"Army investigating members allegedly involved in 'abhorrent' Facebook group"

[Eaglelord17]

Or they posted as a Pte 10 years ago and complete forgot about it. It might mean they still think it is ok.

Equally, they might be deeply embarrassed by their posts from 10 years ago.

We don’t know.

Alternatively, they can think it’s ok all they wish. The CAF does not have the right to police your thoughts.

They have the right to limit what you do in regards to the workplace but freedom of thought is a right.

Provided they have learned to keep it out of the workplace, what right does the CAF actually have to attempt to police such conduct?

 

[Furniture]

I'm not sure Remedial Measures would be appropriate for 6+ year old posts if there's no pattern of it or recent instances.

DAOD 5019-4 states


a. might be met if they don't realize the comments/posts were wrong.

b&c. if there is no recent behavior then they've already overcome the deficiency and don't need time to fix it.

Additionally


Looking at 5.1(b) you could argue that one post 6 or 10 years ago and nothing since shows the member has corrected the deficiency over time.

In my opinion giving remedial measures for historical facebook posts would be disciplinary in nature and not in the spirit of what remedial measures are intended to accomplish.

I think 4.7 (a) covers how it could be applied in these cases. A RM would be an very offical way of letting a member know their conduct, though in the past, is deficient compared to CAF standards in effect at that time.

Applying new standards to past conduct would be wrong, but recording and offically letting a member know their conduct was not within standards when it occurred seems reasonable.

Otherwise, we are telling troops that so long as you don't get caught within 6 years, your behavior doesn't matter. Hardly seems like an effective way to run a military to me.

 

[brihard]

Alternatively, they can think it’s ok all they wish. The CAF does not have the right to police your thoughts.

They have the right to limit what you do in regards to the workplace but freedom of thought is a right.

Provided they have learned to keep it out of the workplace, what right does the CAF actually have to attempt to police such conduct?

I haven't seen anything suggesting CAF is policing pure thoughts. Freedom of expression is not absolute. A thought never given voice will remain unknown. If a CAF member hypothetically holds bigoted views and lets that be known by their words or actions, either on or off duty, then there's absolutely room to look at whether it concerns the employer. And for some types of expressed believes, it categorically will concern CAF as the employer.

There's conduct that will never be acceptable for CAF members regardless of context; it will be incompatible with further employment. There's conduct that might be rude or incivil but is entirely of a private nature and CAF cannot realistically make any claim on it. And then there's a whole messy world between thsoe two.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I think 4.7 (a) covers how it could be applied in these cases. A RM would be an very offical way of letting a member know their conduct, though in the past, is deficient compared to CAF standards in effect at that time.

But wouldn't you would be giving them corrective measures for something that's already (presumably) been corrected? Why give them a 6 month period to prove they changed their behavior if the lack of new/recent posts already proves that.

Otherwise, we are telling troops that so long as you don't get caught within 6 years, your behavior doesn't matter. Hardly seems like an effective way to run a military to me.

If the historic facebook posts are offensive enough that the CAF needs to do something about it they should put the effort in and go the route of laying charges. That way the behavior is punished and the alledged offenders have an opportunity to defend themselves as well.

Not that I hoping for charges, but that seems more appropriate than remedial measures (if it's not recent).

 

[OldSolduer]

Whatever the route the CAF chooses to follow they need to do it carefully and the right way.

I used to tell my Sgts and MCpls gather the facts first and don't go off half cocked. It may be embarassing.

 

[Blackadder1916]

Alternatively, they can think it’s ok all they wish. The CAF does not have the right to police your thoughts.

They have the right to limit what you do in regards to the workplace but freedom of thought is a right.

Provided they have learned to keep it out of the workplace, what right does the CAF actually have to attempt to police such conduct?

Think what you want, but stepping past the threshold of a military establishment does not absolve you from being held responsible for conduct and/or speech.

The National Defence Act

Regulations
12 (1) The Governor in Council may make regulations for the organization, training, discipline, efficiency, administration and good government of the Canadian Forces and generally for carrying the purposes and provisions of this Act into effect.

(2) Subject to section 13 and any regulations made by the Governor in Council, the Minister may make regulations for the organization, training, discipline, efficiency, administration and good government of the Canadian Forces and generally for carrying the purposes and provisions of this Act into effect.

and Queen's King's Regulations and Orders

19.14 - IMPROPER COMMENTS
(1) No officer or non-commissioned member shall make remarks or pass criticism tending to bring a superior into contempt, except as may be necessary for the proper presentation of a grievance under Chapter 7 (Grievances).

(2) No officer or non-commissioned member shall do or say anything that:
a. if seen or heard by any member of the public, might reflect discredit on the Canadian Forces or on any of its members; or
b. if seen by, heard by or reported to those under him, might discourage them or render them dissatisfied with their condition or the duties on which they are employed.
(M) [15 June 2000 – (1)]

 

[dapaterson]

and Queen's King's Regulations and Orders

QR&O 1.01 remains unamended.

 

[Furniture]

But wouldn't you would be giving them corrective measures for something that's already (presumably) been corrected? Why give them a 6 month period to prove they changed their behavior if the lack of new/recent posts already proves that.

Is a lack of new posts in that group proof of a change? Why presume when you can officially record that they are changed?

RM don't need to run for six months. You could have a shorter reporting period to lessen the burden on the CoC.

If the historic facebook posts are offensive enough that the CAF needs to do something about it they should put the effort in and go the route of laying charges. That way the behavior is punished and the alledged offenders have an opportunity to defend themselves as well.

This is the more interesting part. Because of the age if the posts, it needs to go to a CM. I'm not a lawyer, and haven't stayed in a Holiday Inn recently enough to have an opinion on how that would go.

Like I said, officially letting the member know that part bahaviour crossed the line seem like a reasonable use of RM.

Chatting with the PL WO isn't punishment, unless the WO eats a lot of onions and refuses to brush.

Not that I hoping for charges, but that seems more appropriate than remedial measures (if it's not recent).

RM isn't be punishment, it's just recording past behaviour that failed to meet the standard.

Having an RM on file doesn't(shouldn't, but armys gonna army)prevent people from advancing. It just means we have a record of padt behaviour in the event something comes up again.

I'd hope a future Cameron SNCM wouldn't pose twice with their "member" out for Harambe, or any othe cause...

 

[KevinB]

Is a lack of new posts in that group proof of a change? Why presume when you can officially record that they are changed?

RM don't need to run for six months. You could have a shorter reporting period to lessen the burden on the CoC.


This is the more interesting part. Because of the age if the posts, it needs to go to a CM. I'm not a lawyer, and haven't stayed in a Holiday Inn recently enough to have an opinion on how that would go.

The issue also becomes who exactly is responsible
Original Poster?
And what If the Original poster isn’t even in that group anymore?
Current Members?
Current Admin?

Like I said, officially letting the member know that part bahaviour crossed the line seem like a reasonable use of RM.

Chatting with the PL WO isn't punishment, unless the WO eats a lot of onions and refuses to brush.


RM isn't be punishment, it's just recording past behaviour that failed to meet the standard.

The RM is designed to help the member correct the deficiency.

The issue in this case is that IF the posts are years old, it seems that the CA is solely acting due to the fact this has been brought up again, and doesn’t involve any new activity.

Having an RM on file doesn't(shouldn't, but armys gonna army)prevent people from advancing. It just means we have a record of padt behaviour in the event something comes up again.

I'd hope a future Cameron SNCM wouldn't pose twice with their "member" out for Harambe, or any othe cause...

My concern is there is a possibility this is a very stale issue - and no one had been thinking about it for a while, so no one bothered trying to scrub the group posts.
Or the issue may have already been addressed by the CHoO CoC, and dealt with.

Given the MP’s passed it off, would suggest there was nothing Criminal. Then given the time since the apparent postings (I’ve never seen anything from that group) it seems like the issue was already put to bed.

 

[MARS]

Or they posted as a Pte 10 years ago and complete forgot about it. It might mean they still think it is ok.

Equally, they might be deeply embarrassed by their posts from 10 years ago.

We don’t know.

I’m not sure knowing the reason even matters.

It’s not like old social media posts coming back to haunt people in the public sphere is a new thing.

Neither is hiring managers wanting candidates to provide SM profile info so it can be reviewed as part of the hiring process - to ensure a “good fit”. And neither is the resultant advice to people looking for work to curate their SM before they apply for jobs.

The CAF may very well find itself hamstrung in its ability to address this challenge, but the civilian employers of some of these folks - I assume the majority of them to be Class A - may not feel similarly constrained.

And people doxxing other people to their civilian employers for behaviour outside the workplace is also not a new phenomenon. I would be surprised if it doesn’t happen in this case.

So if these folks have forgotten what they posted - I’m not sure that even matters.