Author Topic: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks  (Read 18272 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline OceanBonfire

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 51,515
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 544
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
Recruiting Centre: Montreal
Regular/Reserve: Regular Force
Officer/NCM: Officer (DEO)
Occupation choice: Logistics Officer
Current application: March 2017
CFAT: Previously completed in November 2011
Interview: July 2017
Medical: August 2017
Competition list: October/November 2017
Position Offered: May 2018
Swearing In: August 2018
BMOQ: August 2018
BMOQ Graduation: November 2018
OFP: December 2019

Offline Spencer100

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 16,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 660
I wish the Liberals would just get to end state goal and appoint their Zampolit.  Make easier on everyone.

Offline Jarnhamar

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

Online SupersonicMax

    is back home.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 98,980
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,005
Here’s a good debate question:

Given the behaviours we are trying to abolish are already outlawed, is there a need for further directive?
« Last Edit: September 16, 2020, 19:08:46 by SupersonicMax »

Offline CBH99

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 54,020
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,389
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).
Fortune Favours the Bold...and the Smart.

Wouldn't it be nice to have some Boondock Saints kicking around?

Online Colin P

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

Offline Eye In The Sky

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

Online ModlrMike

    : Riding time again... woohooo!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 230,764
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,081
    • Canadian Association of Physician Assistants
Here's another debate question:

Are we seeing more because there is more, or are we just better at recognizing it?
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may create the illusion that you are tougher,smarter, faster and better looking than most people.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. (H.L. Mencken 1919)
Zero tolerance is the politics of the lazy. All it requires is that you do nothing and ban everything.

Offline PPCLI Guy

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 243,145
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,949
  • It's all good
WE have more cases because we are doing more testing.....
"The higher the rank, the more necessary it is that boldness should be accompanied by a reflective mind....for with increase in rank it becomes always a matter less of self-sacrifice and more a matter of the preservation of others, and the good of the whole."

Karl von Clausewitz

Offline PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 953,095
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,801
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.

Offline Quirky

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 15,255
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 446
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.
Life is too short to drive a boring car.

Online MJP

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 200,120
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,868
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. 
« Last Edit: September 16, 2020, 22:27:00 by MJP »
Hope is not a valid COA

Offline BeyondTheNow

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 118,625
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,827
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.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2020, 21:48:52 by BeyondTheNow »
”You don’t have a right to the cards you believe you should have been dealt. You have an obligation to play the hell out of the ones you’re holding. ”
~Cheryl Strayed

“The aim of argument, or of discussion should not be victory, but progress.”~Joseph Joubert

Offline PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 953,095
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,801
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.

Offline BeyondTheNow

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 118,625
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,827
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...
”You don’t have a right to the cards you believe you should have been dealt. You have an obligation to play the hell out of the ones you’re holding. ”
~Cheryl Strayed

“The aim of argument, or of discussion should not be victory, but progress.”~Joseph Joubert

Online MJP

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 200,120
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,868
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.
Hope is not a valid COA

Offline ballz

    ...

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 133,536
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,534
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.
Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?

Online MJP

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 200,120
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,868
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.
Hope is not a valid COA

Offline Eye In The Sky

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

Offline PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 953,095
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,801
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?

Online MJP

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 200,120
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,868
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.
Hope is not a valid COA

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 244,810
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,421
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
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? 
« Last Edit: September 17, 2020, 23:05:44 by Eye In The Sky »

Offline Eye In The Sky

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

Online MJP

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 200,120
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,868
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.
Hope is not a valid COA

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 244,810
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,421
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
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
« Last Edit: September 17, 2020, 22:58:43 by Eye In The Sky »