Army.ca Forums

The Newsroom => Military Current Affairs & News => Topic started by: OceanBonfire on September 16, 2020, 18:43:47

Title: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: OceanBonfire on September 16, 2020, 18:43:47
We'll see if that "explicit direction" will actually be clear. I don't really have my hopes up though.

Quote
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.

Lt.-Gen. Wayne Eyre told CBC News he also will reinforce the message personally by convening a meeting of all commanding officers and regimental sergeants major — 450 mid-level leaders — to discuss the problem of far-right infiltration of the military.

...

Eyre, who acknowledged last week that the army has a growing problem of right-wing extremism, also reiterated his determination to "crush" hateful ideology and acts in the ranks.

...

Eyre said that, with the upcoming order, he intends "to lay out my expectations for the actions that need to be taken, the proactive actions, the decisiveness that we have to deal with these cases.

...

Jaime Kirzner-Roberts, the director of The Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center's campaign against anti-Semitism, said she would like to know if the navy and the air force plan to issue to similar directives.

...

The question of whether military commanders have enough legal authority — either through the National Defence Act or the Criminal Code of Canada — to address the growing problem is up for debate.

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.

...


https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/eyre-canadian-army-neo-nazi-white-supremacist-1.5724026
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Spencer100 on September 16, 2020, 19:12:55
I wish the Liberals would just get to end state goal and appoint their Zampolit.  Make easier on everyone.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Jarnhamar on September 16, 2020, 19:15:50
Quote
"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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: SupersonicMax on September 16, 2020, 19:41:54
Here’s a good debate question:

Given the behaviours we are trying to abolish are already outlawed, is there a need for further directive?
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: CBH99 on September 16, 2020, 19:44:42
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).
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Colin P on September 16, 2020, 19:53:24
and antifa, Communists, Warrior society?
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Eye In The Sky on September 16, 2020, 20:02:34
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! 
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: ModlrMike on September 16, 2020, 20:20:21
Here's another debate question:

Are we seeing more because there is more, or are we just better at recognizing it?
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: PPCLI Guy on September 16, 2020, 20:27:27
WE have more cases because we are doing more testing.....
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: PuckChaser on September 16, 2020, 20:49:14
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Quirky on September 16, 2020, 20:54:14
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: MJP on September 16, 2020, 20:58:49
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. 
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: BeyondTheNow on September 16, 2020, 22:43:51
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: PuckChaser on September 16, 2020, 23:35:04
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:

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: BeyondTheNow on September 16, 2020, 23:44:54
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...
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: MJP on September 17, 2020, 00:18:28
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.

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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: ballz on September 17, 2020, 00:42:30
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: MJP on September 17, 2020, 00:56:54
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Eye In The Sky on September 17, 2020, 22:37:56
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: PuckChaser on September 17, 2020, 22:50:58
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?
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: MJP on September 17, 2020, 22:55:47
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Eye In The Sky on September 17, 2020, 23:32:10
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? 
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Eye In The Sky on September 17, 2020, 23:39:13
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...
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: MJP on September 17, 2020, 23:43:31
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Eye In The Sky on September 17, 2020, 23:46:49
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.   :D
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Eye In The Sky on September 17, 2020, 23:55:48
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: LittleBlackDevil on September 18, 2020, 15:15:55
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: LittleBlackDevil on September 18, 2020, 15:17:12
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?
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: reveng on September 18, 2020, 17:25:25
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:
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Eye In The Sky on September 18, 2020, 21:01:03
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:
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: LittleBlackDevil on September 19, 2020, 09:44:59
Good points, reveng.

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).

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.

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).
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Infanteer on September 19, 2020, 11:21:11
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Eye In The Sky on September 19, 2020, 11:42:31
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. 
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Brihard on September 19, 2020, 11:43:33
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Infanteer on September 19, 2020, 11:47:54
Brihard said it better than I above.

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?
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Infanteer on September 19, 2020, 11:51:33
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Jarnhamar on September 19, 2020, 11:57:10
Quote from: 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?

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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Infanteer on September 19, 2020, 12:04:05
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: mariomike on September 19, 2020, 12:06:51
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Brihard on September 19, 2020, 12:26:55
Towards the end on my career, a number of guys committed career suicide via social media.

Yup, this is an increasing phenomenon for sure.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Jarnhamar on September 19, 2020, 13:19:02
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 crap.


Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Jarnhamar on September 19, 2020, 13:19:51
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: reveng on September 19, 2020, 13:20:47
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:
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Brad Sallows on September 19, 2020, 13:39:06
>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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Navy_Pete on September 19, 2020, 16:27:42
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. 
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: mariomike on September 19, 2020, 16:42:39
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Target Up on September 19, 2020, 16:43:31
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?
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: MJP on September 19, 2020, 17:02:13
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.
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.

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 
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Brihard on September 19, 2020, 17:28:49
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?
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: MJP on September 19, 2020, 18:08:12
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. 
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Haggis on September 19, 2020, 19:32:03


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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Haggis on September 19, 2020, 19:50:04


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.

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 **** or you're not.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: mariomike on September 19, 2020, 19:56:25
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.

Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: shawn5o on September 20, 2020, 14:05:07
If i may relate to these quotes

Quote
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

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:
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Eye In The Sky on September 20, 2020, 17:43:06
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...
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Eye In The Sky on September 20, 2020, 18:03:55
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.

Quote
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...

Quote
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. 
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Nuggs on September 20, 2020, 18:19:27
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
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: ArmyRick on September 21, 2020, 08:13:22
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: lenaitch on September 21, 2020, 10:06:28
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.

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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Hamish Seggie on September 21, 2020, 17:09:04
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.

Well said Rick - who da thought back in 1994 you'd be a beacon of hope?  ;D
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: LittleBlackDevil on September 23, 2020, 16:29:53
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"?

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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: daftandbarmy on September 23, 2020, 17:50:29
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

Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Donald H on September 23, 2020, 18:23:13
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: daftandbarmy on September 23, 2020, 18:33:54
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: lenaitch on September 23, 2020, 18:39:40
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Donald H on September 23, 2020, 20:23:17
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:

Quote
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:
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Hamish Seggie on September 23, 2020, 20:46:42
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"

Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Tcm621 on September 23, 2020, 21:59:09
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
Quote

"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.

Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: FJAG on September 23, 2020, 23:38:43
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://www.ceu.edu/article/2014-03-13/tale-two-book-burnings-heines-warning-context)

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

http://www.ibn-rushd.org/typo3/cms/de/magazine/10th-issue-summer-2010/tawfiq-dawani/ (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:
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: daftandbarmy on September 24, 2020, 10:12:43
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://www.ceu.edu/article/2014-03-13/tale-two-book-burnings-heines-warning-context)

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

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

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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Eaglelord17 on September 24, 2020, 19:35:46
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'.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: FJAG on September 24, 2020, 22:08:58
Could someone post a copy of the Army Commander's 25 page order on this subject or identify a public link to it?

 :cheers:
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Hamish Seggie on September 25, 2020, 00:46:58
. 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!
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: CloudCover on September 25, 2020, 01:06:59
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Eaglelord17 on September 25, 2020, 07:08:06
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: daftandbarmy on September 25, 2020, 12:47:17
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Hamish Seggie on September 25, 2020, 14:00:10
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Colin P on September 25, 2020, 15:03:42
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Ralph on September 25, 2020, 16:41:39
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".
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Hamish Seggie on September 25, 2020, 17:02:05
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: FJAG on September 25, 2020, 19:42:19
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program)

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:
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on September 25, 2020, 21:13:35
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.")
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: daftandbarmy on September 25, 2020, 21:25:14
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 ;)
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: FJAG on September 25, 2020, 21:55:38
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)

 :pop:
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: dangerboy on September 25, 2020, 22:01:23
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
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: MJP on September 25, 2020, 22:09:33
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
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Infanteer on September 26, 2020, 09:48:09
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: dapaterson on September 26, 2020, 10:36:37
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on September 26, 2020, 12:03:22
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
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Nuggs on September 26, 2020, 12:08:02
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
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: daftandbarmy on September 26, 2020, 13:46:41
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

And, if you're a reservist, there goes a few pay sheets worth of time that can't be invested preparing troops for war.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: kev994 on September 26, 2020, 19:22:23
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
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: daftandbarmy on September 26, 2020, 20:54:15
We work in an organization where labour is free

Except where you are limited to 37 man days per year, of course.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Navy_Pete on September 26, 2020, 20:56:06
Maybe a dumb question, but noticed this near the end on 'Note 7'

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: ballz on September 26, 2020, 21:12:13
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.

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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: MJP on September 26, 2020, 21:13:55
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Eye In The Sky on September 26, 2020, 21:56:21
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/index.php/topic,132996.msg1629044.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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Target Up on September 26, 2020, 22:24:38
Why was my post removed, too accurate?
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: MJP on September 26, 2020, 22:44:01
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/index.php/topic,132996.msg1629044.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.

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 

Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Infanteer on September 26, 2020, 23:13:42
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Target Up on September 26, 2020, 23:28:19
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Navy_Pete on September 26, 2020, 23:53:26
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).
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Jarnhamar on September 27, 2020, 00:28:07
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: ballz on September 27, 2020, 01:22:04
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...
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Haggis on September 27, 2020, 04:48:04
Except where you are limited to 37 man peoplekind days per year, of course.
FTFY.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: daftandbarmy on September 27, 2020, 12:02:29
FTFY.

 :rofl:
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: MJP on September 27, 2020, 14:58:28
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. 

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. 


Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: ballz on September 27, 2020, 16:37:05
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: shawn5o on September 27, 2020, 16:45:24
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
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on September 27, 2020, 16:54:30
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Donald H on September 27, 2020, 16:57:21
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

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:
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: shawn5o on September 27, 2020, 17:04:39
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:

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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: MJP on September 27, 2020, 17:14:49
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

No they don't, nor do they have too.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Donald H on September 27, 2020, 17:17:38
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: FJAG on September 27, 2020, 17:34:14
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:
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Colin P on September 27, 2020, 17:57:50
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: shawn5o on September 27, 2020, 18:33:12
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on September 27, 2020, 18:37:19
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: dapaterson on September 27, 2020, 18:37:29
Admin actions are not disciplinary.  Don't confuse DAOD 5019 with QR&O volume II.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: shawn5o on September 27, 2020, 18:40:23
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:
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Target Up on September 27, 2020, 18:57:37
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 crap 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 ***, 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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: PuckChaser on September 27, 2020, 19:31:41
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Navy_Pete on September 27, 2020, 20:30:01
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.

Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Colin P on September 28, 2020, 00:57:18
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on September 28, 2020, 01:15:56
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. 
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: QV on September 28, 2020, 01:22:12
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. 
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: ballz on September 28, 2020, 02:03:31
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Hamish Seggie on September 28, 2020, 08:58:26
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. ;)
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Infanteer on September 28, 2020, 09:48:02
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: daftandbarmy on September 28, 2020, 11:17:38
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:
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Colin P on September 28, 2020, 13:52:24
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"
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: shawn5o on September 28, 2020, 13:52:58
No they don't, nor do they have too.

and

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.

Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: PuckChaser on September 28, 2020, 19:57:28
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: MJP on September 28, 2020, 20:39:24
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.



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?
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Infanteer on September 28, 2020, 21:02:46
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: MJP on September 28, 2020, 21:47:27
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).
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: QV on September 29, 2020, 00:03:13
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. 
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: ballz on September 29, 2020, 05:31:46
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 :D 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 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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: daftandbarmy on September 29, 2020, 10:22:36
I was going to mention that, but he actually gets irritated when you re-phrase it that way too :D 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
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Eye In The Sky on October 02, 2020, 10:42:26
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 

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. 
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: lenaitch on October 02, 2020, 11:35:02
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: daftandbarmy on October 02, 2020, 13:39:52
Hey Stella, where are you from?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crAv5ttax2I
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Jarnhamar on October 04, 2020, 20:07:14
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
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EjfE6SeWoAAd2fT?format=jpg&name=medium)

That's bound to ruffle some feathers.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: SeaKingTacco on October 04, 2020, 20:17:19
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
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EjfE6SeWoAAd2fT?format=jpg&name=medium)

That's bound to ruffle some feathers.

Why would it ruffle feathers?
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Jarnhamar on October 04, 2020, 20:36:16
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: dapaterson on October 04, 2020, 21:04:06
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Jarnhamar on October 04, 2020, 22:06:03
What's the larger group flooding social media about? Some kind of hostile take over of the hashtag or something else?
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Infanteer on October 04, 2020, 22:16:23
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
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: ballz on October 04, 2020, 22:29:16
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: dapaterson on October 04, 2020, 22:31:07
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.

Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Jarnhamar on October 04, 2020, 22:59:43
:rofl:

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

I think that falls under sexual assault these days.

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
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Dimsum on October 04, 2020, 23:25:08
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
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Jarnhamar on October 04, 2020, 23:37:40
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?
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: reveng on October 04, 2020, 23:50:52
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
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: MJP on October 05, 2020, 01:25:56
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.

Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: reveng on October 05, 2020, 01:34:46
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: MJP on October 05, 2020, 01:44:16
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". 
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Tcm621 on October 05, 2020, 02:20:40
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.

Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: BeyondTheNow on October 05, 2020, 03:10:13
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Bread Guy on October 05, 2020, 10:42:47
... 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 (https://www.macleans.ca/politics/the-genius-behind-the-cafinus-twitter-account/), someone (one hopes) who's well aware of what can and can't make it through the information machine's filters. 
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Furniture on October 05, 2020, 10:51:03
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Jarnhamar on October 05, 2020, 10:55:05
Quote from: 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.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/Enrique_Tarrio_-_International_Chairman_Proud_Boys.jpg/800px-Enrique_Tarrio_-_International_Chairman_Proud_Boys.jpg)

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)
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Remius on October 05, 2020, 18:57:06

More on the hashtag takeover.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/gay-men-proud-boys-hashtag/?fbclid=IwAR08D95k_jf3ym-rSSUt4t7DxuepY-MDNsIXvkvZj1WEqNwgiicjwWxhO3w
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Eaglelord17 on October 06, 2020, 07:24:24
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Jarnhamar on October 06, 2020, 12:37:07
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?
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: SupersonicMax on October 06, 2020, 12:48:52
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Tcm621 on October 06, 2020, 13:06:33
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?

Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Brihard on October 06, 2020, 13:10:08
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: SupersonicMax on October 06, 2020, 13:27:58
'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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: MJP on October 06, 2020, 14:21:37
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: LittleBlackDevil on October 06, 2020, 14:26:19
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Blackadder1916 on October 06, 2020, 15:03:39
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
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Brihard on October 06, 2020, 15:21:24
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: HiTechComms on October 06, 2020, 16:42:44
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:

Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Halifax Tar on October 06, 2020, 17:10:43
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: SupersonicMax on October 06, 2020, 17:45:10
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: CloudCover on October 06, 2020, 19:45:48
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.

Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Target Up on October 06, 2020, 20:07:57
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!
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Colin P on October 06, 2020, 20:15:21
Yes we might see more of this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IQJY5SsJ64
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: SupersonicMax on October 06, 2020, 21:04:04
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: CloudCover on October 06, 2020, 21:14:59
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Jarnhamar on October 06, 2020, 21:29:03
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: SupersonicMax on October 06, 2020, 21:45:37
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Brihard on October 06, 2020, 21:56:40
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Colin P on October 06, 2020, 21:57:07
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Brihard on October 06, 2020, 22:56:49
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Infanteer on October 06, 2020, 23:27:30
...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....
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: daftandbarmy on October 06, 2020, 23:59:48
...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.

Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Jarnhamar on October 07, 2020, 10:53:46
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: daftandbarmy on October 07, 2020, 11:17:37

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)
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: dapaterson on October 07, 2020, 11:24:54

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."
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Eye In The Sky on October 07, 2020, 15:27:19
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

Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Colin P on October 07, 2020, 15:42:46
...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. 
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: Brad Sallows on October 07, 2020, 16:13:02
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: lenaitch on October 07, 2020, 20:41:16
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.
Title: Re: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks
Post by: MJP on October 07, 2020, 21:10:23
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 crap in the first place have no issues.