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

[Eye In The Sky]

Regarding releasing these individuals from CAF, procedural fairness, due process, etc... There's a different standard applied to terminating employment than there is to being charged with an offense.  It's very much in CAF's (and arguably Canada's) interest to be able to efficiently release people from military service who don't serve the unique needs thereof, or who are otherwise an undue liability or administrative burden. The courts have tested the administrative release process, and it holds up. Given the real security concerns attendant to people who have extremist political views of any bent, I think it's necessary and appropriate that the upper chain of command support and champion efforts to clear the ranks of those with an ethos contradictory to what the military requires. Bear in mind that any further obstacle to releasing these members who apply equally to those we might categorize as '****birds', the guys who all have known and worked with who just shouldn't be in but have somehow not quite yet managed to get kicked out. These are still individuals that take up positions, that create administrative burdens, and that harm the efficiency and effectiveness of the total force. Some greater degree of protection of extremists from the consequences of their choices would also extend protections to all of these other individuals. Just bear that in mind. Any employer, generally speaking, can with sufficient documentation properly articulate and defend the termination of employment of someone who is known to espouse and/or act on views contrary to the employers principles and ethics.

Regarding my earlier posts, mainly I just wanted to point out those excerpts are all from the CF Administrative Law Manual; it holds many more details, case law, etc on the subj and does also talk about the "standard of proof" topic as well.

Chap 2, Sect 4, Para's 52-53

Standard of Proof for Decision-Makers
52. Those CF personnel who have completed the Presiding Officer Certification Training (POCT) course have been exposed to the concept of applying a ‘standard of proof’ when making a decision with significant consequences to the subject of the decision. As emphasized in that course, an individual cannot be convicted of a criminal or service offence unless the presiding officer is convinced “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the accused committed the offence.59 In civil cases, the standard is somewhat lower (i.e., the decision-maker(s) must be satisfied on a ‘balance of probabilities’ that an incident occurred). An equivalent phrase that is used is ‘based on the preponderance of evidence.’ Generally, this is the standard that is to be applied in most administrative decisions.

53. There is an intermediate standard of proof, falling between the criminal standard and the civil standard, that applies to decisions that are administrative in nature but, nevertheless, have serious implications for the individual:

The standard of proof required in cases such as this is high. It is not the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But it is something more than a bare balance of probabilities. The authorities establish that the case against a professional person on a disciplinary hearing must be proved by a fair and reasonable preponderance of credible evidence. The evidence must be sufficiently cogent to make it safe to uphold the findings, with all of the consequences for the professional person’s career and status in the community [having been taken into account].60
Certain types of CF administrative decisions with serious adverse consequences to a CF member, such as release for involvement with drugs, must be based on clear and convincing evidence.

CAF is really no different, although a CAF member gets considerably more bureaucratic protection than employees for many other organizations would see.

Yes, and if the direction in the CF Admin Law Manual are observed and followed, the correct procedural fairness levels will be afforded.  If the end result is still 'release', then the member will have little recourse with success (judicial review, etc) after the fact.

Specifically on this point...

Some greater degree of protection of extremists from the consequences of their choices would also extend protections to all of these other individuals. Just bear that in mind.

The...enhanced?...levels of procedural fairness, should be based on the career jeopardy (unless I complete misunderstand the Admin Law Man) that could result.  Intention to release for "drug use" or "hateful behaviour" would, in theory, mean the same level of careful attention to the procedural fairness considerations.  Am I on the right line of thought?

If I am right, then I believe that, even if it is slower, the centralized approach to ARs the CAF uses now is the best COA;  consistency, quality control and avoids the 'reasonable apprehension of bias' issue (or, it is at least better than ARs at the unit or 'next HHQ' level WRT to that aspect).

Personally, I think we need to show these people the door, and as quickly as possible.  However, they must be given the same treatment anyone would expect when they are on the wrong side of policy and expected conduct.  I still think an 'army only' order that isn't matched by RCAF, RCN, CANSOF, etc isn't the best COA. 

 

[Nuggs]

Perhaps along the lines of the same attitude from members who incessantly disparage NCOs, Officers and the CAF in general but like the pay check.

But then we would have no Warrants left [emoji14]

 

[ArmyRick]

Here is my view on this whole issue which is right across Canadian society.

Their are extreme Right wing people, their are extreme Left wing people, NEITHER ARE ACCEPTABLE when their opinions become actions. in case of the CAF, watch what you say and post as well.

The 80-90% of us Canadians are somewhere in the center (or slightly right or slightly left values) which is good (balance!)

We must be the example and leadership to Canadian society.

 

[lenaitch]

Here is my view on this whole issue which is right across Canadian society.

Their are extreme Right wing people, their are extreme Left wing people, NEITHER ARE ACCEPTABLE when their opinions become actions. in case of the CAF, watch what you say and post as well.

The 80-90% of us Canadians are somewhere in the center (or slightly right or slightly left values) which is good (balance!)

We must be the example and leadership to Canadian society.

Well said.  The military and law enforcement, on very different levels, represent and guard the state, and both sides need to have that perspective.  Once they becomes just another job with just another employer, they are degraded.

 

[OldSolduer]

Here is my view on this whole issue which is right across Canadian society.

Their are extreme Right wing people, their are extreme Left wing people, NEITHER ARE ACCEPTABLE when their opinions become actions. in case of the CAF, watch what you say and post as well.

The 80-90% of us Canadians are somewhere in the center (or slightly right or slightly left values) which is good (balance!)

We must be the example and leadership to Canadian society.

Well said Rick - who da thought back in 1994 you'd be a beacon of hope?  ;D

 

[LittleBlackDevil]

Here is my view on this whole issue which is right across Canadian society.

Their are extreme Right wing people, their are extreme Left wing people, NEITHER ARE ACCEPTABLE when their opinions become actions. in case of the CAF, watch what you say and post as well.

Agreed. Re: the highlighted part, my understanding of what the Commander of the Army is saying is that people will be purged out of the Forces for holding the wrong opinions, regardless of whether they ever acted on that, and also only targeting one end of the "political spectrum".

I am greatly concerned with such a broad brush as targeting anything that's "extreme right" versus targeting specific things. "Extreme right" is pretty nebulous, whereas calling for violence against certain racial or religious groups is specific, and is also independent of where one's politics fall on the left/right axis. There have been avowed socialists who have made hateful comments towards certain groups for example, racism isn't necessarily a "right wing" thing.

I also think the bigger problem is, what is the definition of "extreme right"?

We must be the example and leadership to Canadian society.

Agreed, and in that regard, I think that members of the CAF, like members of the judiciary or police, should be outwardly largely a-political. But I think they should still have the right to privately held beliefs and what I would rather see targeted/sanctioned is actions not beliefs.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Agreed, and in that regard, I think that members of the CAF, like members of the judiciary or police, should be outwardly largely a-political. But I think they should still have the right to privately held beliefs and what I would rather see targeted/sanctioned is actions not beliefs.

Which reminds me of a famous quote on the subject of intolerance:

“Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings.”

― Heinrich Heine

 

[Donald H]

Which reminds me of a famous quote on the subject of intolerance:

“Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings.”

― Heinrich Heine

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you're saying that all people should express themselves freely and then be prepared to take their licks for their opinions.

I would agree totally with that, with few exceptions. My signature is an attempt to express that opinion.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you're saying that all people should express themselves freely and then be prepared to take their licks for their opinions.

I would agree totally with that, with few exceptions. My signature is an attempt to express that opinion.

Well, no. As I recall, Heine was referring to the persecution of Muslims/ Moors in medieval Spain during the Inquisition, which started with Koran burning then led to the killing of Muslims. Thousands of them.

Heine was Jewish, in 19th C Germany, too so experienced some of that intolerance personally, like being more or less forced to convert to Protestantism.

So, I'm guessing he believed that if we do nothing when some bad mouth others for racist/ homophobic other intolerant reasons, what follows might be even worse.

 

[lenaitch]

Strictly speaking, 'privately held views' should only be known oneself - perhaps immediate family.  Once they are expressed, through whatever means, that line has been crossed.  Until I expressed the foregoing view, no one was able to be aware of it.  Those who exercise or protect the power of the state should not be able to cloud or colour that authority, either on or off the clock.  Whether and to what extent these become reasonable limitations under the Charter, I suppose time will tell.

 

[Donald H]

Well, no. As I recall, Heine was referring to the persecution of Muslims/ Moors in medieval Spain during the Inquisition, which started with Koran burning then led to the killing of Muslims. Thousands of them.

Heine was Jewish, in 19th C Germany, too so experienced some of that intolerance personally, like being more or less forced to convert to Protestantism.

So, I'm guessing he believed that if we do nothing when some bad mouth others for racist/ homophobic other intolerant reasons, what follows might be even worse.

Thanks for that! and so I did a little research:

That was mere foreplay
Heinrich Heine made the statement “That was mere foreplay. Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings.” He couldn't have been more correct. They tried to eliminate the ideas by burning the books but just ended up having to go straight to the messenger themselves and take care of it that way.

I find your explanation sufficiently correct, but the above adds to it.

:cheers:

 

[OldSolduer]

Which reminds me of a famous quote on the subject of intolerance:

“Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings.”

― Heinrich Heine

I always liked Edmund Burkes quote "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men people to do nothing"

 

[TCM621]

Well, no. As I recall, Heine was referring to the persecution of Muslims/ Moors in medieval Spain during the Inquisition, which started with Koran burning then led to the killing of Muslims. Thousands of them.

Heine was Jewish, in 19th C Germany, too so experienced some of that intolerance personally, like being more or less forced to convert to Protestantism.

So, I'm guessing he believed that if we do nothing when some bad mouth others for racist/ homophobic other intolerant reasons, what follows might be even worse.

I think you are missing the point of the lines. He is saying when you burn all the books because your don't like they ideas, next you will burn the people suspected of holding those ideas. There is no racism or homophobia stated nor implied. In fact, I would argue you have it completely backwards. If you burn all the books you think are racist, eventually you will end up burning everyone you think is racist. The problem is that all these descriptions are subjective in nature. There are two competing definitions of what racism is and the only thing they have in common is that they are about race. The one I grew up with was that racism was intolerance + hate. It wasn't about outcome but intention. Anyone who hated a person based on their race could be racist. Now the prevailing definition that racism was power based and could only flow down hill in the power chain. Robin DiAngelo, of white fragility fame, defines racism, in Is Everybody equal, as

"Racism: White racial and cultural prejudice and discrimination, supported by institutional power and authority, used to the advantage of Whites and the disadvantage of people of Color. Racism encompasses economic, political, social, and institutional actions and beliefs that systematize and perpetuate an unequal distribution of privileges, resources, and power between Whites and people of Color.

Those ideas need to be hashed out. Currently, the people in power (government, universities, etc) are using the second definition and attempting to censure anyone who believes the first definition.

 

[FJAG]

Well, no. As I recall, Heine was referring to the persecution of Muslims/ Moors in medieval Spain during the Inquisition, which started with Koran burning then led to the killing of Muslims. Thousands of them.

Heine was Jewish, in 19th C Germany, too so experienced some of that intolerance personally, like being more or less forced to convert to Protestantism.

So, I'm guessing he believed that if we do nothing when some bad mouth others for racist/ homophobic other intolerant reasons, what follows might be even worse.

For those wishing to read more about Heine's Almonsor: A Tragedy and the context of the quote see below. Note the last two are in German. For those of you not fluent in German just hit Google translate (real easy if you're Chrome user).

https://www.ceu.edu/article/2014-03-13/tale-two-book-burnings-heines-warning-context

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almansor_(Heine)

http://www.ibn-rushd.org/typo3/cms/de/magazine/10th-issue-summer-2010/tawfiq-dawani/

Racism, nationalism and religious intolerance were very much in the forefront of the times and his thoughts. His works were amongst those banned and burned or anonymized by the Nazis who singled him out in particular for denunciation.

:cheers:

 

[daftandbarmy]

For those wishing to read more about Heine's Almonsor: A Tragedy and the context of the quote see below. Note the last two are in German. For those of you not fluent in German just hit Google translate (real easy if you're Chrome user).

https://www.ceu.edu/article/2014-03-13/tale-two-book-burnings-heines-warning-context

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almansor_(Heine)

http://www.ibn-rushd.org/typo3/cms/de/magazine/10th-issue-summer-2010/tawfiq-dawani/

Racism, nationalism and religious intolerance were very much in the forefront of the times and his thoughts. His works were amongst those banned and burned or anonymized by the Nazis who singled him out in particular for denunciation.

:cheers:

History tangent!

And it wasn't just the Germans... the word 'pogrom', widely associated with the destruction of Jewish ghettos in the pre-19th C period, is Russian.

 

[Eaglelord17]

I think you are missing the point of the lines. He is saying when you burn all the books because your don't like they ideas, next you will burn the people suspected of holding those ideas. There is no racism or homophobia stated nor implied. In fact, I would argue you have it completely backwards. If you burn all the books you think are racist, eventually you will end up burning everyone you think is racist. The problem is that all these descriptions are subjective in nature. There are two competing definitions of what racism is and the only thing they have in common is that they are about race. The one I grew up with was that racism was intolerance + hate. It wasn't about outcome but intention. Anyone who hated a person based on their race could be racist. Now the prevailing definition that racism was power based and could only flow down hill in the power chain. Robin DiAngelo, of white fragility fame, defines racism, in Is Everybody equal, as 

Those ideas need to be hashed out. Currently, the people in power (government, universities, etc) are using the second definition and attempting to censure anyone who believes the first definition.

The second definition is a attempt by RACISTS to change the definition so their actions aren't racist.

There is a movement active to change the definition of words from their true meaning to something else to confuse others and justify their actions. When you actually start breaking down movements to what the true (i.e. original, uncorrupted) definition of the words are you start to see how insidious their actions really are. The Liberals in their current form are socialists. The 'Anti-Fascists' are fascists (their playbook would make the brown shirts proud). The Anti-racists, are actually racists. It is all basically straight out of '1984' and it is 'doublespeak'.

 

[FJAG]

Could someone post a copy of the Army Commander's 25 page order on this subject or identify a public link to it?

:cheers:

 

[OldSolduer]

. The 'Anti-Fascists' are fascists (their playbook would make the brown shirts proud).

The Brownshirts or SA were an organized arm of the Nazis, and wore uniforms that were very military in nature. In my opinion real Nazis -the pre WW2 variety - would mop the floor with Antifa.

The SA leadership were arrested during The Night of the Long Knives (IIRC) and the leader, Ernest Rohm, although a devoted and loyal Nazi, was executed.
The SS under failed chicken farmer Heinrich Himmler convinced Hitler that Rohm was going to overthrow him and action had to be taken.
I might be in error so any historians please set me straight. Thanks!

 

[Cloud Cover]

Could someone post a copy of the Army Commander's 25 page order on this subject or identify a public link to it?

:cheers:

Yes I would like to see this document as well.

 

[Eaglelord17]

The Brownshirts or SA were an organized arm of the Nazis, and wore uniforms that were very military in nature. In my opinion real Nazis -the pre WW2 variety - would mop the floor with Antifa.

The SA leadership were arrested during The Night of the Long Knives (IIRC) and the leader, Ernest Rohm, although a devoted and loyal Nazi, was executed.
The SS under failed chicken farmer Heinrich Himmler convinced Hitler that Rohm was going to overthrow him and action had to be taken.
I might be in error so any historians please set me straight. Thanks!

Not saying that they are as organized, just simply that much of their basic tactics are similar. Intimidation, assault, and threats levelled against people who they perceive are against them (basically anyone right of a socialist/communist), coupled with a belief their actions are righteousness and justified.