Search results

I'd generally say by providing a set of visual examples of what is and isn't acceptable, and let people work from that. Same dude with a long beard , in unkempt version versus properly groomed. As always, chains of command using their best judgement. Like, man, I dunno. Literally everyone...

I don't feel that's really the case. While on the job, it's reasonable to have expectations on how you present yourself, as long as those expectations don't unduly limit how someone expresses themselves while off duty. The issue with hair dye and beards and all that jazz when it comes to the...

Hats cause hat hair, and many people find those hats they're expected to wear to be either uncomfortable, ugly, or some combination thereof. Sometimes it's nice to let the wind run through your hair / across your scalp. Allowing the person to chose whether or not to wear it will allow each...

... please refer above to where I advocated for stricter grooming standards. Dress and deportment are important alongside personal expression; I'm just arguing that it shouldn't be at the expense of. Dictating how someone wears the uniform and how they groom themselves when they do is all well...

Well yes, because if members have a right to recieve services in either official languages, that also implies an onus upon people to be able to provide services in both official languages, should they wish to get promoted and start supervising people who prefer a different official language than...

I disagree with the premise. Inclusivity increases effectiveness. Exclusivity decreases it. Excluding people for literally any reason that doesn't have a negative impact on operational effectiveness... decreases operational effectiveness of the CAF. Only bona fide operational requirements are...

We exclude a large swath of society based upon bone fide operational requirements. We want the best, in terms of actually being able to do the job. The very nature of the work will exclude a number of people, sure. That's a good enough reason to not go and start excluding others based upon...

Frankly, I couldn't disagree more. Ok, so let's go with a thought experiment here. If we want to have clear standards that distinguish ourselves from the broader society, why not make purple hair and goatees mandatory? It's clear, it's a standard. It would certainly mark us as exclusive. Why...

We are writing our dress policy to be broadly inclusive, because inclusivity is a fundamental Canadian value. And frankly, at the end of the day I would consider that actually walking the walk when it comes to such values is more important than whatever "credibility" we might lose from other...

The changes were not a recruitment thing. It was an equity thing, prompted by a briefing note drafted up by the Defence Women's Advisory Organization. No one seriously expected it to start bringing a bunch of people in the door.

At the end of the day, are we writing the Canadian Forces Dress Instructions to appease foreigners, or are we trying to write something that works for Canadians? There are plenty of things that we as a society allow or encourage or celebrate which many of our allies find distasteful. Too f'in...

Well, the relevant comments on the reddit thread were based upon rumours that the pair wanted to put an injured caribou out of its misery, and either A) didn't ask the relevant authorities, or B) asked, were told no, and did it anyways. In either case, I'll refer back to your previous comment...

Well, I mean, charges are being laid. It's reasonable to speculate about what circumstances led to the incident in question, because there was an incident in question. The notion that it's "unlikely" for anything to have happened without permission isn't really all that compatible with what's...

Please don't bloody well put words in my mouth. Freedom of religion is absolutely important, and I will absolutely defend anyone's rights to worship as they choose. Their faith is important to them, and their freedom to practice their faith is important to Canada. But that does not mean that...

Religion itself is tolerated. Religion as a function of government is not. Because those two things should not mix.

... No one in crisis is receiving help via prayers at public ceremonies. Quit straw-manning. Religion is a private matter for individuals (and groups thereof), and is not something that the government should ever be either encouraging or discouraging. Compelling attendance at events with...

I think there's a discussion to be had about conduct versus performance issues. I'm generally inclined to treat the latter more harshly, since deliberates choices are made to engage in wrongdoing, rather than someone simply screwing up, even if the consequences of any particular screw up might...

Civilian calls boss an idiot: gets fired immediately Military member does same: "Why is she being put on remedial measures? She hasn't been convicted of insubordination! <insert sounds of misplaced indignation>" Edit: Actually, now that I think about it, that does raise a point. The charges...

The criminal justice system has a presumption of innocence. Neither I, nor anyone else here, is the criminal justice system incarnate, and we're thus free to come to our own conclusions, without relying upon the results of a rather flawed process. Even when it comes to more official matters...

People are free to practice their own religions as they see fit. Nothing at all is being watered down simply by not having the government promoting it. Eliminating unfair and unreasonable promotion of religion is not doing harm to it. It's just bringing things back to neutral. No religion ever...