There's conduct that will never be acceptable for CAF members regardless of context; it will be incompatible with further employment. There's conduct that might be rude or incivil but is entirely of a private nature and CAF cannot realistically make any claim on it. And then there's a whole messy world between thsoe two.
One mustn't forget that the CAF is a branch of the government and, like the rest of the government, the CAF is subject to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. S 2b of the Charter provides that:
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
The problem here is as you express it - there is a whole messy world in between.
Yes, there are limits on freedom of expression - so far it hits on things like child pornography, defamation and fostering violent actions among a few. The problem is that "thought" and "expression" exist on a continuum with clearly non problematic issues at one end and clearly harmful ones at the other. In between is that messy grey area. The CAF's options , however, are primarily binary: ignore being one and take action - disciplinary or administrative - being the other. Binary solutions applied against a continuum of facts requires that someone draws a defensible line that separate the two. Where the CAF can legally draw that line is the question.
The CAF is not particulalry well known for analyzing "lines" of conduct even with the glut of legal officers and lawyers that work in the department. This is why the CoC has often been disappointed with the outcomes of courts martial involving Charter issues. Let's not forget that regulations are subordinate to legislation and that legislation itself is subordinate to the Charter. It doesn't aid the CAF to have a regulation, like 19.14 if that regulation contravenes fundamental rights granted by the Charter. Any disciplinary, or even administrative, action taken against an individual for breaching an illegal regulation is in itself an illegal action.
So here's where the messy part comes in. Where is the line? Does the QR&O create a demonstrably necessary limitation on freedom of thought or expression? Do an individual's actions that the CAF believes damages its reputation - or for that matter that actually damages the CAF's reputation in some eyes - fall within a fundamental legal right of the individual or is it a reasonable limitation the government is allowed to set?
Quite frankly, the CAF very often pushes the boundaries in its favour and depends on individuals who are censured in some form or other to not test the limits through court action. Effectively one takes ones' lumps, shuts up and gets on with it rather than get involved in a lengthy and expensive legal process. You probably won't be surprised by how much government action works on that basis. Even when a person wins a fight against a particular regulation, the government just comes back with a redrafted one that tries to skirt the edges of the court ruling but still achieve their desired effect.
Want my guess? As I said I haven't seen all the posts but IMHO, that which has been reported, while distasteful to some, or even many, people is low grade stuff that easily falls within s2 protection? Part 2 of my guess is that it has embarrassed the CoC and some form of action will be taken by the CAF regardless. I doubt if it will be a CM process, because that would involve the courts' ruling on the limits. IMHO, the CAF doesn't want the courts involved.
