Sexual Assault & Sexual Misconduct in the CF

[Jarnhamar]

Not related to sexual assault but an example licenses being revoked.

All 11 teachers accused of creating toxic climate at Montreal school have their licences revoked

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/bedford-elementary-teachers-suspensions-report-9.7196230

 

[daftandbarmy]

Extra promotion points for those declaring threesomes

Military to force disclosure of sexual, romantic relationships with a 'power imbalance'​

Armed Forces says onus will be on senior member to flag relations with subordinate​

Military personnel must from now on proactively report to their superior any "emotional, romantic, sexual or family relationship" that involve people of different rank, seniority, position or experience.

The directive covers both new and existing relations.

Lt.-Gen. Paul Prévost, the military's chief of professional conduct and culture, says the change aims to eliminate risk that comes from any "power differential or imbalance" between members engaging in a secret relationship.

"What we want to make sure is that both members in that relationship are safe and that there's no fear of reprisal, there's no fear that one member's career will be affected by the other member," he said.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-military-relationship-disclosure-9.7211680

 

[Kilted]

Extra promotion points for those declaring threesomes

Military to force disclosure of sexual, romantic relationships with a 'power imbalance'​

Armed Forces says onus will be on senior member to flag relations with subordinate​

Military personnel must from now on proactively report to their superior any "emotional, romantic, sexual or family relationship" that involve people of different rank, seniority, position or experience.

The directive covers both new and existing relations.

Lt.-Gen. Paul Prévost, the military's chief of professional conduct and culture, says the change aims to eliminate risk that comes from any "power differential or imbalance" between members engaging in a secret relationship.

"What we want to make sure is that both members in that relationship are safe and that there's no fear of reprisal, there's no fear that one member's career will be affected by the other member," he said.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-military-relationship-disclosure-9.7211680

I can't wait to see this backfire in some cases.

"No, person x sleeps with too many people, we're not sending them on course."

 

[Furniture]

I can't wait to see this backfire in some cases.

"No, person x sleeps with too many people, we're not sending them on course."

I see the goal, but I agree that it seems a bit of an overreach.

For people in different units/occupations, it's just an invasion of their privacy. A Sgt Image Tech has no power over a Cpl MMT in a different unit.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I see the goal, but I agree that it seems a bit of an overreach.

For people in different units/occupations, it's just an invasion of their privacy. A Sgt Image Tech has no power over a Cpl MMT in a different unit.

Power no... But influence is possible. And more influence is possible the higher the rank.

Having said that, sexual assault is bad and we need to address and stop this wherever possible.

I maintain my course that we have to accept when we put a bunch people together some will make friends, some will make enemies, some will fall in love and some will fall in lust. Humans be humans.

 

[Furniture]

Power no... But influence is possible. And more influence is possible the higher the rank.

Agreed, but is forcing people to disclose their private lives the best way to prevent that? A Col or CWO that wants to influence someone's career will do it whether or not they have declared their relationship.

Having said that, sexual assault is bad and we need to address and stop this wherever possible.

100% agreed. I'm just sceptical that this will do anything to prevent it, though it may work to punish after the fact. That said, when talking sexual assault, there are already lots of criminal and administrative ways to deal with it.

I maintain my course that we have to accept when we put a bunch people together some will make friends, some will make enemies, some will fall in love and some will fall in lust. Humans be humans.

100% agreed. The rules to deal with this have existed for decades, it's the enforcement of the rules that has been lacking. Which makes me skeptical that even more rules are going to change anything if the enforcement doesn't change.

This just seems to be optics, combined with an invasion of personal privacy.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Agreed, but is forcing people to disclose their private lives the best way to prevent that? A Col or CWO that wants to influence someone's career will do it whether or not they have declared their relationship.


100% agreed. I'm just sceptical that this will do anything to prevent it, though it may work to punish after the fact. That said, when talking sexual assault, there are already lots of criminal and administrative ways to deal with it.


100% agreed. The rules to deal with this have existed for decades, it's the enforcement of the rules that has been lacking. Which makes me skeptical that even more rules are going to change anything if the enforcement doesn't change.

This just seems to be optics, combined with an invasion of personal privacy.

Agreed on all points. Consensual relationships are no business of ones employer IMHO.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Agreed on all points. Consensual relationships are no business of ones employer IMHO.

Which pretty much goes directly against the ruling of our incoming Governor General when she was leading the inquiry into CAF culture fails etc ....

 

[QV]

Anyone getting into any kind of intimate workplace relationship is pogo sticking through a minefield, regardless of whether you're in the CAF or not. This should be maximally discouraged for all the administratively burdensome reasons that can negatively impact a unit.

But... things do happen and there ought to be a mechanism to address this eventuality. If two people in the same unit must be together - and due to rank/other operational considerations, one or both must now be moved - there should be an understanding from the parties there could be temporary career limiting factors (not necessarily punitive just a forced accommodation).

Where the two parties are not in the same chain of command - no issue - no ones business.... until they end up in the same chain of command.. then it becomes someone's business.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Which pretty much goes directly against the ruling of our incoming Governor General when she was leading the inquiry into CAF culture fails etc ....

Human nature does not give a F**K. Keep it consensual and above board an neither should anyone else.

Anyone getting into any kind of intimate workplace relationship is pogo sticking through a minefield, regardless of whether you're in the CAF or not. This should be maximally discouraged for all the administratively burdensome reasons that can negatively impact a unit.

But... things do happen and there ought to be a mechanism to address this eventuality. If two people in the same unit must be together - and due to rank/other operational considerations, one or both must now be moved - there should be an understanding from the parties there could be temporary career limiting factors (not necessarily punitive just a forced accommodation).

Where the two parties are not in the same chain of command - no issue - no ones business.... until they end up in the same chain of command.. then it becomes someone's business.

Its always good advice not to shit where you eat. But humans be humans.

 

[brihard]

Anyone getting into any kind of intimate workplace relationship is pogo sticking through a minefield, regardless of whether you're in the CAF or not. This should be maximally discouraged for all the administratively burdensome reasons that can negatively impact a unit.

But... things do happen and there ought to be a mechanism to address this eventuality. If two people in the same unit must be together - and due to rank/other operational considerations, one or both must now be moved - there should be an understanding from the parties there could be temporary career limiting factors (not necessarily punitive just a forced accommodation).

Where the two parties are not in the same chain of command - no issue - no ones business.... until they end up in the same chain of command.. then it becomes someone's business.

Yup, this is pretty dead on IMO.

 

[Jarnhamar]

So much for work spouses.

 

[Booter]

rank has authority in it- real or perceived. People of different ranks getting into relationships inside the organization there is at least a perceived imbalance of power/authority.

The senior rank disclosing the relationship is appropriate. “It’s my private life” when you met at work or a work function is nonsense- the employer pays for your behavior if an accusation is made. It’s also consistent with relationship disclosures in other federal departments and large civilian employers.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

So much for work spouses.

Someone should have whispered that to Trudeau and his Stepford Wives

 

[Furniture]

The senior rank disclosing the relationship is appropriate. “It’s my private life” when you met at work or a work function is nonsense- the employer pays for your behavior if an accusation is made. It’s also consistent with relationship disclosures in other federal departments and large civilian employers.

That isn't the policy though, both parties have to disclose, which is getting into the private life of Jr pers who can have their personal relationship used against them by the CoC, just as easily as a Snr person can use the relationship against them.

Also, the CAF is big. Too many seem to be looking at just within-trade/within-unit relationships. A S1 Med Tech posted to base hospital dating a MS Boatswain posted to HMCS Regina has nearly nothing in common with two lawyers in the same firm dating, or and AS2 dating an AS4 at ADM Mat in Pearkes.

 

[daftandbarmy]

rank has authority in it- real or perceived. People of different ranks getting into relationships inside the organization there is at least a perceived imbalance of power/authority.

The senior rank disclosing the relationship is appropriate. “It’s my private life” when you met at work or a work function is nonsense- the employer pays for your behavior if an accusation is made. It’s also consistent with relationship disclosures in other federal departments and large civilian employers.

OTOH, I wonder if they'll also be as keen to tackle any obvious cases of nepotism 'related' to known romantic engagements ...

 

[Booter]

OTOH, I wonder if they'll also be as keen to tackle any obvious cases of nepotism 'related' to known romantic engagements ...

They should be. Ideally it would keep them out of the kitchen on any decisions relating to that other party.

 

[Booter]

That isn't the policy though, both parties have to disclose, which is getting into the private life of Jr pers who can have their personal relationship used against them by the CoC, just as easily as a Snr person can use the relationship against them.

Also, the CAF is big. Too many seem to be looking at just within-trade/within-unit relationships. A S1 Med Tech posted to base hospital dating a MS Boatswain posted to HMCS Regina has nearly nothing in common with two lawyers in the same firm dating, or and AS2 dating an AS4 at ADM Mat in Pearkes.

“Armed Forces says onus will be on senior member to flag relations with subordinate”

It doesn’t matter if they aren’t in the same stream- this is about a new member of the CF being approached by a person with rank and not feeling they are in a position to decline the advances.

It also protects the senior rank- because when these things go south the allegation always goes up. There’s protection in being transparent in this stuff. Personal opinion I guess

It is to identify potential conflicts of interest.

The lowest portion of this is the in trade relationships. It’s super weird that people in here can’t see authority imbalances across lines inherent to rank.

I also deal with this a lot elsewhere so maybe that’s colouring my impression.

 

[QV]

The lowest portion of this is the in trade relationships. It’s super weird that people in here can’t see authority imbalances across lines inherent to rank.

Pretty sure everyone is cognizant of that. You also can't/won't stop two people getting together who want to do so. You can only minimize the impact.

 

[Furniture]

“Armed Forces says onus will be on senior member to flag relations with subordinate”

It doesn’t matter if they aren’t in the same stream- this is about a new member of the CF being approached by a person with rank and not feeling they are in a position to decline the advances.

It is to identify potential conflicts of interest.

The lowest portion of this is the in trade relationships. It’s super weird that people in here can’t see authority imbalances across lines inherent to rank.

I also deal with this a lot elsewhere so maybe that’s colouring my impression.

Nobody has argued that there doesn't need to be policy...

Nobody has argued that power imbalanced can't/don't exist.

We have argued that the new policy has the potential to create problems, and will not solve problems that the former policies couldn't.