So. On the topic of security clearances, we let in a bunch of people without them- a “we ll sort it out during training” thing to get the “right” folks in- there was some naming conventions that slowed things down- and residences and family etc.
The overwhelming majority were fine- as you would expect. But we also let in a bunch of known gang members.
There is a barrier there that causes an issue for some certain applicants. But it really is necessary-
The answer? In case anyone is interested- is to take security seriously and dedicate the right amount of resources. Not to risk it out and go “oops”
As someone who works within a trade where clearances actually have an impact, I completely agree. Most of all our allies, who we piggy back on with on everything equipment to software to TTPs, expect us to be diligent; diversity be damned.I’m of course being a bit of a bitch. But it’s either a thing you do or it’s not. If it’s important you do it- and if it’s not let’s not act like it is.
No we won't, that would imply that there was difficulty recruiting white people as well.Soon enough we will get reports that the CF isn’t doing enough to recruit people period.
I can't imagine how horrible that would be. I've worked with a few French guys who couldn't speak English and other people who could speak English but had an accent so thick that no one could understand them. Fortunately none of these experiences were on a live range or involved anything that could explode.Bit ofpropagandamedia rehashing, from two hours ago: Military failing to remove barriers to diversifying ranks: ombudsman
Okay so should we be enrolling folks that can't even speak one of the two constitutional and working languages of the Forces?
Then, what in the world do security clearances have to do with racism?
And for the third one... so... fix racism with more racism? Got it.
When white people aren't joining, which they aren't now, you know you have REAL issues.No we won't, that would imply that there was difficulty recruiting white people as well.
I mean the organization has openly said they don't want them.When white people aren't joining, which they aren't now, you know you have REAL issues.
I mean the organization has openly said they don't want them.
It was definitely inferred from recent media statements.Just genuinely curious ... is that actually formally stated anywhere, or is it just an 'informal policy'?
Seventy-one per cent of military members are white men compared with 39 per cent in the civilian workforce, added Maj.-Gen. Lise Bourgon.
“We can and we must do better to establish a more inclusive culture where we don’t have to change to fit in,” said Bourgon, deputy commander of Military Personnel Command.
“Diversity enhances readiness and in turn, our operational effectiveness.”
So you white men when the next war comes along don’t join. Let the good idea fairies and the social engineers grab weapons and go.It was definitely inferred from recent media statements.
Want to boost military recruits? Diversity, cultural change are key: officials - National | Globalnews.ca
Members of the Canadian Forces are being called on to do more, including in eastern Europe amid Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Boosting recruitment is vital, said officials.globalnews.ca
Then there is this article from Toronto Star:
Too white and too male, Canadian Armed Forces are rethinking recruiting as staffing slides, senior officers say
“Culture change is a ‘must have,’ rather than a ‘nice to have,’ and not only for our current, but also for our future defence team members.”www.thestar.com
The CAF really shouldn't be in the business of alienating anyone.So you white men when the next war comes along don’t join. Let the good idea fairies and the social engineers grab weapons and go.
Social Justice warriors and climate change alarmists can go too
Want to boost military recruits? Diversity, cultural change are key: officials - National | Globalnews.ca
Members of the Canadian Forces are being called on to do more, including in eastern Europe amid Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Boosting recruitment is vital, said officials.globalnews.ca
I tried to institute some diversity back in the day. My diverse beliefs that my American jacket liner was good kit, or that fleece jacket was outerwear was not shared by the CoC... and so I was punished and forced to wear the "jean jacket"."Diversity enhances readiness and in turn, our operational effectiveness.”
Riiiiight.
I am all for diversity as long as everyone is on the same page when it comes to the mission."Diversity enhances readiness and in turn, our operational effectiveness.”
Riiiiight.
…OFP is so arbitrary. We could defer until they deploy as part of the ITDP*What the CAF needs to do is let people who fail PO checks in training pass anyways and just get the PO checks some time down the road at their unit.
If we ever want to be as effective a fighting force as the Russians we need to be following their lead on this. Four days training. “Parking brake is here”…OFP is so arbitrary. We could defer until they deploy as part of the ITDP*
*In-Theatre DAG Process
I mean I looked for the ref one time on what OFP in the Navy meant?…OFP is so arbitrary. We could defer until they deploy as part of the ITDP*
*In-Theatre DAG Process
"Diversity enhances readiness and in turn, our operational effectiveness.”
Riiiiight.
I'm a huge believer in diversity and think the GBA+ type training (NATO JADL, not that joke on DLN) is important. But not if we're stupid about it.Those kind of sentences make me grit my teeth.