• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks

OceanBonfire

Sr. Member
Reaction score
53
Points
330
We'll see if that "explicit direction" will actually be clear. I don't really have my hopes up though.

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
 

Spencer100

Sr. Member
Reaction score
28
Points
280
I wish the Liberals would just get to end state goal and appoint their Zampolit.  Make easier on everyone.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,311
Points
1,060
"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.
 

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
600
Points
910
Here’s a good debate question:

Given the behaviours we are trying to abolish are already outlawed, is there a need for further directive?
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
693
Points
990
SupersonicMax said:
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).
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
396
Points
910
SupersonicMax said:
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! 
 

ModlrMike

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
567
Points
960
Here's another debate question:

Are we seeing more because there is more, or are we just better at recognizing it?
 

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
650
Points
1,060
Jarnhamar said:
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.
 

Quirky

Sr. Member
Reaction score
123
Points
480
PuckChaser said:
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.
 

MJP

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
385
Points
980
PuckChaser said:
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. 
 

BeyondTheNow

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
5
Points
530
OceanBonfire said:
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.
 

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
650
Points
1,060
MJP said:
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:

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.
 

BeyondTheNow

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
5
Points
530
PuckChaser said:
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...
 

MJP

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
385
Points
980
PuckChaser said:
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.

PuckChaser said:
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.
 

ballz

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
274
Points
910
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.
 

MJP

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
385
Points
980
ballz said:
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.
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
396
Points
910
ballz said:
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.
 

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
650
Points
1,060
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?
 
Top