis in the future to ground their findings with rigorous and valid data to make informed policy recommendations.

Dr. Hofmann is also a co-investigator for a three-year Public Health Safety Canada funded project where he has been conducting an environmental scan of right-wing extremism across Canada with Dr. Perry, who is the head researcher. This project has helped build momentum for the team’sproject with the CAF.

Dr. David Hofmann is an Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of New Brunswick. His research interests include charismatic authority in terrorist groups, right-wing extremism in North America, transnational criminal organizations, terrorist radicalization, and terrorist leadership.

http://blogs.unb.ca/research/2020/11/hofmann-caf-hate-and-extremism.php


----------



## Kat Stevens (16 Dec 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Release the Sociologists!!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And undoubtedly their approach will be purely objective with no preconceived notions. Do they still sell Witchfinder General hats at William Scully?


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Dec 2020)

Target Up said:
			
		

> And undoubtedly their approach will be purely objective with no preconceived notions.



I read their bios and thought the same thing.


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Dec 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I read their bios and thought the same thing.



"Liberals have invented whole college majors - psychology, sociology and women's studies - to prove that nothing is anybody's fault."

P. J. O'Rourke


----------



## Blackadder1916 (17 Dec 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I read their bios and thought the same thing.



But did you read any of their publications?  Preconceived notions, anyone?


----------



## Kilted (17 Dec 2020)

I wonder how far back they are going to investigate.


----------



## Cloud Cover (17 Dec 2020)

Then start researching these two and forming up to fight them with the size of funding they received, they are going to be up your asses in a big way.


----------



## ArmyRick (17 Dec 2020)

Dr Barbara Perry Is like the WORST choice they could have picked. Watch her videos, even ethnic communities can not stomach her. The common theme you will see is she no specific facts to back up her arguments just vague statements and innuendos. 
I could barely stand to listen to her Ted Talk video.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Dec 2020)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> But did you read any of their publications?  Preconceived notions, anyone?


Preconceived notions like the CAF is a hotbed for right-wing extremism, good point. I haven't read any of their publications yet, I'm currently in the middle of watching videos Dr Perry's put out.


----------



## Ralph (17 Dec 2020)

Some people seem a bit triggered. What exactly is the issue with determining if there's a scientific method to identify military members who hold extremist views? I, for one, have never seen anyone sexually assault anyone - does that mean it doesn't happen? Are you under the impression that these two professors have been deputized by the CFNIS to conduct sweeping dragnets against all the right-thinking individuals? Have some more egg nog and chill.


----------



## Brash (17 Dec 2020)

Ralph said:
			
		

> Some people seem a bit triggered. What exactly is the issue with determining if there's a scientific method to identify military members who hold extremist views? I, for one, have never seen anyone sexually assault anyone - does that mean it doesn't happen? Are you under the impression that these two professors have been deputized by the CFNIS to conduct sweeping dragnets against all the right-thinking individuals? Have some more egg nog and chill.



Reading the last dozen or so comments regarding the grant announcement as well, and I don't find anyone that has been triggered. 
Nor do I find anyone at issue with 'a scientific method to identify military members who hold extremist views'.
Nor do I find comments that indicate that they themselves will be mistakenly swept up in 'a sweeping dragnet'.

It seems you are trying to mischaracterize the dissent that has been expressed towards the selection of grant recipients whose prior publicized opinions indicate they employ a less-than-scientific-method, as instead simply rooted in conspiracy or anti-authority sentiment.  
This is known as a straw man argument tactic.


----------



## Ralph (17 Dec 2020)

Brashendeavours said:
			
		

> Reading the last dozen or so comments regarding the grant announcement as well, and I don't find anyone that has been triggered.
> Nor do I find anyone at issue with 'a scientific method to identify military members who hold extremist views'.
> Nor do I find comments that indicate that they themselves will be mistakenly swept up in 'a sweeping dragnet'.
> 
> ...


Fine - that's your opinion.
Can you share the link showing evidence that these grant recipients employ a less-than-scientific-method? Shouldn't we be telling somebody about this if it can be verified?


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Dec 2020)

Ralph said:
			
		

> Some people seem a bit triggered. What exactly is the issue with determining if there's a scientific method to identify military members who hold extremist views? I, for one, have never seen anyone sexually assault anyone - does that mean it doesn't happen? Are you under the impression that these two professors have been deputized by the CFNIS to conduct sweeping dragnets against all the right-thinking individuals? Have some more egg nog and chill.



Well, it's a project worth almost a million bucks, and I don't see anything mentioned about the procurement process they used to identify this group to do the work, so it would seem reasonable to be a bit suspicious....


----------



## Ralph (17 Dec 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Well, it's a project worth almost a million bucks, and I don't see anything mentioned about the procurement process they used to identify this group to do the work, so it would seem reasonable to be a bit suspicious....


You don't see anything mentioned where? On the grant announcement?


----------



## Navy_Pete (17 Dec 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Well, it's a project worth almost a million bucks, and I don't see anything mentioned about the procurement process they used to identify this group to do the work, so it would seem reasonable to be a bit suspicious....



Here's the program that it was awarded under;there are a few different research grant type programs, but there is a whole application/screening process for all of them. Some of them you can send in proposals for review and approval, while others there is a call for a specific research topic and you submit a proposal. DRDC also has research contracts, and they follow the normal RFP process, and there are probably a few other relevant programs, but can pretty much guarantee all of them will have some kind of bureaucratic vetting/approval process.

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/programs/minds.html

Found out while doing a masters that there doesn't seem to be a program to support research funding dedicated envelopes for research done under sponsored PGs, so looked into applying to a few of these kind of things as a normal academic. It's a lot of bureaucracy and found an alternate source for some funding and some donated supplies, but from what I can tell from academia a big part of being a 'successful' academic is being good at applying and receiving these grants, and not necessarily any real results. Seems a bit weird to me there isn't a pool of money available for PGT research in these programs, as you think that it would make sense financially to do it concurrently with PGs that you are paying for anyway. That would be more efficient then going through the sponsor organization, which would be some kind of special project with a lot of lead time to figure out who is paying for it.

No complaints on my end as I had full support from my sponsor, just seems like a missed opportunity to help focus PGs on DND issues, as it would have been far easier for me to do something readily available from the existing commercial work in the hopper, which would have been totally useless to the RCN.


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Dec 2020)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Here's the program that it was awarded under;there are a few different research grant type programs, but there is a whole application/screening process for all of them. Some of them you can send in proposals for review and approval, while others there is a call for a specific research topic and you submit a proposal. DRDC also has research contracts, and they follow the normal RFP process, and there are probably a few other relevant programs, but can pretty much guarantee all of them will have some kind of bureaucratic vetting/approval process.
> 
> https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/programs/minds.html
> 
> ...



Good info, thanks!

Also, calling it a 'research' project helps take the pressure off of everyone re: doing something, anything, about the findings of course


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Dec 2020)

If it's "scientific", then a hypothesis will be formulated and tested.  Empirical observation will either confirm or deny the hypothesis.


----------



## Navy_Pete (17 Dec 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Good info, thanks!
> 
> Also, calling it a 'research' project helps take the pressure off of everyone re: doing something, anything, about the findings of course



Pretty standard to include recommendations and area for future work. As this seems like initial study, would expect it to start out with some 'feeling out' in phase 1 and then target on specific things. Expect it will include a bunch of surveys, but curious to see how they will investigate if CAF members hold extremist views without actually investigating CAF members directly in any kind of meaningful way. 

For example, think it's completely reasonable for someone in the CSIS/security side to actively investigate CAF members social media etc if someone has identified someone as a possible threat, or if they've been identified as belonging to a group while looking at that specific group. Doing that proactively for an entire group would be a massive invasion of privacy IMO, but think inferring the extent of the problem from survey responses is questionable at best. Statistically I would expect the number of incidences to be comparable to Canada in general as we are a reflection of society in general, but if there is a genuine effort from extremists to infiltrate the CAF or other institutions I can't see that being uncovered by some sociologists asking a few questions.

Personally think we have the tools to deal with this already, but am always wary of things like these which go into it with a presumption that there is a problem, so the surveys and whatnot are skewed to situate the estimate and not to gather objective data. Am sure there are individuals with issues, and units with problems, but think an overarching determination is probably a massive simplification and generalization of a complicated issue that you need to look at the microscopic level. The recent cases we know about are all totally different with very different contexts, so not sure how you try and superimpose general observations from that.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (17 Dec 2020)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Personally think we have the tools to deal with this already, but am always wary of things like these which go into it with a presumption that there is a problem, so the surveys and whatnot are skewed to situate the estimate and not to gather objective data. . . .



But, is the "real" purpose of the study to identify the problem, its extent and propose solutions or is it (as I somewhat cynically suppose) to be the "matter is under study" response the next time that the actions of some uniformed numpty hits the media.

A lot of the work that is farmed out to consultants could be done in-house but the perception (on the part of leadership, political/mandarin oversight and the public) is that expertise and objectivity is lacking if a study was done by CAF or departmental staff.

I'm always a little suspicious of consultants' reports, but that stems from the 1980s when as a fresh from Staff School junior officer at NDHQ, I was tasked to provide information to a consultant on short notice (. . .minutes) about the medical requirements for establishing a training centre.  As he was sitting across my desk from me, asking questions, I scribbled notes about the requirements, partly to aid my thought process and partly as a record of the meeting.  At the end of the meeting, he asked if he could have a copy of my notes, "just so that he had the numbers right"; fool that I was, I agreed.  When the report was published, the annex for medical requirements was a photocopy of my scribbled notes.


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Dec 2020)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> But, is the "real" purpose of the study to identify the problem, its extent and propose solutions or is it (as I somewhat cynically suppose) to be the "matter is under study" response the next time that the actions of some uniformed numpty hits the media.
> 
> A lot of the work that is farmed out to consultants could be done in-house but the perception (on the part of leadership, political/mandarin oversight and the public) is that expertise and objectivity is lacking if a study was done by CAF or departmental staff.
> 
> I'm always a little suspicious of consultants' reports, but that stems from the 1980s when as a fresh from Staff School junior officer at NDHQ, I was tasked to provide information to a consultant on short notice (. . .minutes) about the medical requirements for establishing a training centre.  As he was sitting across my desk from me, asking questions, I scribbled notes about the requirements, partly to aid my thought process and partly as a record of the meeting.  At the end of the meeting, he asked if he could have a copy of my notes, "just so that he had the numbers right"; fool that I was, I agreed.  When the report was published, the annex for medical requirements was a photocopy of my scribbled notes.



Clearly an unethical move of the lowest kind. FWIW, anyone experiencing similar slimy experiences can report offenders to the Canadian Association of Management Consultants.

There are few things a senior partner in a consulting firm likes to do more than to make an example of an employee for an ethical breach!


----------



## TCM621 (17 Dec 2020)

Ralph said:
			
		

> Some people seem a bit triggered. What exactly is the issue with determining if there's a scientific method to identify military members who hold extremist views? I, for one, have never seen anyone sexually assault anyone - does that mean it doesn't happen? Are you under the impression that these two professors have been deputized by the CFNIS to conduct sweeping dragnets against all the right-thinking individuals? Have some more egg nog and chill.




You can tell they are biased based on their quotes in the article.

"Anyone paying attention to the news lately knows that this is an issue that keeps cropping up. I think this is a chance to create meaningful change within the CAF as an institution..."

He has decided change is required even before the study has been started.

"This means that we have a chance to really help the CAF combat this worrisome trend."

Is there a trend? Isn't the goal of the research to find if there is a trend?

We have had 3 incidents, one of which was a group of 5 off duty sailors, 3 of which where native or metis IIRC, counter protested a protest. They weren't even rude by any reports I saw. The other 2 are a couple of reservists who are known to visit far right websites. There is no major racism or white nationalist problem in the CAF, at least not at any systematic level. Some CAF members are alcoholics, some are racists, some are sensitive, some are uber woke and some are just stupid. The CAF is suppose to represent the population and just like the population, we have some assailed in our ranks. That does not mean the CAF is a hotbed of racist, sexist, homophobes.


----------



## mariomike (17 Dec 2020)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> The CAF is suppose to represent the population and just like the population, we have some assailed in our ranks.



People are entitled to their beliefs.  But, you can change their employment, if they treat others with disrespect.


----------



## Navy_Pete (17 Dec 2020)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> But, is the "real" purpose of the study to identify the problem, its extent and propose solutions or is it (as I somewhat cynically suppose) to be the "matter is under study" response the next time that the actions of some uniformed numpty hits the media.
> 
> A lot of the work that is farmed out to consultants could be done in-house but the perception (on the part of leadership, political/mandarin oversight and the public) is that expertise and objectivity is lacking if a study was done by CAF or departmental staff.
> 
> I'm always a little suspicious of consultants' reports, but that stems from the 1980s when as a fresh from Staff School junior officer at NDHQ, I was tasked to provide information to a consultant on short notice (. . .minutes) about the medical requirements for establishing a training centre.  As he was sitting across my desk from me, asking questions, I scribbled notes about the requirements, partly to aid my thought process and partly as a record of the meeting.  At the end of the meeting, he asked if he could have a copy of my notes, "just so that he had the numbers right"; fool that I was, I agreed.  When the report was published, the annex for medical requirements was a photocopy of my scribbled notes.



Yeah, I've had similar experiences. Also, identifying a systematic issue that needs work is a great way to create new grants/studies/consulting fees, so read academic consulting work with the same kind of critical lens I would for any commercial contractor that might have a vested interest in any follow on. In a lot of ways, it's worse in academia than it is in normal commercial consulting, as there is a degree of prestige and profile involved vice simple economics, as well as advancing a certain viewpoint in their field, so can get really ugly with the egos involved.

On the flip side, I'm sure that I probably do or have done things that may qualify as microaggressions or otherwise been an issue for someone without realising it, but that stuff will never be resolved from the top down, so would prefer we focus our institutional efforts on the widespread small things rather then these headline grabbing extreme outliers. My opinion an a few bucks will get you a cup of coffee though, so bracing for the impact of some kind of new thrust to threaten to kick us out if we're actual Nazis.


----------



## TCM621 (17 Dec 2020)

mariomike said:
			
		

> People are entitled to their beliefs.  But, you can change their employment, if they treat others with disrespect.



I'm not arguing otherwise, what I'm saying is that, like wider society, we will have a few bad apples in our midst. However that is a problem with those particular individuals not the CAF as a whole.


----------



## mariomike (17 Dec 2020)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> I'm not arguing otherwise, what I'm saying is that, like wider society, we will have a few bad apples in our midst. However that is a problem with those particular individuals not the CAF as a whole.



Like wider society, there will always be a few bad apples in any organization. Because there will always be one big problem . . . they have to recruit from the human race.


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Dec 2020)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> You can tell they are biased based on their quotes in the article.
> 
> "Anyone paying attention to the news lately knows that this is an issue that keeps cropping up. I think this is a chance to create meaningful change within the CAF as an institution..."
> 
> ...



Except in our Military Colleges, right? https://globalnews.ca/news/7385815/sexual-misconduct-canadian-military-colleges-statscan/

Also, I noticed that you used the term 'hot bed'. Careful, you might trigger a submariner. (Joking!)


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Dec 2020)

"Anyone paying attention to the news lately knows that this is an issue that keeps cropping up. I think this is a chance to create meaningful change within the CAF as an institution..."

Anyone paying attention to the news lately knows only that an issue has been mentioned in the news lately; the mere fact of mention is not a reliable indicator of anything other than an agency's attention.  The media are incapable of treating all issues proportionately - there is not enough time in the day - even if they were not biased.


----------



## PuckChaser (17 Dec 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Except in our Military Colleges, right? https://globalnews.ca/news/7385815/sexual-misconduct-canadian-military-colleges-statscan/



RMC's stats are within the margin of error of the national average for Canadian Post-Secondary institutions. They should be doing better, considering its a military college, but the sky isn't falling there.


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Dec 2020)

*Military leaders to be held to account if extremism isn't addressed, Sajjan says*

OTTAWA — Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan worries incidents of extremism and hate in the Canadian Armed Forces are on the rise — and he says military commanders will be held accountable if the problem is not addressed.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/military-leaders-to-be-held-to-account-if-extremism-isnt-addressed-sajjan-says/ar-BB1c1cgZ


----------



## HiTechComms (18 Dec 2020)

How will they be held accountable? 
Are they gone be held accountable like Politicians or Bureaucrats?

Having worked in organizations that are aware of these problems all I forsee for CAF alot of Powerpoints and Mandatory training on how racism is bad.


----------



## CBH99 (18 Dec 2020)

I think it's more about him making himself look good, and good PR - than any sort of tangible result.

We already have several mechanisms in place to deal with racism, sexism, and other forms of unprofessionalism.  The NDA, the CC, charges at the unit level, etc etc.

There are already several ways to get rid of dirt bags.



I've been out of the military for a few years now, but has anybody actually experienced any obvious racism over the last years between members of the CF?  Honest question, I'm genuinely curious.

I was very blessed & fortunate that a vast majority of the members I interacted with were great people.


----------



## ArmyRick (19 Dec 2020)

I served 1990-2018 (4 months out in 1998). My experiences are this
-Earlier in my career, there was strong anti-women in combat arms attitude amongst some of the older NCOs and WOs. This included degrading terms like "split-a$$" and "c*nts" being muttered by them usually behind closed doors and not in the presence of officers. I want to emphasize this was a few not all
-AS more woman completed training and entered the units, that attitude gradually disappeared. I would say by around late nineties, very, very few had that attitude and behind closed doors. However evolution takes it toll and those dinosaurs eventually released. or died literally. 
-Racism, from the begining, was very, very, I mean very few. And usually the lowest trash. I remember arriving at Patricia battle school and one of our fat arse logistic instructions in Cornwallis telling us the Patricias were a bunch of red neck yahoos, well we arrived at Wainwright and met our old (and very black) OC, Captain Jackson, and the old (and black again) CSM, MWO Sparks. MMmmm, assumptions made by idiots. Not racist but you can see assumptions being made
-The only really nasty racist event I remember was around mid nineties, one of the black soldiers in 2VP woke up and found N-----er spray painted on his door (close in time to the somalia inquiry). Lt Col Turner was and RSM CWO Cook were furious. The CO had threatened to bring media in and show them. The attitude amongst the boys in the battalion was lets find the f---er and give him "soldier justice" 
-As a sergeant while on TCAT in '08, I got stuck supervising PAT/PAR pers in Meaford, I encountered very few racist who coincidentally, were dirt bag losers at like everything in life and couldn't keep up with training. We released the few of those idiots (for a whole pile of reasons) 

Truth is during 28 years of service, I have seen very few cases of racism and sexism. I will say in the infantry, we are very politically incorrect. As an example, I remember another visible minority solder I served with (excellent soldier ended up In Dwyer Hill) always making smart *ss anti-white wise cracks that no a days, would get him in hot water. Funny, he married a white lady.


----------



## MJP (19 Dec 2020)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> I've been out of the military for a few years now, but has anybody actually experienced any obvious racism over the last years between members of the CF?  Honest question, I'm genuinely curious.
> 
> I was very blessed & fortunate that a vast majority of the members I interacted with were great people.



We are ok at dealing with overt over the top racism and are willing to use our disciplinary and administrative powers to great affect on those that display those deficiencies. 

 Where we fail (IMHO) is we allow lots of low-level jokes, comments and innuendo to slide in my experience. Very much like the majority of Op HONOUR violations in that it is essentially people saying inappropriate things. Most of it is not truly meant and if given a chance to reflect on the words and their effect on people they would choose differently but it is worthwhile to remove the language from our vernacular.


----------



## daftandbarmy (20 Dec 2020)

MJP said:
			
		

> We are ok at dealing with overt over the top racism and are willing to use our disciplinary and administrative powers to great affect on those that display those deficiencies.
> 
> Where we fail (IMHO) is we allow lots of low-level jokes, comments and innuendo to slide in my experience. Very much like the majority of Op HONOUR violations in that it is essentially people saying inappropriate things. Most of it is not truly meant and if given a chance to reflect on the words and their effect on people they would choose differently but it is worthwhile to remove the language from our vernacular.



Is the way that Reg Force personnel always treats Reservists considered racist? 

If so, I've seen about a million incidents...


----------



## FJAG (20 Dec 2020)

MJP said:
			
		

> ... Most of it is not truly meant and if given a chance to reflect on the words and their effect on people they would choose differently but it is worthwhile to remove the language from our vernacular.





			
				daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Is the way that Reg Force personnel always treats Reservists considered racist?



There are probably a few thousand studies and learned papers on why individuals (particularly men) make sexist, racist, etc jokes or comments and what the effect of those is on the workplace and specifically on the target class.

In those circumstances where the speaker didn't mean it (and in many cases he did or at least is expressing his true feelings about that class) it inevitably is as a result of the fact that the speaker intends to draw attention to himself and be accepted into the group to whom he is speaking or to subtly raise his standing amongst his peers at the expense of the maligned group. We make jokes to entertain and impress our peers so as to be popular amongst them. While far from exclusively so (consider for example gossiping), it's a particularly male, trait. 

The trouble is that when the peers laugh or otherwise accept the comment it provides positive reinforcement to not only the speaker but the entire group, including the target if present, that such behaviour is acceptable, does provide status and therefore the behaviour becomes prevalent. The only way to fully eradicate such conduct is to immediately provide a negative reaction which makes it clear to everyone that such behaviour is not acceptable and does not provide a positive status.

Nope. Maligning reservists is not racism but it is, IMHO, a form of harassment under DAOD 5012-0. 

I'm not sure if an opinion has ever been circulated which would define how far the DAOD goes but, again IMHO, the term "Improper conduct by an individual, that offends another individual in the workplace, including at any event or any location related to work, and that the individual knew or ought reasonably to have known would cause offence or harm" is wide enough to encompass maligning speech about a specific co-worker or a class of identifiable co-workers including reservists as a class. 

"Ought to know" is an objective standard. It does not require actual knowledge by the speaker/actor that his actions cause offence but merely an understanding by reasonable members that it would offend the complainant against whom it was directed. In the case of conduct not prohibited by the Human Rights Act such as reserve status, the fact that the target was, in fact, offended is also required.

 :cheers:


----------



## FSTO (20 Dec 2020)

It was pointed out to me by a former Naval Reservists (Now an Anglican Priest in NZ) that being called a "SHAD" wasn't that bad of an insult and had in fact became a badge of honour in the Naval Reserve. Being called "F****n SHADs" wasn't all that bad either but if the inflection was just a little different and came from a more senior Reg Force Chief or Officer the term was taken as a deep insult.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Dec 2020)

FSTO said:
			
		

> It was pointed out to me by a former Naval Reservists (Now an Anglican Priest in NZ) that being called a "SHAD" wasn't that bad of an insult and had in fact became a badge of honour in the Naval Reserve. Being called "F****n SHADs" wasn't all that bad either but if the inflection was just a little different and came from a more senior Reg Force Chief or Officer the term was taken as a deep insult.



A little  ff topic:  but: In the 1930s, prior to the start of the war, there was a little saying that was popular in the part of the Navy ...

But, first, it's important to understand that then the Navy had three components: the Regular Navy, the RCN, the Volunteer Reserve, the RCNVR ~ which was a lot like today's Naval Reserve, and another Reserve Force, called the RCNR, which was made up of professional sailors ~ merchant seamen, fishermen, etc ~ who were also part-time reservists.

The saying went: "The RCNVR are gentlemen trying to be sailors; the RCNR are sailors trying to gentlemen; and the RCN are neither trying to be both."


----------



## mariomike (20 Dec 2020)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The saying went: "The RCNVR are gentlemen trying to be sailors; the RCNR are sailors trying to gentlemen; and the RCN are neither trying to be both."



My father joined in 1943 when he was 17, and was on active service until 1946. He was in the  RCNVR. 

SHADS....Where did it originate?
https://navy.ca/forums/threads/112744.0

As this is another discussion about race relations within the CAF, this may, or may not, be of historical interest.

Here in Canada, No.2 Construction Battalion was, apparently, the only Black unit in the CEF.

My paternal grandfather was in No. 1 Construction Battalion C.E.F.

"At the time, racism was so blatant within the military that when the battalion was formed, Ontario's all-white No. 1 Construction Battalion changed its name to avoid the association with black soldiers.":
http://www.coinbooks.org/esylum_v10n08a10.html


----------



## FSTO (20 Dec 2020)

mariomike said:
			
		

> My father joined in 1943 when he was 17, and was on active service until 1946. He was in the  RCNVR.
> 
> SHADS....Where did it originate?
> https://navy.ca/forums/threads/112744.0
> ...



Would not surprise me in the least. Those Orangemen (Ontario was overrun with them) were a piece of work!


----------



## mariomike (20 Dec 2020)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Would not surprise me in the least. Those Orangemen (Ontario was overrun with them) were a piece of work!



My grandfather was Catholic. I got to know him pretty well. But, not well enough to ask his opinions on race relations in the old C.E.F.


----------



## RangerRay (20 Dec 2020)

I could be wrong, but my read is that this initiative is to target members who are a part of extremist groups (The Base, Atomwaffen Division, 3%’ers, Soldiers of Odin, Proud Boys, etc. ) and hope to use their training in committing violence or to spread misinformation online for the purposes of radicalization, not the personal thoughts and feelings of members. Please let me know if I am wrong.


----------



## Navy_Pete (20 Dec 2020)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> I could be wrong, but my read is that this initiative is to target members who are a part of extremist groups (The Base, Atomwaffen Division, 3%’ers, Soldiers of Odin, Proud Boys, etc. ) and hope to use their training in committing violence or to spread misinformation online for the purposes of radicalization, not the personal thoughts and feelings of members. Please let me know if I am wrong.



If it is, that's a genuine security issue that usually falls under a policing/security agency. That kind of thing requires warrants and similar criminal investigation tools to look into individuals. Also, fully covered under everything we already have in place.

Sure, make people aware that it's not going to be tolerated, but if you want an initiative for that you would probably need some kind of additional resources/taskforce on the law enforcement side to investigate it, not a couple of ivory tower sociologists. I'm all for turfing people if they are part of extremist groups and joined with that intent, but really have no tolerance for PR type exercises that just tick a box instead. Depending on the roll out, it could be really patronizing and just piss people off, instead of sparking any kind of meaningful change.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Dec 2020)

[quote author=FJAG]

In those circumstances where the speaker didn't mean it (and in many cases he did or at least is expressing his true feelings about that class) it inevitably is as a result of the fact that the speaker intends to draw attention to himself and be accepted into the group to whom he is speaking or to subtly raise his standing amongst his peers at the expense of the maligned group. We make jokes to entertain and impress our peers so as to be popular amongst them. While far from exclusively so (consider for example gossiping), it's a particularly male, trait. 
[/quote]

I've never heard it explained this way, really eye opening.


----------



## daftandbarmy (20 Dec 2020)

Interesting observations about this, the 'Third Wave', of anti-racism:

The Virtue Signalers Won’t Change the World

Third-wave anti-racism makes sense, and fits into the longer struggle, but it’s a dead end.

"Social concern and activism must not cease, but proceed minus the religious aspect they have taken on. One can be fervently dedicated to improving the lot of black Americans without a purse-lipped, prosecutorial culture dedicated more to virtue signaling than to changing other people’s lives."

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/12/why-third-wave-anti-racism-dead-end/578764/


----------



## MJP (20 Dec 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I've never heard it explained this way, really eye opening.


It in essence becomes the culture and accepted to the point that any weak attempt to change behaviour is scorned ("he didn't mean it or he is a good old boy" kinda thing) or ridiculed as going to far. At the end of the day if you wouldn't say it to your mother or in polite company than it is better left unsaid.  

The way to fix it is to change the culture and that always comes with sticker shock especially when the "new rules" disallow that which was tacitly allowed before


----------



## daftandbarmy (20 Dec 2020)

MJP said:
			
		

> It in essence becomes the culture and accepted to the point that any weak attempt to change behaviour is scorned ("he didn't mean it or he is a good old boy" kinda thing) or ridiculed as going to far. At the end of the day if you wouldn't say it to your mother or in polite company than it is better left unsaid.
> 
> The way to fix it is to change the culture and that always comes with sticker shock especially when the "new rules" disallow that which was tacitly allowed before



The other way to ‘fix it’ is to get away from it. Leave. 

High turnover is a good indicator of a leader who needs to be examined a little more closely.


----------



## Kat Stevens (29 Dec 2020)

Umm... what?

Edit....this was in response to the post above that Staff edited out.   It was more then a justified WTF?


----------



## sher_singh (30 Dec 2020)

I've faced a fair bit, and I think the dichotomy between non-racist and anti-racist is what allows a lot of the attitudes, and social norms to persist; as someone else mentioned.

One of the biggest issues is trying to fix one problem leads to another group thinking they're being discriminated against. I'd quote Kendi (or DiAngelo) here but I'm not sure how well that'd be recieved, also Hello.


----------



## daftandbarmy (30 Dec 2020)

Kat Stevens said:


> Umm... what?
> 
> Edit....this was in response to the post above that Staff edited out.   It was more then a justified WTF?


It's a choice, and I see alot of good people make it e.g., "my boss/ organization is awful so I refuse to suffer anymore and I will move on to another job."

Organizations that put up with bad bosses/ culture should be fixed, in some way, and high turnover (one good indicator of bad leadership) should not be tolerated. Here's some good advice on how to stop that from happening:

People Don’t Leave Bad Jobs, They Leave Bad Bosses: Here’s How To Be A Better Manager To Maintain And Motivate Your Team









						People Don’t Leave Bad Jobs, They Leave Bad Bosses: Here’s How To Be A Better Manager To Maintain And Motivate Your Team
					

It’s exceedingly difficult to earn the respect, admiration and loyalty of your team. To become a better manager, it makes sense to understand what doesnt work.




					www.forbes.com


----------



## Kat Stevens (30 Dec 2020)

daftandbarmy said:


> It's a choice, and I see alot of good people make it e.g., "my boss/ organization is awful so I refuse to suffer anymore and I will move on to another job."
> 
> Organizations that put up with bad bosses/ culture should be fixed, in some way, and high turnover (one good indicator of bad leadership) should not be tolerated. Here's some good advice on how to stop that from happening:
> 
> ...


Sorry my post had nothing to do with yours. Someone posted some non sensical word vomit after you and that's what I was replying to.


----------

