"B.C. Mountie's anti-Trudeau website raises concerns about discriminatory views within the RCMP" (split from White nationalism/CF thread)

[Good2Golf]

Not sure if you were tracking, but those numbers included the military members. I'm sure someone years ago got promoted by cutting our SWE to 'remove' SWE against vacancies and call it a savings.

DND civilian employees. Those are public service SWE figures. Dig into the details of the Mains and Supps, and you’ll see the breakout, the same way that AG Girouard did. CAF manning and MILPAY is not part of those PS increase figures.

 

[lenaitch]

yes definitely, honed by zero experience in corrections, parole or policing. 2 or 3 more years post BA is the barrier to expert-ness. makes sometimes me wish id stay in school. but bah. i wanted to do something as opposed to read about it.......silly me.

I worked alongside a couple, mostly civilian (non-police), some under contract. To me, their academic 'expertise' has about as much weight and value as a 'professor of surgery' who never held a scalpel. The only one who I had time for was a member, has a Masters, retired as a C/Supt., was in some of the toughest operational areas and one of the smartest people and best leaders I ever met.

Except I wouldn’t consider Kash Heed to be anti-police since he’s a former police chief. But he’s definitely a media-hog and anti-RCMP.

I don't know the man or his story but it wouldn't be the first time somebody left the job and took the position that the knuckle draggers simply didn't recognize that they were the smartest bear in the room and that their talents were being wasted.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I don’t see this guy likely losing his job. Strong peepee slap, probably lose a few days pay and maybe a transfer to somewhere he’ll be buried for a while. But as a one off I’d be astonished if he were fired.

If this guy lost his job but the Mountie who went on a drunken bender with his police dog to Burger King, got arrested and assaulted a bunch of other cops in the process, kept his.......

That's what I would call a miscarriage of justice.

 

[kratz]

Aha...but you forget the influence of optics and internet outrage these days.

 

[Booter]

Aha...but you forget the influence of optics and internet outrage these days.

You’ll note that the media officer is referring to it as “discriminatory content”. That’s an escalation since the first article

 

[Bluebulldog]

Most public service collective agreements and PS codes of conduct are quite clear: one can stuff envelopes, knock on doors on your own time, even put a sign on your lawn; one cannot publicly criticize the government aka your employer. The union representatives can generally say what they want publicly.

Outright firing is rare, but it can result in a one way discussion and some form of disciplinary action.

Typically seen as not necessarily being shown the door, but you better like your job, because you just limited your career to exactly the slot you're in, never to progress.

 

[Navy_Pete]

DND civilian employees. Those are public service SWE figures. Dig into the details of the Mains and Supps, and you’ll see the breakout, the same way that AG Girouard did. CAF manning and MILPAY is not part of those PS increase figures.

Ah, okay thanks. I read the news article, not the source material. Should have known better than to expect journalists to know the difference.

I'm sure they did something similar on the civilian side; there is a general hiring freeze (despite a lot of empty billets) because we seem to be over our SWE allocation. With all the extra bureaucracy required now, pretty frustrating when we can't even get up to the baseline of where we are supposed to be, even though the work has grown, and the LOE to get that work done has grown, while we shrank.

 

[mariomike]

If PMJT lives rent-free inside his head, that's one thing.

The mayor might be a little concerned if council perceives possible mocking of " marginalized " members of their community.

"It's definitely not anything a community wants," ( Mayor ) Jones said.

Didn't catch his show. His employer is, apparently, while he patrols from home.

 

[CBH99]

If this guy lost his job but the Mountie who went on a drunken bender with his police dog to Burger King, got arrested and assaulted a bunch of other cops in the process, kept his.......

That's what I would call a miscarriage of justice.

There was the drunken Burger King drive through fiasco, where he punched an arresting officer...

AAAAANNNNDDDDD the guy in Sask who was texting & soliciting minors, who got off with not much more than a verbal wag of the finger...


I'd call it a miscarriage of justice if THIS is the guy they decide to fire

 

[Eaglelord17]

You’ll note that the media officer is referring to it as “discriminatory content”. That’s an escalation since the first article

Of course it’s ‘discriminatory content’ thats what satire is. The whole point is to mock something.

Of course he is, and he has every right to do it.
What he doesn't have is a right to keep a job that tells you right from the start what is expected from you.

Hey, he's not going to the gulag or anything, he just made a choice that doing a video/website seemed more important at the time then his career.

Kind of like the old days.....have drunk sex with the stripper??/ get awol charge??

Decisions, decisions....

I imagine the RCMP are the same as the CAF where they are ordered to follow the Charter as much as possible. Thinking on it, legally they likely have to completely follow the charter. The charter allows freedom of expression and opinion, that should be the case closed.

The important question here is at what point can a government dictate where your allowed to be controlled. He didn’t do this at work (as far as I am aware). He didn’t advertise his job. He didn’t directly harass or insult anyone who is directly above him. He has by all accounts acted professionally in his job. Just because he has some personal opinions on his own time shouldn’t equal punishment.

We are in the 21st century. Not having social media is basically unheard of for anyone under 30. We cannot 100% divorce content from ourselves because it can always be tracked back to you. If someone doesn’t have social media under 30 I suspect they are lying to you and have ‘secret’ accounts.

Even things like how people used to vent (going to the bar and bitching, etc.) can be tied back to you easily because cameras are everywhere and it only takes one disgruntled person.

A clear line needs to be drawn between work and civilian life, this on duty 24/7 garbage needs to stop. People deserve freedom from their jobs.

 

[brihard]

Of course it’s ‘discriminatory content’ thats what satire is. The whole point is to mock something.

I imagine the RCMP are the same as the CAF where they are ordered to follow the Charter as much as possible. Thinking on it, legally they likely have to completely follow the charter. The charter allows freedom of expression and opinion, that should be the case closed.

The important question here is at what point can a government dictate where your allowed to be controlled. He didn’t do this at work (as far as I am aware). He didn’t advertise his job. He didn’t directly harass or insult anyone who is directly above him. He has by all accounts acted professionally in his job. Just because he has some personal opinions on his own time shouldn’t equal punishment.

We are in the 21st century. Not having social media is basically unheard of for anyone under 30. We cannot 100% divorce content from ourselves because it can always be tracked back to you. If someone doesn’t have social media under 30 I suspect they are lying to you and have ‘secret’ accounts.

Even things like how people used to vent (going to the bar and bitching, etc.) can be tied back to you easily because cameras are everywhere and it only takes one disgruntled person.

A clear line needs to be drawn between work and civilian life, this on duty 24/7 garbage needs to stop. People deserve freedom from their jobs.

The thing with quoting the Charter is you have to remember the existence of S.1, the reasonable limitations clause. Freedom of expression is not absolute and is not a total protection of an employee’s right to utter anything they want outside of their working hours. Some case law has been quoted upthread that considers employee conduct in the form of things they say off duty that could reflect poorly on the employer.

 

[mariomike]

People deserve freedom from their jobs.

The employer may agree with that.

But, the municipality the employer is under contract to may not.

RCMP contract policing,

The Agreements clearly state that they may be terminated on March 31st in any year by either party (Government of Canada or any province, territory or municipality). Parties, however, must give notice of termination 24 months prior to the date of the intended termination.

 

[Halifax Tar]

The employer may agree with that.

But, the municipality the employer is under contract to may not.

RCMP contract policing,

If you pay taxes ... And work for the Gov ... Getting paid by your own taxes ... Then aren't you simultaneously self employed and employer of all others in receive of tax funded pay ?

 

[Eaglelord17]

The thing with quoting the Charter is you have to remember the existence of S.1, the reasonable limitations clause. Freedom of expression is not absolute and is not a total protection of an employee’s right to utter anything they want outside of their working hours. Some case law has been quoted upthread that considers employee conduct in the form of things they say off duty that could reflect poorly on the employer.

And again most of his stuff seems to be targeting Trudeau and the government in macro, not the RCMP or his bosses. Most this case law also doesn’t account of the new online world we are in and how it has completely changed the playing field.

There is going to be people with his viewpoints in the ranks, just as their is people with the opposite viewpoints. Some politicians might not like being mocked but it comes with the job.

Provided he is doing his job professionally who cares he had a satire website? If hypothetically he had a stand up routine and was recorded and sent in, I would say the same thing. He isn’t identifing himself as a police officer and if they are so afraid of comedy it tells a lot more about those trying to cancel him than anything else.

Dictators and authoritarian individuals hate comedy. It weakens their perceived power.

This idea we need to kill free speech because someone might be offended means most don’t understand freedom of speech. It literally exists to protect unpopular speech or criticism of the government. Attempting to fire him over legitimate criticism literally defeats the point in it. If section 1 is going to be used that broadly then there is no point in having that right in there to begin with.

 

[KevinB]

The thing with quoting the Charter is you have to remember the existence of S.1, the reasonable limitations clause. Freedom of expression is not absolute and is not a total protection of an employee’s right to utter anything they want outside of their working hours. Some case law has been quoted upthread that considers employee conduct in the form of things they say off duty that could reflect poorly on the employer.

I’m curious if this becomes something larger that could create some new case law.

Mainly because it was done in a anonymous method online, where he wasn’t bringing his employment into the issue.

At the end of the day, the only reason that it became an issue is because he was identified and reported.


As we have seen the RCMP has a few members that have clearly committed crimes and brought disrepute into that Organization by their actions, and suffered very minor consequences (and I’m shaking my head at those two incidents from above). Yet here, no crime was committed and there seems to be allegations that his actions where in fact more disturbing to the RCMP (or at least the local Mayor) which is a little odd to say at least.

 

[CBH99]

As we have seen the RCMP has a few members that have clearly committed crimes and brought disrepute into that Organization by their actions, and suffered very minor consequences (and I’m shaking my head at those two incidents from above). Yet here, no crime was committed and there seems to be allegations that his actions where in fact more disturbing to the RCMP (or at least the local Mayor) which is a little odd to say at least.

Meanwhile, despite being thousands of members short, plenty of good young people get deferred for a year or two because they looked at a cloud the wrong way when they were 10…

 

[KevinB]

Meanwhile, despite being thousands of members short, plenty of good young people get deferred for a year or two because they looked at a cloud the wrong way when they were 10…

I have zero idea on RCMP recruiting these days, but I suspect that some of the reasons these days are more based on desires for diversity, even if it results in cutting off their nose.

 

[brihard]

I can’t speak for specifics of recruiting in any particular police service, but what I’m hearing across the board is low volume and low quality of applicants, and fierce competition for the relatively few strong ones. Not many people particularly want to do the job anymore despite the objectively quite good pay and benefits. A lot of those that do are… not suitable.

 

[mariomike]

This from last year sounds like Trail, B.C. RCMP have a staffing problem. Even before this topic of discussion started.

Cashol said Greater Trail is supposed to have 22 officers, but of the 18 general-duty members, they are down to eight plus two who are only doing administrative work.

From what I understand, it's not just the RCMP.

Emergency services across the country are short staffed.

UPDATED: Trail councillor concerned with RCMP staffing : My Kootenay Now

A Trail councillor says the RCMP’s long-term disability program is contributing to staffing shortages locally and elsewhere. Nick Cashol, a retired member of the local detachment, met recently with Sgt. […]

www.mykootenaynow.com

 

[Booter]

I’m curious if this becomes something larger that could create some new case law.

Mainly because it was done in a anonymous method online, where he wasn’t bringing his employment into the issue.

At the end of the day, the only reason that it became an issue is because he was identified and reported.


As we have seen the RCMP has a few members that have clearly committed crimes and brought disrepute into that Organization by their actions, and suffered very minor consequences (and I’m shaking my head at those two incidents from above). Yet here, no crime was committed and there seems to be allegations that his actions where in fact more disturbing to the RCMP (or at least the local Mayor) which is a little odd to say at least.

I’m fairly certain that the member is removing stuff because he plans on cooperating. Which means we won’t be able to use the case as a test for some things that need testing.