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

[daftandbarmy]

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!

AFAIK you are quite accurate.

And, while not trying to diminish the gravity of the subject, the current situation with neo-Nazis in the CF is quite different from pre-WW2 Germany and the rise of Hitler to power.

 

[OldSolduer]

Rohm was also a homosexual. That didn’t help. The SA were well organized and this current crop of neo Nazis would be eaten alive by the SA or SS.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

A lot of the organisers and low level leaders of the SA would have been ex WWI vets, so they would instill some discipline and direction. Would be a nasty bunch to confront.

 

[Ralph]

Yes I would like to see this document as well.

http://army.forces.gc.ca/assets/ARMY_Internet/docs/en/national/2020-09-hateful-conduct-with-annexes.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1Z-W0efSLrxTLnvvZeX27vV2imSPfWkJWriJFG3yd-Ceu78fDUGWDNtAI

FYI, the only times the word "right" are used are in relation to human rights, being forthright, and "what right looks like". Not "right-wing".

 

[OldSolduer]

A lot of the organisers and low level leaders of the SA would have been ex WWI vets, so they would instill some discipline and direction. Would be a nasty bunch to confront.

They'd have been a tough nasty lot. Add to the belief in their cause and their behavior around anyone who didn't agree with Hitler.

As far as I can remember they were unarmed - basically a club wielding bunch.

 

[FJAG]

One needs a lot of context whenever discussing the SA.

Remember that they were formed in the immediate aftermath of defeat in WW1 during a great movement of socialist activity rejecting the previous monarchies that had governed the primary European powers. There were numerous socialist organizations with the primary opponents being the nascent Nazi party, the Communist Party and the Social Democrat Party. All were a very fractious bunch vying for power and there was much armed unrest in the streets of Germany which resulted in the formation of various security detachments to protect their rallies.

Again, for context, the 25 point program of the NSDAP is described here

Those organizations grew with time and became more sophisticated. At the height of the SA's power it had some 3 million members which greatly outnumbered the then limited regular army of 100,000.

As the SA grew beyond it's pure security functions separate organizations spun off to provide security for Hitler primarily the SS under Schreck and then Himmler and the gradual pulling in of the various state and regional police agencies and their resultant factions, power struggles etc.

At the core of the movement was a wave of German nationalism which resulted in many of the vile acts for which the Nazi's are rightfully vilified today.

All that is to say that neither the current Neo-Nazi/Extreme Right nor the AntiFa/Extreme Left are in my mind a form of fascism. Fascism is is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy. Neither the Neo-Nazis nor  AntiFa is a political movement with an aim of building a political structure for society. Their nearest kin, IMHO, are anarchists such as the Black Bloc who involve themselves in mindless violence against property or persons to gather attention to their various disparate and frequently unrelated causes. Their aim is usually to tear down parts of society that they do not agree with whether it be multiculturalism or international globalisation. Neither group has a vision that would be capable of building any form of society that would or could function.

:worms:

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Is it just me, or did this discussion drift far away from the Army commander special order?

BTW, Is it really 15 pages long? I have a hard time with orders that are that long-winded. I find it incredibly difficult to see how they can be comprehended and applied by the people that they apply to - simple sailor, air people and soldiers (and that includes the officers AFAI am concerned: anybody remember Major Dad? "I am a Marine, ma'am: Simple.Straightforward: See the hill - Take the hill.")

 

[daftandbarmy]

BTW, Is it really 15 pages long? I have a hard time with orders that are that long-winded. I find it incredibly difficult to see how they can be comprehended and applied by the people that they apply to - simple sailor, air people and soldiers (and that includes the officers AFAI am concerned: anybody remember Major Dad? "I am a Marine, ma'am: Simple.Straightforward: See the hill - Take the hill.")

You clearly haven't seen or heard some of the 'Commander's Intent' paragraphs delivered by the Infantry lately

 

[FJAG]

Is it just me, or did this discussion drift far away from the Army commander special order?

BTW, Is it really 15 pages long? I have a hard time with orders that are that long-winded. I find it incredibly difficult to see how they can be comprehended and applied by the people that they apply to - simple sailor, air people and soldiers (and that includes the officers AFAI am concerned: anybody remember Major Dad? "I am a Marine, ma'am: Simple.Straightforward: See the hill - Take the hill.")

It's actually 17 pages long and 25 with the annexes (including lovely flow-charts). There also seems to be a new app (HCITS) for tracking cases.

I'm with you on this. I'm a firm believer that, like ROEs, you need a full version for all the commanders and lawyers and a pocket card that hits the key highlights for the bulk of the force from field officers on down. Too much detail and legalese breeds disinterest and, at worst, negativity.

Again, IMHO, all that is needed is a simple statement of what constitutes hateful conduct and a simple direction that under QR&Os 4.02; 5.01; and 19.56 individuals have a duty to report such conduct to their CO through the CoC. As to the full version, there are already numerous orders and directives that are CAF wide that state how that conduct is to be dealt with. A simple one-pager directed to COs stating that upon a hateful conduct report action will be taken IAW Ref x, y or z and perhaps a short para each on training and reprisals (and perhaps attaching the lovely flow-chart) should suffice.

One problem with lengthy orders like this that depend heavily on existing CAF references is that should a CAF reference change the order may get out of sync. As such such orders need to be constantly reviewed and updated. (And we all know how well that happens)

op:

 

[dangerboy]

I am wondering if now that the Canadian Army has released this as an order if the other elements will do the same and thing and then shouldn't this mean the CAF should expand upon DAOD 5019 (Reference A in the Order

 

[MJP]

There also seems to be a new app (HCITS) for tracking cases.

Oh frig man....that is 3 separate "apps for tracking. One for grievances, harassments, human rights etc (ICRITS), Op HONOUR (OPHTAS)and now HCITS.  I feel bad for the staff at all levels that have to deal with the flip flopping between systems. If anything OPHTAS can easily be adapted to deal with anything misconduct and go from there. We love to have individual high-level HQ staffs (or offices charged with execution) inundate people with a bunch different ways of reporting and then are surprised pikachus when they suck at it. 

The cause is noble but the methods to get there are so CAF it hurts....


*Apologies for the tangent

 

[Infanteer]

If anything OPHTAS can easily be adapted to deal with anything misconduct and go from there.

I believe, don't quote me, that this is where MPC plans to go.

 

[dapaterson]

I am wondering if now that the Canadian Army has released this as an order if the other elements will do the same and thing and then shouldn't this mean the CAF should expand upon DAOD 5019 (Reference A in the Order

Comd RCN tweeted his endorsement and announcement that he has his staff working on the same.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

You clearly haven't seen or heard some of the 'Commander's Intent' paragraphs delivered by the Infantry lately

When I was a young subbie freshly watch qualified, with no other assigned function than watch keeping, it was my job, and the job of subbies in the same situation in the other ships of the squadron, to draft the OCS* intention messages when we were responsible for a given serial.

At some point, the Squadron Commander got cheesed off at the length and verbose OCS Intent Msg coming out of all of us, so he decided that for one week, all such messages would be sent by flashing light and the subbies in all ships would be the ones passing them at both end (send/receive). The length of messages was cut by 75% by the end of that week.  ;D

* : Officer Conducting Serial - OCS

 

[Nuggs]

When I was a young subbie freshly watch qualified, with no other assigned function than watch keeping, it was my job, and the job of subbies in the same situation in the other ships of the squadron, to draft the OCS* intention messages when we were responsible for a given serial.

At some point, the Squadron Commander got cheesed off at the length and verbose OCS Intent Msg coming out of all of us, so he decided that for one week, all such messages would be sent by flashing light and the subbies in all ships would be the ones passing them at both end (send/receive). The length of messages was cut by 75% by the end of that week.  ;D

* : Officer Conducting Serial - OCS

Awesome [emoji4]

 

[daftandbarmy]

Oh frig man....that is 3 separate "apps for tracking. One for grievances, harassments, human rights etc (ICRITS), Op HONOUR (OPHTAS)and now HCITS.  I feel bad for the staff at all levels that have to deal with the flip flopping between systems. If anything OPHTAS can easily be adapted to deal with anything misconduct and go from there. We love to have individual high-level HQ staffs (or offices charged with execution) inundate people with a bunch different ways of reporting and then are surprised pikachus when they suck at it. 

The cause is noble but the methods to get there are so CAF it hurts....


*Apologies for the tangent

And, if you're a reservist, there goes a few pay sheets worth of time that can't be invested preparing troops for war.

 

[kev994]

And, if you're a reservist, there goes a few pay sheets worth of time that can't be invested preparing troops for war.

We work in an organization where labour is free [emoji12]

 

[daftandbarmy]

We work in an organization where labour is free [emoji12]

Except where you are limited to 37 man days per year, of course.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Maybe a dumb question, but noticed this near the end on 'Note 7'

7. Regardless of whether disciplinary action was taken, including where charges were laid and an accused perpetrator was found not guilty, if the facts suggest that there is ‘balance of probability’ that the accused perpetrator engaged in hateful conduct, appropriate administrative actions should be taken, determined by the nature and severity of the incident.

If I read this correctly, someone could be found not guilty and still have admin measures taken against them. I could see a few scenarios where you could do something but maybe not meet the threshold for a hate crime, but not really clear how they balance out the intent of stamping out racism with 'innocent until proven guilty', and could easily see over reactions causing permanent career implications as the definition of hateful conduct is pretty broad (and could conceivably include following a facebook group or something fairly benign).

For instance, are they going to publish lists of groups that are considered hate groups so people know? Some are pretty obvious, but others are pretty good at having a pretty benign public face, and sometimes not really clear where exactly they fit on the spectrum. La Meute is probably a pretty good example; depends who you listen to but they could be anywhere between a loose coalition of quebecers or a dangerous hate group (and not really sure myself where they sit).  If we are expecting people to not belong to hate groups, and also report those who do, it would be good to have some clarity IMHO (especially when there is a 25 page order).

Also I really don't see anything new here enforcement wise, other then yet another tracking tool, but guess it doesn't hurt to be crystal clear so some dumbass can't argue that they didn't know.

The only thing that bothers me about this is that in some of the news articles pundits are suggesting that military intelligence actively search CAF pers social media for this stuff. Fair game if someone has a public profile and makes public posts, but a lot of people don't, and think it would be an invasion of privacy to expect pers to allow CAF access to all that by default. Don't see any suggestion of that in the orders, but would be against that principle if it was to come down the chain.

 

[ballz]

Maybe a dumb question, but noticed this near the end on 'Note 7'

If I read this correctly, someone could be found not guilty and still have admin measures taken against them.

This is and has always been the case for remedial measures / other admin measures. Administrative law uses the balance of probabilities and to be quite honest I don't know how it could function any other way.

For instance, are they going to publish lists of groups that are considered hate groups so people know? Some are pretty obvious, but others are pretty good at having a pretty benign public face, and sometimes not really clear where exactly they fit on the spectrum. La Meute is probably a pretty good example; depends who you listen to but they could be anywhere between a loose coalition of quebecers or a dangerous hate group (and not really sure myself where they sit).  If we are expecting people to not belong to hate groups, and also report those who do, it would be good to have some clarity IMHO (especially when there is a 25 page order).

That will indeed be the problem with this... the goalposts are continually being moved. It's remarkable that Joe Rogan has gone this long without attracting too much heat, likely because he has so much popular support they were hesitant to go after him. But, it was only a matter of time, and now the sharks are circling around him too with Spotify employees threatening to strike if he isn't censored by the company. Watch as it catches momentum, it's only a matter of time before he's labelled "alt right" or "neo nazi" or "insert buzzword of the day here."

We'll see the same thing with various groups, the goalposts will move leaving more and more groups on the "outside" of what is acceptable.