- Reaction score
- 7,865
- Points
- 1,260
they need to ensure the leaders in their units are enforcing the standard of conduct expected of CAF members.
"Army investigating members allegedly involved in 'abhorrent' Facebook group"
- Thread starter Halifax Tar
- Start date
they need to ensure the leaders in their units are enforcing the standard of conduct expected of CAF members.
- Reaction score
- 20,321
- Points
- 1,010
When?
Consider the Class A environment. When, specifically, is a Reserve Unit CO responsible for the conduct of their soldiers? 24/7? 18/6? 1 night and one weekend a month? When it is convenient for somebody at higher level to deflect blame and look like they are acting?
I am being a bit flippant, but I cannot help marvel at the practical obstacles for a Reserve Unit investigator to, somehow, take a file the MPs did not want to deal with, compel access to a private facebook group, collect evidence, and then assess legal culpability on acts that may have occurred 10-15 years ago.
But yeah, let’s go with “the current CO is at fault”. The current CO might be to blame- I don’t know. I am just in awe of how difficult a problem this is.
- Reaction score
- 7,865
- Points
- 1,260
I think this is a failure at multiple levels. It became a work environment once official business - the job postings - started going on it. Once that happens it becomes some one’s job to police it - and it’s a COs job to ensure the other leaders in a unit are doing their job. So ultimately it does fall on the CO.
- Reaction score
- 20,321
- Points
- 1,010
- Reaction score
- 3,561
- Points
- 1,160
Rory Fowler usually has an informed analysis of military legal matters. He doesn't disappoint with this latest controversy.
roryfowlerlaw.com
By the CAF's police agency? Probably not - they don't seem able to properly police the CAF. But, should inappropriate comment/conduct on Army.ca by serving members be subject to CSD or administrative sanctions? If the conduct rises to the level that such measures are necessary - absolutely.
Thankfully, I'm no longer subject to such measures.
“Something must be done!”
“Something must be done!” 13 July 2025 This blog is brought to you by the letters “F” (for “fear”) and “A” (for “appearances”) – or, alternatively, the letter “O” (for “optics”), although I‘m not a fan of the use of the term “optics” when what we really mean are “appearances” – and by the...
roryfowlerlaw.com
By the CAF's police agency? Probably not - they don't seem able to properly police the CAF. But, should inappropriate comment/conduct on Army.ca by serving members be subject to CSD or administrative sanctions? If the conduct rises to the level that such measures are necessary - absolutely.
Thankfully, I'm no longer subject to such measures.
- Reaction score
- 16,943
- Points
- 1,160
I've been keeping somewhat quiet on this thread because I just don't know enough of the facts to be spouting off one way or another. This is a fact driven case. The "legal" and "administrative" aspects are relatively clear. DAOD 2008-6 Internet Publishing is quite direct in responsibilities. One should note article 4.3 and 4.4, however:
I'll add to that, again, we have nothing but glib rumours about what action has been taken in the past to control, manage, correct, investigate etc etc the activities of this group. Without that, IMHO, it's entirely premature to jump on either side of the band wagon. By all means we can debate in purely hypothetical and academic terms as to what is proper and improper, but applying that to these circumstances, a few garish pictures notwithstanding, is jumping to conclusions without all the facts.
Honestly, my concerns run more to the reactions of our senior leadership. Again, I do not know all the facts but I think CAF has a knee jerk reaction to suspending people when a hint of impropriety is raised. That has an immediate and devastating effect on an individual because true or not, it immediately paints them with a veneer of impropriety. They'll never be able to wash that off regardless of how innocent or minimally responsibly they might be. I don't know if there is a reason why a suspension was considered necessary in order to properly conduct the investigation, but my gut tells me it wasn't. I've been involved in investigations where at the beginning there was a question of whether command or leadership was part of the problem but generally that does not need a suspension while the investigation is ongoing. My gut tells me it wasn't necessary here based on the few facts that I do have.
But my issue really isn't with a few morons who have created a problem for the army with their sophomoric posts. In every organization you will find these. Nor is it with the ultimate command responsibility issue as to whether or not and how this web site was to be policed. I haven't seen it and, based on everything I have heard here from folks who have over the years, you would need to see the totality of it to make a proper assessment. I can see it falling on either side of the line as to how "official" it is and I simply do not know enough to make the call. My issue is really with how the CAF's leadership responds to this incident.
Rory Fowler used to be a legal officer with the Office of the JAG. He started life in the PPCLI and eventually retired as LCol in the JAG. He runs a blog on many military related topics and issued one on this incident. @dapaterson already published the link, as did @Blackadder1916 a few minutes ago but I'll repeat it here anyway.
I know Rory and at times I agree with him and at times I see his views as a bit extreme but I'll say this, he's been much closer to where they make the sausages in DND and has much more insight than me into the inner workings of the CAF on these types of issues.
I'll note that the word "woke" never appears in his article but essentially that's the problem we have in general. Since Somalia, the CAF has been a favourite whipping boy of the media and, of course, any negative media attention creates problems for our military leaders with its government, particulalry a government that since 2017 has been a master at virtue signalling.
I'm not as concerned as Rory about the "unfairness" that he sees in the summary hearings because IMHO, the summary hearing process has been stripped down to making COs and Delegated Os virtually powerless anyway so that the system is largely ignored. (and if you question that, take a look at the JAG reports of summary hearings - they dropped from nearly 2,000 summary trials for 2009, the year I left the branch, to 492 this last year. Courts martial stayed relatively steady from 56 in 2009 to 46 last year. Somewhere or other - all things being equal - some 1,500 cases a year are getting swept under the rug)
I am concerned about how the CAF's leadership is addressing the general structure and application of discipline in the CAF. On the one hand its fearful to act and thereby fails to do it when called for (and in many cases because the CAF doesn't give leadership the right tools to use). On the other hand it jumps in with two jackboots when a "woke" or "pseudo-woke" issue arises and leadership feels necessary to project what it considers the appropriate "appearance." In some respects its the quality of the leaders themselves. In others its because the CAFs public affairs system is marginally competent at best. Crisis management and messaging is entirely reactive and poorly reactive at that. Throwing a token body to the wolves has become part and parcel to their repertoire.
$0.02 Rant ends.
This leaves a big factual question as to whether Blue Hackle crossed the line into "official" or not. I expect there are several hundred opinions on that already, all of them formed without adequate knowledge of the totality of the facts.
I'll add to that, again, we have nothing but glib rumours about what action has been taken in the past to control, manage, correct, investigate etc etc the activities of this group. Without that, IMHO, it's entirely premature to jump on either side of the band wagon. By all means we can debate in purely hypothetical and academic terms as to what is proper and improper, but applying that to these circumstances, a few garish pictures notwithstanding, is jumping to conclusions without all the facts.
Honestly, my concerns run more to the reactions of our senior leadership. Again, I do not know all the facts but I think CAF has a knee jerk reaction to suspending people when a hint of impropriety is raised. That has an immediate and devastating effect on an individual because true or not, it immediately paints them with a veneer of impropriety. They'll never be able to wash that off regardless of how innocent or minimally responsibly they might be. I don't know if there is a reason why a suspension was considered necessary in order to properly conduct the investigation, but my gut tells me it wasn't. I've been involved in investigations where at the beginning there was a question of whether command or leadership was part of the problem but generally that does not need a suspension while the investigation is ongoing. My gut tells me it wasn't necessary here based on the few facts that I do have.
But my issue really isn't with a few morons who have created a problem for the army with their sophomoric posts. In every organization you will find these. Nor is it with the ultimate command responsibility issue as to whether or not and how this web site was to be policed. I haven't seen it and, based on everything I have heard here from folks who have over the years, you would need to see the totality of it to make a proper assessment. I can see it falling on either side of the line as to how "official" it is and I simply do not know enough to make the call. My issue is really with how the CAF's leadership responds to this incident.
Rory Fowler used to be a legal officer with the Office of the JAG. He started life in the PPCLI and eventually retired as LCol in the JAG. He runs a blog on many military related topics and issued one on this incident. @dapaterson already published the link, as did @Blackadder1916 a few minutes ago but I'll repeat it here anyway.
“Something must be done!”
“Something must be done!” 13 July 2025 This blog is brought to you by the letters “F” (for “fear”) and “A” (for “appearances”) – or, alternatively, the letter “O” (for “optics”), although I‘m not a fan of the use of the term “optics” when what we really mean are “appearances” – and by the...
I know Rory and at times I agree with him and at times I see his views as a bit extreme but I'll say this, he's been much closer to where they make the sausages in DND and has much more insight than me into the inner workings of the CAF on these types of issues.
I'll note that the word "woke" never appears in his article but essentially that's the problem we have in general. Since Somalia, the CAF has been a favourite whipping boy of the media and, of course, any negative media attention creates problems for our military leaders with its government, particulalry a government that since 2017 has been a master at virtue signalling.
I'm not as concerned as Rory about the "unfairness" that he sees in the summary hearings because IMHO, the summary hearing process has been stripped down to making COs and Delegated Os virtually powerless anyway so that the system is largely ignored. (and if you question that, take a look at the JAG reports of summary hearings - they dropped from nearly 2,000 summary trials for 2009, the year I left the branch, to 492 this last year. Courts martial stayed relatively steady from 56 in 2009 to 46 last year. Somewhere or other - all things being equal - some 1,500 cases a year are getting swept under the rug)
I am concerned about how the CAF's leadership is addressing the general structure and application of discipline in the CAF. On the one hand its fearful to act and thereby fails to do it when called for (and in many cases because the CAF doesn't give leadership the right tools to use). On the other hand it jumps in with two jackboots when a "woke" or "pseudo-woke" issue arises and leadership feels necessary to project what it considers the appropriate "appearance." In some respects its the quality of the leaders themselves. In others its because the CAFs public affairs system is marginally competent at best. Crisis management and messaging is entirely reactive and poorly reactive at that. Throwing a token body to the wolves has become part and parcel to their repertoire.
$0.02 Rant ends.
- Reaction score
- 11,719
- Points
- 1,360
Probably a good reminder of why if you have any sort of serious career in the private sector, you should probably stay FAR AWAY from the CAF.
- Reaction score
- 16,943
- Points
- 1,160
There was a time in the US Army towards the end of Vietnam and for a good time thereafter where the best officers avoided taking command positions in favour of staff positions. The simple truth was that as a commander you were held responsible for everything that happened in your command and would be dumped on for it - it was virtually inevitable. Staff officers on the other hand could cozy up to their leaders, be responsible for no one - just the quality of their staff work - and get terrific performance reviews that would ensure their climb in rank and ever better staff jobs. Overt steps were taken in the '80s to reverse that trend - not sure if it ever fully succeeded.
- Reaction score
- 7,865
- Points
- 1,260
Our conduct on army.ca absolutely is. Just like Facebook, instagram, and any other social media site is. The difference here is we’re largely anonymous. My point about the blue hackle group is that once you start posting “ looking a MCpl to work in the BOR” (that’s straight from a screen shot) you’ve now become a work place.
So I wonder on that particular one. REO job opportunities are a public facing website. Is it any different from sharing job postings on jobs.gc.ca, or LinkedIn, or what have you? No information or data of business value is transmitted, no business carried out… It’s just ‘hey here’s a job’ and it gives official approved means to apply.
Now I’m quite sure that over the years that group had more than enough connection to the workplace to be in scope for things like respectful workplace policy and regulations, and such. But those sorts of ‘extensions of the workplace’ are generally contextual; you see them come up when someone does something stupid at an outside-of-the-workplace social event among employees, or the like. Something with a strong employer nexus. I’d disagree that simply sharing a publicly available job posting would mean much.
I think this case (and others) will force a rethink and potentially a modernization of how CAF approaches disciplinary matters for Class A reservists arising out of the virtual spaces connected with work. I will also be curious as to whether we eventually learn how CAF has chosen to apply remedial measures in the case of conduct literally years in the past. I struggle to see how they’re going to justify hitting people with remedial measures for something most of a decade ago in some cases if there’s been nothing remotely recent by that individual.
- Reaction score
- 8,231
- Points
- 1,140
I can see it being a fairly easy and defensible RM. Making it an RM puts it officially on their pers file, in the event that something similar comes up again.
If the member has grown since the time of posting questionable material, meeting the monthly objectives should be quite easy.
Any IC or RW would block component transfer or in-service selection plans. C&P further blocks career courses and promotion. Is that reasonable and justified in the event of social media posts six or seven years ago if their conduct and performance has been acceptable since that time, likely including promotion or promotions?
Don’t get me wrong, anything reasonably recent, have at ‘er. I’m just not sure the system has a good option for some of this if there’s a clear and compelling case to be made that troops who did something stupid many years ago, and only recently ‘detected’, have since matured and have not otherwise had conduct or performance deficiencies. IMO this would have to be assessed case by case.
- Reaction score
- 8,231
- Points
- 1,140
The fact it came to light "today" means it needs to be dealt with "today". I'm quite comfortable with someone needing to wait a few extra months for a CT if they posted terrible things 6 years ago. If the member is serious about owning their behavior, and showing they are changed, they should be fine with it too.
The fact that the event was long ago, and hadn't been repeated shpuld not be a major issue moving forward, unless the CA hasn't found a way to come to grips with the reality that young people do dumb things. The RCN seems to have found a reasonable stance, so I suspect the Jr. services should be able to manage as well.
I suppose if leadership types were in there, active and knew about things that are contrary to CAF values, I could see RMs being used.
If any of them lied or were uncooperative during the investigation that could also be an issue.
What ever happens, this is likely a very unique case with a lot of unprecedented aspects.
If any of them lied or were uncooperative during the investigation that could also be an issue.
What ever happens, this is likely a very unique case with a lot of unprecedented aspects.
- Reaction score
- 34,742
- Points
- 1,090
I concur that it's unprecedented; I am not sanguine that it is necessarily unique.
- Reaction score
- 389
- Points
- 1,130
I curated my own FB page several times as I grew older, matured, assumed leadership positions of greater responsibility and saw the world changing around me.
I suppose I would argue that the fact that some of these posts have remained visible for years means that the members see nothing wrong with them, which I would also argue makes them ‘recent’ and worthy of RM consideration.
- Reaction score
- 20,321
- Points
- 1,010
I agree. Our posts here are subject various social media DAODs. Most of us are probably not as anonymous as we think we are.
I disagree that Army.ca is an extension of the workplace because we sometimes talk about work, here.
- Reaction score
- 20,321
- Points
- 1,010
Or they posted as a Pte 10 years ago and complete forgot about it. It might mean they still think it is ok.
Equally, they might be deeply embarrassed by their posts from 10 years ago.
We don’t know.
- Reaction score
- 9,905
- Points
- 1,160
I'm not sure Remedial Measures would be appropriate for 6+ year old posts if there's no pattern of it or recent instances.
DAOD 5019-4 states
a. might be met if they don't realize the comments/posts were wrong.
b&c. if there is no recent behavior then they've already overcome the deficiency and don't need time to fix it.
Additionally
Looking at 5.1(b) you could argue that one post 6 or 10 years ago and nothing since shows the member has corrected the deficiency over time.
In my opinion giving remedial measures for historical facebook posts would be disciplinary in nature and not in the spirit of what remedial measures are intended to accomplish.
DAOD 5019-4 states
a. might be met if they don't realize the comments/posts were wrong.
b&c. if there is no recent behavior then they've already overcome the deficiency and don't need time to fix it.
Additionally
Looking at 5.1(b) you could argue that one post 6 or 10 years ago and nothing since shows the member has corrected the deficiency over time.
In my opinion giving remedial measures for historical facebook posts would be disciplinary in nature and not in the spirit of what remedial measures are intended to accomplish.
'Dealt with', sure. The facts need to be ascertained, any recent or present problem defined, and courses corrected as indicated by the facts. 'Dealt with' could mean RMs, CSD, or other steps depending on the facts in play.
As I read DAOD 5019-4 on RMs, it seems to me, especially in the description under 4.3, that remedial measures are envisaged as correcting performance or conduct deficiencies that do presently exist. And of course usually that will be apparent. The specific language of "...to assist a CAF member in overcoming their conduct or performance deficiency" all reads as present tense and suggests a 'right now' problem. The minimum and maximum monitoring periods of three to twelve months further support that.
That's just to say I don't know what the appropriate answer is. I'm just not convinced that RMs in all of the cases made public from this particular group would necessarily stand up to challenge were someone of a mind to. Some, probably, yeah. And I expect there are more comments and posts beyond what has been seen in the media but that would equally violate standards of conduct. Presumably CAF investigators have more fulsome content of the facebook page.
And I'm damned sure there are some current and former members of that regiment mortified by their own shortcomings in years past, who are now better than that and feel like dumbasses for ever shaming themselves, their peers, their unit, and CAF. But when you choose the behaviour, you choose the consequences where there are any to be had and I'm sure most recognize that too.
Fair point. Those running the page could have purged content years ago. I'm sure they wish they had. I'm not actually sure if there is any easy way to do that on a facebook 'group'. I'm still an admin on a fairly large FB group with some serving members on it. We've been fortunate to always keep a very tight grip on content, but if tomorrow I suddenly deemed it necessary to clear out a decade of content I don't even know where I'd start. I just stepped out from this reply for five minutes to see if I could find an option and I can't, and I'm a reasonably proficient nerd. Social media companies' business models are built around harvesting data so they aren't in the habit of making it easy to purge. In recent years Facebook's gotten a lot better at automating admin features to flag and tag certain words or phrases or types of content, and to make moderation a lot easier. That wasn't the case a few years ago or more. Deleting a group is a lot of work too, all members need to be individually removed first. tough if there's a few hundred, borderline impossible if it's thousands.
However you make a fair point that allowing old stuff to continue to exist may be considered tacit acceptance, even if clearing it out might be a lot of work. And in the context of this specific situation that may be something that leadership of that unit at various levels are going to have to reckon with.
Zero chance this was unique among older social media groups unofficially created by members of units or messes. Nor of course was this sort of behaviour or conduct new to the military as social media came into being. That's not to say it's acceptable, tolerable, or to minimize it. But I would be very comfortable betting that most CAF members going back a decade or two would probably have some first hand experience this this kind of idiocy at least among their peers in more closed settings. We'll never know the collective 'Oh, f****' that rang out across all of CAF when this story first broke, but I bet there were some people who very quickly busied themselves with exactly the sort of content clearing I mentioned in the part of my reply to MARS.
Last edited:
Similar threads
