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

[Navy_Pete]

Good info, thanks!

Also, calling it a 'research' project helps take the pressure off of everyone re: doing something, anything, about the findings of course

Pretty standard to include recommendations and area for future work. As this seems like initial study, would expect it to start out with some 'feeling out' in phase 1 and then target on specific things. Expect it will include a bunch of surveys, but curious to see how they will investigate if CAF members hold extremist views without actually investigating CAF members directly in any kind of meaningful way.

For example, think it's completely reasonable for someone in the CSIS/security side to actively investigate CAF members social media etc if someone has identified someone as a possible threat, or if they've been identified as belonging to a group while looking at that specific group. Doing that proactively for an entire group would be a massive invasion of privacy IMO, but think inferring the extent of the problem from survey responses is questionable at best. Statistically I would expect the number of incidences to be comparable to Canada in general as we are a reflection of society in general, but if there is a genuine effort from extremists to infiltrate the CAF or other institutions I can't see that being uncovered by some sociologists asking a few questions.

Personally think we have the tools to deal with this already, but am always wary of things like these which go into it with a presumption that there is a problem, so the surveys and whatnot are skewed to situate the estimate and not to gather objective data. Am sure there are individuals with issues, and units with problems, but think an overarching determination is probably a massive simplification and generalization of a complicated issue that you need to look at the microscopic level. The recent cases we know about are all totally different with very different contexts, so not sure how you try and superimpose general observations from that.

 

[Blackadder1916]

Personally think we have the tools to deal with this already, but am always wary of things like these which go into it with a presumption that there is a problem, so the surveys and whatnot are skewed to situate the estimate and not to gather objective data. . . . 

But, is the "real" purpose of the study to identify the problem, its extent and propose solutions or is it (as I somewhat cynically suppose) to be the "matter is under study" response the next time that the actions of some uniformed numpty hits the media.

A lot of the work that is farmed out to consultants could be done in-house but the perception (on the part of leadership, political/mandarin oversight and the public) is that expertise and objectivity is lacking if a study was done by CAF or departmental staff.

I'm always a little suspicious of consultants' reports, but that stems from the 1980s when as a fresh from Staff School junior officer at NDHQ, I was tasked to provide information to a consultant on short notice (. . .minutes) about the medical requirements for establishing a training centre.  As he was sitting across my desk from me, asking questions, I scribbled notes about the requirements, partly to aid my thought process and partly as a record of the meeting.  At the end of the meeting, he asked if he could have a copy of my notes, "just so that he had the numbers right"; fool that I was, I agreed.  When the report was published, the annex for medical requirements was a photocopy of my scribbled notes. 

 

[daftandbarmy]

But, is the "real" purpose of the study to identify the problem, its extent and propose solutions or is it (as I somewhat cynically suppose) to be the "matter is under study" response the next time that the actions of some uniformed numpty hits the media.

A lot of the work that is farmed out to consultants could be done in-house but the perception (on the part of leadership, political/mandarin oversight and the public) is that expertise and objectivity is lacking if a study was done by CAF or departmental staff.

I'm always a little suspicious of consultants' reports, but that stems from the 1980s when as a fresh from Staff School junior officer at NDHQ, I was tasked to provide information to a consultant on short notice (. . .minutes) about the medical requirements for establishing a training centre.  As he was sitting across my desk from me, asking questions, I scribbled notes about the requirements, partly to aid my thought process and partly as a record of the meeting.  At the end of the meeting, he asked if he could have a copy of my notes, "just so that he had the numbers right"; fool that I was, I agreed.  When the report was published, the annex for medical requirements was a photocopy of my scribbled notes.

Clearly an unethical move of the lowest kind. FWIW, anyone experiencing similar slimy experiences can report offenders to the Canadian Association of Management Consultants.

There are few things a senior partner in a consulting firm likes to do more than to make an example of an employee for an ethical breach!

 

[TCM621]

Some people seem a bit triggered. What exactly is the issue with determining if there's a scientific method to identify military members who hold extremist views? I, for one, have never seen anyone sexually assault anyone - does that mean it doesn't happen? Are you under the impression that these two professors have been deputized by the CFNIS to conduct sweeping dragnets against all the right-thinking individuals? Have some more egg nog and chill.

You can tell they are biased based on their quotes in the article.

"Anyone paying attention to the news lately knows that this is an issue that keeps cropping up. I think this is a chance to create meaningful change within the CAF as an institution..."

He has decided change is required even before the study has been started.

"This means that we have a chance to really help the CAF combat this worrisome trend."

Is there a trend? Isn't the goal of the research to find if there is a trend?

We have had 3 incidents, one of which was a group of 5 off duty sailors, 3 of which where native or metis IIRC, counter protested a protest. They weren't even rude by any reports I saw. The other 2 are a couple of reservists who are known to visit far right websites. There is no major racism or white nationalist problem in the CAF, at least not at any systematic level. Some CAF members are alcoholics, some are racists, some are sensitive, some are uber woke and some are just stupid. The CAF is suppose to represent the population and just like the population, we have some assailed in our ranks. That does not mean the CAF is a hotbed of racist, sexist, homophobes.

 

[mariomike]

The CAF is suppose to represent the population and just like the population, we have some assailed in our ranks.

People are entitled to their beliefs.  But, you can change their employment, if they treat others with disrespect.

 

[Navy_Pete]

But, is the "real" purpose of the study to identify the problem, its extent and propose solutions or is it (as I somewhat cynically suppose) to be the "matter is under study" response the next time that the actions of some uniformed numpty hits the media.

A lot of the work that is farmed out to consultants could be done in-house but the perception (on the part of leadership, political/mandarin oversight and the public) is that expertise and objectivity is lacking if a study was done by CAF or departmental staff.

I'm always a little suspicious of consultants' reports, but that stems from the 1980s when as a fresh from Staff School junior officer at NDHQ, I was tasked to provide information to a consultant on short notice (. . .minutes) about the medical requirements for establishing a training centre.  As he was sitting across my desk from me, asking questions, I scribbled notes about the requirements, partly to aid my thought process and partly as a record of the meeting.  At the end of the meeting, he asked if he could have a copy of my notes, "just so that he had the numbers right"; fool that I was, I agreed.  When the report was published, the annex for medical requirements was a photocopy of my scribbled notes.

Yeah, I've had similar experiences. Also, identifying a systematic issue that needs work is a great way to create new grants/studies/consulting fees, so read academic consulting work with the same kind of critical lens I would for any commercial contractor that might have a vested interest in any follow on. In a lot of ways, it's worse in academia than it is in normal commercial consulting, as there is a degree of prestige and profile involved vice simple economics, as well as advancing a certain viewpoint in their field, so can get really ugly with the egos involved.

On the flip side, I'm sure that I probably do or have done things that may qualify as microaggressions or otherwise been an issue for someone without realising it, but that stuff will never be resolved from the top down, so would prefer we focus our institutional efforts on the widespread small things rather then these headline grabbing extreme outliers. My opinion an a few bucks will get you a cup of coffee though, so bracing for the impact of some kind of new thrust to threaten to kick us out if we're actual Nazis.

 

[TCM621]

People are entitled to their beliefs.  But, you can change their employment, if they treat others with disrespect.

I'm not arguing otherwise, what I'm saying is that, like wider society, we will have a few bad apples in our midst. However that is a problem with those particular individuals not the CAF as a whole.

 

[mariomike]

I'm not arguing otherwise, what I'm saying is that, like wider society, we will have a few bad apples in our midst. However that is a problem with those particular individuals not the CAF as a whole.

Like wider society, there will always be a few bad apples in any organization. Because there will always be one big problem . . . they have to recruit from the human race. 

 

[daftandbarmy]

You can tell they are biased based on their quotes in the article.

"Anyone paying attention to the news lately knows that this is an issue that keeps cropping up. I think this is a chance to create meaningful change within the CAF as an institution..."

He has decided change is required even before the study has been started.

"This means that we have a chance to really help the CAF combat this worrisome trend."

Is there a trend? Isn't the goal of the research to find if there is a trend?

We have had 3 incidents, one of which was a group of 5 off duty sailors, 3 of which where native or metis IIRC, counter protested a protest. They weren't even rude by any reports I saw. The other 2 are a couple of reservists who are known to visit far right websites. There is no major racism or white nationalist problem in the CAF, at least not at any systematic level. Some CAF members are alcoholics, some are racists, some are sensitive, some are uber woke and some are just stupid. The CAF is suppose to represent the population and just like the population, we have some assailed in our ranks. That does not mean the CAF is a hotbed of racist, sexist, homophobes.

Except in our Military Colleges, right? https://globalnews.ca/news/7385815/sexual-misconduct-canadian-military-colleges-statscan/

Also, I noticed that you used the term 'hot bed'. Careful, you might trigger a submariner. (Joking!)

 

[Brad Sallows]

"Anyone paying attention to the news lately knows that this is an issue that keeps cropping up. I think this is a chance to create meaningful change within the CAF as an institution..."

Anyone paying attention to the news lately knows only that an issue has been mentioned in the news lately; the mere fact of mention is not a reliable indicator of anything other than an agency's attention.  The media are incapable of treating all issues proportionately - there is not enough time in the day - even if they were not biased.

 

[PuckChaser]

Except in our Military Colleges, right? https://globalnews.ca/news/7385815/sexual-misconduct-canadian-military-colleges-statscan/

RMC's stats are within the margin of error of the national average for Canadian Post-Secondary institutions. They should be doing better, considering its a military college, but the sky isn't falling there.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Military leaders to be held to account if extremism isn't addressed, Sajjan says

OTTAWA — Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan worries incidents of extremism and hate in the Canadian Armed Forces are on the rise — and he says military commanders will be held accountable if the problem is not addressed.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/military-leaders-to-be-held-to-account-if-extremism-isnt-addressed-sajjan-says/ar-BB1c1cgZ

 

[HiTechComms]

How will they be held accountable?
Are they gone be held accountable like Politicians or Bureaucrats?

Having worked in organizations that are aware of these problems all I forsee for CAF alot of Powerpoints and Mandatory training on how racism is bad.

 

[CBH99]

I think it's more about him making himself look good, and good PR - than any sort of tangible result.

We already have several mechanisms in place to deal with racism, sexism, and other forms of unprofessionalism.  The NDA, the CC, charges at the unit level, etc etc.

There are already several ways to get rid of dirt bags.



I've been out of the military for a few years now, but has anybody actually experienced any obvious racism over the last years between members of the CF?  Honest question, I'm genuinely curious.

I was very blessed & fortunate that a vast majority of the members I interacted with were great people. 

 

[ArmyRick]

I served 1990-2018 (4 months out in 1998). My experiences are this
-Earlier in my career, there was strong anti-women in combat arms attitude amongst some of the older NCOs and WOs. This included degrading terms like "split-a$$" and "c*nts" being muttered by them usually behind closed doors and not in the presence of officers. I want to emphasize this was a few not all
-AS more woman completed training and entered the units, that attitude gradually disappeared. I would say by around late nineties, very, very few had that attitude and behind closed doors. However evolution takes it toll and those dinosaurs eventually released. or died literally.
-Racism, from the begining, was very, very, I mean very few. And usually the lowest trash. I remember arriving at Patricia battle school and one of our fat arse logistic instructions in Cornwallis telling us the Patricias were a bunch of red neck yahoos, well we arrived at Wainwright and met our old (and very black) OC, Captain Jackson, and the old (and black again) CSM, MWO Sparks. MMmmm, assumptions made by idiots. Not racist but you can see assumptions being made
-The only really nasty racist event I remember was around mid nineties, one of the black soldiers in 2VP woke up and found N-----er spray painted on his door (close in time to the somalia inquiry). Lt Col Turner was and RSM CWO Cook were furious. The CO had threatened to bring media in and show them. The attitude amongst the boys in the battalion was lets find the f---er and give him "soldier justice"
-As a sergeant while on TCAT in '08, I got stuck supervising PAT/PAR pers in Meaford, I encountered very few racist who coincidentally, were dirt bag losers at like everything in life and couldn't keep up with training. We released the few of those idiots (for a whole pile of reasons)

Truth is during 28 years of service, I have seen very few cases of racism and sexism. I will say in the infantry, we are very politically incorrect. As an example, I remember another visible minority solder I served with (excellent soldier ended up In Dwyer Hill) always making smart *ss anti-white wise cracks that no a days, would get him in hot water. Funny, he married a white lady.

 

[MJP]

I've been out of the military for a few years now, but has anybody actually experienced any obvious racism over the last years between members of the CF?  Honest question, I'm genuinely curious.

I was very blessed & fortunate that a vast majority of the members I interacted with were great people.

We are ok at dealing with overt over the top racism and are willing to use our disciplinary and administrative powers to great affect on those that display those deficiencies.

Where we fail (IMHO) is we allow lots of low-level jokes, comments and innuendo to slide in my experience. Very much like the majority of Op HONOUR violations in that it is essentially people saying inappropriate things. Most of it is not truly meant and if given a chance to reflect on the words and their effect on people they would choose differently but it is worthwhile to remove the language from our vernacular.

 

[daftandbarmy]

We are ok at dealing with overt over the top racism and are willing to use our disciplinary and administrative powers to great affect on those that display those deficiencies.

Where we fail (IMHO) is we allow lots of low-level jokes, comments and innuendo to slide in my experience. Very much like the majority of Op HONOUR violations in that it is essentially people saying inappropriate things. Most of it is not truly meant and if given a chance to reflect on the words and their effect on people they would choose differently but it is worthwhile to remove the language from our vernacular.

Is the way that Reg Force personnel always treats Reservists considered racist?

If so, I've seen about a million incidents...

 

[FJAG]

... Most of it is not truly meant and if given a chance to reflect on the words and their effect on people they would choose differently but it is worthwhile to remove the language from our vernacular.

Is the way that Reg Force personnel always treats Reservists considered racist?

There are probably a few thousand studies and learned papers on why individuals (particularly men) make sexist, racist, etc jokes or comments and what the effect of those is on the workplace and specifically on the target class.

In those circumstances where the speaker didn't mean it (and in many cases he did or at least is expressing his true feelings about that class) it inevitably is as a result of the fact that the speaker intends to draw attention to himself and be accepted into the group to whom he is speaking or to subtly raise his standing amongst his peers at the expense of the maligned group. We make jokes to entertain and impress our peers so as to be popular amongst them. While far from exclusively so (consider for example gossiping), it's a particularly male, trait.

The trouble is that when the peers laugh or otherwise accept the comment it provides positive reinforcement to not only the speaker but the entire group, including the target if present, that such behaviour is acceptable, does provide status and therefore the behaviour becomes prevalent. The only way to fully eradicate such conduct is to immediately provide a negative reaction which makes it clear to everyone that such behaviour is not acceptable and does not provide a positive status.

Nope. Maligning reservists is not racism but it is, IMHO, a form of harassment under DAOD 5012-0.

I'm not sure if an opinion has ever been circulated which would define how far the DAOD goes but, again IMHO, the term "Improper conduct by an individual, that offends another individual in the workplace, including at any event or any location related to work, and that the individual knew or ought reasonably to have known would cause offence or harm" is wide enough to encompass maligning speech about a specific co-worker or a class of identifiable co-workers including reservists as a class.

"Ought to know" is an objective standard. It does not require actual knowledge by the speaker/actor that his actions cause offence but merely an understanding by reasonable members that it would offend the complainant against whom it was directed. In the case of conduct not prohibited by the Human Rights Act such as reserve status, the fact that the target was, in fact, offended is also required.

:cheers:

 

[FSTO]

It was pointed out to me by a former Naval Reservists (Now an Anglican Priest in NZ) that being called a "SHAD" wasn't that bad of an insult and had in fact became a badge of honour in the Naval Reserve. Being called "F****n SHADs" wasn't all that bad either but if the inflection was just a little different and came from a more senior Reg Force Chief or Officer the term was taken as a deep insult.

 

[Edward Campbell]

It was pointed out to me by a former Naval Reservists (Now an Anglican Priest in NZ) that being called a "SHAD" wasn't that bad of an insult and had in fact became a badge of honour in the Naval Reserve. Being called "F****n SHADs" wasn't all that bad either but if the inflection was just a little different and came from a more senior Reg Force Chief or Officer the term was taken as a deep insult.

A little  ff topic:  but: In the 1930s, prior to the start of the war, there was a little saying that was popular in the part of the Navy ...

But, first, it's important to understand that then the Navy had three components: the Regular Navy, the RCN, the Volunteer Reserve, the RCNVR ~ which was a lot like today's Naval Reserve, and another Reserve Force, called the RCNR, which was made up of professional sailors ~ merchant seamen, fishermen, etc ~ who were also part-time reservists.

The saying went: "The RCNVR are gentlemen trying to be sailors; the RCNR are sailors trying to gentlemen; and the RCN are neither trying to be both."