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

[blacktriangle]

Well items 1&2 are generally the result of court martial/service tribunal while item 5 is purely administrative and handled by DMCA 2. If someone fell afoul of the CCA order I would expect that the mostly like COA is Admin Review by DMCA 2 for likely 5F release.

Seen, thanks.

Aren't members released under 5F still considered "honourably" released? Do they still get their pension/transfer value, access to VAC benefits etc? If so, a 5F doesn't really seem like it's sending a very strong message.

 

[MJP]

Seen, thanks.

Aren't members released under 5F still considered "honourably" released? Do they still get their pension/transfer value, access to VAC benefits etc? If so, a 5F doesn't really seem like it's sending a very strong message.

All other release are honourable less 1 which is dishonourable and 2 which is simply annotated service terminated.  Considering the process for 5 series is protected B, it is a strong message to the person being released only anyway.

Releasing someone doesn't deprived them of their entitlements due to them due to injury from service or their pension for any of the release items, nor should it IMHO.

(4) Where an officer or non-commissioned member is released, the notation on his record of service shall be as follows:

if he is released under Item 1(a), the notation "Dismissed with Disgrace for Misconduct" or "Dismissed for Misconduct", as applicable;
if he is released under Item 1 for any reason other than Item 1(a), the notation "Released for Misconduct";
where he is released under Item 2, the notation "Service Terminated"; or
where he is released under Item 3, 4 or 5, the notation "Honourably Released". 

 

[TCM621]

Why would that picture ruffle some feathers? One reason is I don't think any official CAF account (which I think CAFinUS is) should be involving itself in Politics, especially American politics.

Second, it's stupid. This all stems from the US debate where Trump was asked to denounce white supremacy. He did twice and then they asked specifically about the proud boys, which is run by a brown dude. Worst. White supremacists. Ever. If some people what to troll the president on Twitter over something like that, that is their right but the CAF should stay out of it.

 

[BeyondTheNow]

Why would that picture ruffle some feathers? One reason is I don't think any official CAF account (which I think CAFinUS is) should be involving itself in Politics, especially American politics.

Second, it's stupid. This all stems from the US debate where Trump was asked to denounce white supremacy. He did twice and then they asked specifically about the proud boys, which is run by a brown dude. Worst. White supremacists. Ever. If some people what to troll the president on Twitter over something like that, that is their right but the CAF should stay out of it.

No, you’re way off. CAFinUS was not trolling POTUS, nor was the post political. While the original intent, yes, was to hijack the hashtag to represent a LGBTQ+ spin—initiated by several thousand before CAFinUS jumped in—CAFinUS proudly took the opportunity to join the ‘new’ trending hashtag once its revised purpose had been well established by highlighting the points CAF is trying very hard to integrate—equality, inclusivity and tolerance.

Further, CAF seems to have no issues with the content CAFinUS tweets/posts, including the message of the tweet in discussion and/or the #ProudBoys ‘rebranding’, as evidenced by CAF bodies & accts who liked and/or retweeted the post/referenced the subject matter—individual and unit/cmd accounts alike.

-Royal Canadian Navy
-HMCS Winnipeg
-LCol Jennifer Stadnyk
-BGen Sean T Doyle ...just a couple to get started...

(For context, I’ve included the tweet in its entirety again, as that seems to be needed—unfortunately.)

What is truly sad is the hateful remarks trolls and other sad, angry and lonely people felt it necessary to make. ‘Still shows just how far we have to go.

 

[The Bread Guy]

... CAF seems to have no issues with the content CAFinUS tweets/posts, including the message of the tweet in discussion and/or the #ProudBoys ‘rebranding’ ...

Which makes sense, given that the poster is, himself, a CF Public Affairs Officer, someone (one hopes) who's well aware of what can and can't make it through the information machine's filters. 

 

[Furniture]

Thanks for the explication. I liked the picture more when it looked spontaneous and didn't have Combat camera up in their face. Unless they photograph every first kiss ashore.

They do after a deployment. There was a draw held for who would have the chance to cross the brow first, and have the first kiss. The MS won, and so he crossed the brow first.

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=Tcm62] This all stems from the US debate where Trump was asked to denounce white supremacy. He did twice and then they asked specifically about the proud boys, which is run by a brown dude.
[/quote]

Curious pick for a chairman of a white supremicist group.

I wonder if this hashtag troll attempt will actually net the ProudBoys more interested members.

(not sure how to shrink the picture sorry)

 

[Remius]

More on the hashtag takeover.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/gay-men-proud-boys-hashtag/?fbclid=IwAR08D95k_jf3ym-rSSUt4t7DxuepY-MDNsIXvkvZj1WEqNwgiicjwWxhO3w

 

[Eaglelord17]

Seen, thanks.

Aren't members released under 5F still considered "honourably" released? Do they still get their pension/transfer value, access to VAC benefits etc? If so, a 5F doesn't really seem like it's sending a very strong message.

Yeah because someone who well serving, having committed NO CRIME (having a differing political opinion isn't a crime as much as many believe it is), possibly having a otherwise shining service record, should be kicked out dishonourably without trial and lose access to all the other benefits that come with being released  :

Should we start kicking out people who vote Conservative or Liberal because both those parties were complicit in genocide up until 1996?

From a legal standpoint I wonder if this could be seen as violating a members Charter Rights as every citizen has the right to Freedom of Thought, Opinion, and Expression.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Yeah because someone who well serving, having committed NO CRIME (having a differing political opinion isn't a crime as much as many believe it is), possibly having a otherwise shining service record, should be kicked out dishonourably without trial and lose access to all the other benefits that come with being released  :

What do you mean having a differing political opinion?

 

[SupersonicMax]

Yeah because someone who well serving, having committed NO CRIME (having a differing political opinion isn't a crime as much as many believe it is), possibly having a otherwise shining service record, should be kicked out dishonourably without trial and lose access to all the other benefits that come with being released  :

Should we start kicking out people who vote Conservative or Liberal because both those parties were complicit in genocide up until 1996?

From a legal standpoint I wonder if this could be seen as violating a members Charter Rights as every citizen has the right to Freedom of Thought, Opinion, and Expression.

Hateful speech or promoting hatred is a crime in Canada.

 

[TCM621]

Hateful speech or promoting hatred is a crime in Canada.

If someone commits a crime under the CCC, and is convicted, that is one thing. Arbitrarily, deciding someone posting "all loves matter" on Facebook is hate speech and administratively releasing them dishonourably is completely another.

In the CAF today we can not even refuse someone further terms of service for performance or disciplinary reasons but we are ok with ruining someone's life because they don't agree with the current, popular, vision of racism, or that 15 dead unarmed people out of 42 million does not equal an epidemic, or that a genocide happened in Rwanda not Canada.

Let me be clear, if you advocate for violence against someone based on skin colour you deserve consequences as determined by the courts. If you harass members of your unit because of their rave, you deserve consequences. However, I have seen people do things that literally could get people killed with very little consequence (despite every effort). How can we allow that while ruining the career, and possibly life, of someone who has an unwanted opinion?

 

[brihard]

Hateful speech or promoting hatred is a crime in Canada.

'Hate speech is not a crime in Canada.

Wilful incitement of hatred is a crime, as is promoting genocide. 'Mere' hate speech is not a criminal offense.

 

[SupersonicMax]

'Hate speech is not a crime in Canada.

Wilful incitement of hatred is a crime, as is promoting genocide. 'Mere' hate speech is not a criminal offense.

In a public place, hate speech is a criminal offense.

note:Wilful promotion of hatred

319(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

 

[MJP]

If someone commits a crime under the CCC, and is convicted, that is one thing. Arbitrarily, deciding someone posting "all loves matter" on Facebook is hate speech and administratively releasing them dishonourably is completely another.

In the CAF today we can not even refuse someone further terms of service for performance or disciplinary reasons but we are ok with ruining someone's life because they don't agree with the current, popular, vision of racism, or that 15 dead unarmed people out of 42 million does not equal an epidemic, or that a genocide happened in Rwanda not Canada.

It takes quite a bit to get to the release stage and like the denial of TOS, it is removed from the CoC to adjudicate anyway.

They are quite allowed to hold whatever personal view they want. Quite simply though as a member inside an institution representing the Government of Canada, when their personal views become public and are not compatible with the Government and the CAF's policy then they may be removed.  That is no different than any organization.

At the end of the day a 5F/D which most of these would be are not dishonorable and is annotated as honourable. They can then carry on holding and expressing whatever viewpoint they want as a private citizen as long as it does not include wilful promotion of hatred.

 

[LittleBlackDevil]

Is the order available online for public consumption?

I've looked through this thread and been unable to locate a link to the actual order.

All I've found via google is an article written by a CBC reporter who says he was given a copy of the order and based his story upon that (cf.https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/army-racism-order-1.5737384?cmp=rss)

Based off the article, one thing that concerns me a bit is all the stuff about how troops are expected to denounce their comrades if they see "racist conduct", to wit:

Soldiers "at all levels will be expected to intervene and report incidents," he said ...

"Failure to act is considered complicity in the event."

Maybe I am reading too much into this without seeing the actual orders, but it seems to me that it could be quite detrimental to morale and unit cohesion to have troops monitoring each other for whether their political views are currently acceptable.

 

[Blackadder1916]

Is the order available online for public consumption?

I've looked through this thread and been unable to locate a link to the actual order.

https://army.ca/forums/threads/132996/post-1629664.html#msg1629664

 

[brihard]

In a public place, hate speech is a criminal offense.

note:Wilful promotion of hatred

319(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

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.

 

[HiTechComms]

In a public place, hate speech is a criminal offense.

note:Wilful promotion of hatred

319(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

I find the following interesting.

wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

So what determines Identifiable? race, skin, eyes, hair, age, gender, sex?

More importantly who gets to determine Identifiable? (A literal Racist? rly

What happens when you identify as part of that group yet objectively are not part of the group under the provisions of C16? :Tin-Foil-Hat:

Oh Canadian law. You make so much sense...

I guess if everyone is special eventually no one is special.  :facepalm:

 

[Halifax Tar]

My big fear is this will migrate from an attempt to correct acts racism and hate and morph into prosecuting wrong political think.

Couple this with the almost incessant brow beating of "institutional leadership"; and the neutering of the CPO2/MWO and below; and I worry where we are headed.