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

[SupersonicMax]

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.

 

[Cloud Cover]

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.

 

[Kat Stevens]

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!

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Yes we might see more of this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IQJY5SsJ64

 

[SupersonicMax]

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.

 

[Cloud Cover]

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.

 

[Jarnhamar]

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.

 

[SupersonicMax]

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.

 

[brihard]

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.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

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.

 

[brihard]

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.

 

[Infanteer]

...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....

 

[daftandbarmy]

...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.

 

[Jarnhamar]

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.

 

[daftandbarmy]

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)

 

[dapaterson]

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."

 

[Eye In The Sky]

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

 

[Colin Parkinson]

...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. 

 

[Brad Sallows]

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.

 

[lenaitch]

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.