Author Topic: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks  (Read 18259 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline LittleBlackDevil

  • Member
  • ****
  • 7,320
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 227
  • Hostium acie nominati
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:

Quote
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.

Offline Blackadder1916

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 256,045
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,436
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/index.php/topic,132996.msg1629664.html#msg1629664
Whisky for the gentlemen that like it. And for the gentlemen that don't like it - Whisky.

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 349,000
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,964
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
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.

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.
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Offline HiTechComms

  • Guest
  • *
  • 2,025
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 23
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.


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? :whistle:

More importantly who gets to determine Identifiable? (A literal Racist? :orly:)

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:


Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 60,208
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,130
  • Ready Aye Ready
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.
Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Offline SupersonicMax

    is back home.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 98,980
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,005
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.

Offline CloudCover

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 62,740
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,724
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.

... Move!! ...

Offline Target Up

    ........pull, patch, and score.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 261,195
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,273
  • that's how we roll in redneck land
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!
Apparently, a "USUAL SUSPECT"

“In peace there's nothing so becomes a man as modest stillness and humility; but when the blast of war blows in our ears, then imitate the action of the tiger; stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood, disguise fair nature with hard-favor'd rage.”

 Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and start slitting throats

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 184,090
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,705
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca

Offline SupersonicMax

    is back home.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 98,980
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,005
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.

Offline CloudCover

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 62,740
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,724
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.
... Move!! ...

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 375,461
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,592
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.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2020, 20:32:05 by Jarnhamar »
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline SupersonicMax

    is back home.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 98,980
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,005
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.

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 349,000
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,964
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
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.
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 184,090
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,705
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
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.

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 349,000
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,964
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
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.
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Online Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 209,325
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,756
  • Honey Badger FTW!
...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....
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 331,275
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,651
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
...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.

"Now listen to me you benighted muckers. We're going to teach you soldiering. The world's noblest profession. When we're done with you, you'll be able to slaughter your enemies like civilized men." Daniel Dravot

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 375,461
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,592
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.
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 331,275
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,651
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was

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)
"Now listen to me you benighted muckers. We're going to teach you soldiering. The world's noblest profession. When we're done with you, you'll be able to slaughter your enemies like civilized men." Daniel Dravot

Offline dapaterson

    Halfway to being an idiot-savant.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 554,440
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,672

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."
Putting the *** in acerbic.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 244,810
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,421
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
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


Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 184,090
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,705
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
...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. 

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 108,895
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,599
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.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline lenaitch

  • Member
  • ****
  • 11,090
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 160
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.