• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canada's wounded soldiers told not to criticize online

GAP

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
24
Points
380
Canada wounded soldiers told not to criticize online
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/09/21/325237/canada-wounded-vets-told-not-to-criticize/

Canadian soldiers wounded in service are being required to sign a form agreeing not to criticize the military on social media sites, a report shows.


The report was published on Friday by the Canadian daily Ottawa Citizen, which received the form by offended military members regarding it as a threat to their right to speak out about the Department of National Defense and Canadian Forces’ failure to take care of those wounded in service.

The disclosure of the form has caused a quick reaction from the country’s opposition, the National Democratic Party (NDP.)

    “To single out ill and injured soldiers and require them to sign this form is tantamount to saying, ‘Don’t complain’, ” said NDP parliamentarian Jack Harris, adding, “I call on the minister of defense to take measures to ensure that all our ill and injured soldiers are getting the help they need, rather than being muzzled.”


The form was introduced in March of this year and states that any military officials within the Joint Personnel Support Unit (JPSU) will be held responsible for not only the comments they have posted online but also the content of others which they have “tagged” on various sites.

It also told injured soldiers not to disclose “your views on any military subject” and not to “write anything that might discourage others or make them dissatisfied with their conditions or their employment.”

This comes as some of the wounded and their family members have publically discussed the military and government leadership’s failure to help those injured while in service.

Retired air force officer Sean Bruyea said wounded personnel use social media to speak with each other as well as to raise issues affecting them.

“The public deserves to know how these people are being mistreated and about the failure of the senior leadership to take care of them,” said Bruyea, adding, “This is just an attempt to shut them up.”

The JPSU came under fire in August when the Canadian daily revealed that the unit had extensive problems, with soldiers and staff speaking out about lack of resources and concerns that some of the support centers are dysfunctional.
end

 
Some caution might be required here.

The way the article reads, it sounds like this might be a local measure taken by the chain of command of one particular JPSU (although that isn't really clear from the article). One CO's whims do not a "CF policy" make.

I would want to actually read the form and see if it requires anything different than the normal information policy the CF functions under. Anybody in uniform who publicly criticizes either the Govt or the CF has always run the risk of some kind of sanction, so is this anything new?

What I really, really, hope is that this is not actually another manifestation of the current Govt's extremely controlling view of public discourse, especially where the whole veterans' portfolio is concerned.

And even if it were, there is little that can be done about serving members' families speaking out, which could be quite embarrassing for the Govt and the CF.
 
Off topic and a bit OCD, but I notice that the article spelled "Department of National Defence" as "Defense". I understand that some news papers follow American spelling and that the Canadian Press wire service historically has, but the proper name of the department is spelled with a C rather then an S and should be used regardless of what spelling convention is followed.

More on topic, if this "don't complain" policy is consistent with current CAF Policy of dealing with the media, why is it necessary to have members sign an additional agreement to keep quiet. Couldn't this be achieved with less publicity and poor press by just quietly enforcing the current rules?
 
stealthylizard said:
What is this "National Democratic Party" they speak of?
It appears Iranian media (the source of the OP's link) doesn't seem to know that NDP stands for "New Democratic Party" - maybe that whole "Democratic" thing threw the Iranian editors into a bit of confusion  ;)

Here's the Toronto Star's take:
.... The document, first obtained by the Citizen, was reportedly created in March and handed to military personnel who transfer to the Joint Personnel Support Unit, which was designed to help mentally and physically wounded soldiers.

The JPSU confirmed the form exists but said its purpose is “to educate our members and personnel on what constitutes the appropriate and inappropriate use of social media and the possible ramifications for a CAF member.”

A Canadian Forces email sent to the newspaper explained that each unit has a different way of communicating the social media policy.

“The difference being that the JPSU is asking members to indicate that they have read and understood the policy by signing the form,” the email said.

( .... )

The head of Wounded Warriors Canada, a non-profit that advocates for injured soldiers, has asked Defence Minister Rob Nicholson’s office for clarification on the social media policy.

“It’s important that we know exactly what’s being asked in this form,” executive director Scott Maxwell said. “I don’t want to speculate. I have not seen what they’re being told what not to say.” ....
 
milnews.ca said:
It appears Iranian media (the source of the OP's link) doesn't seem to know that NDP stands for "New Democratic Party" - maybe that whole "Democratic" thing threw the Iranian editors into a bit of confusion  ;)

I thought the website seemed a bit odd.
 
pbi said:
I thought the website seemed a bit odd.

WHAT?! I always go to Iranian media for my news! Doesn't everyone? It's the only way to get news unfiltered by an obvious bias!
 
I've signed the document and I don't work for/am not being seen by JPSU. I was told it was becoming a standard form for all members.
 
I understand that the NDA, CSD; do remove many of our rights and freedoms and surplants other methods to achieve those now-privileges... But could a member then have a case for Charter violation?

I also understand that the NDA and CSD also outlines the strict use of Social Media and discussing/criticising the Government/Monarchy/CAF... But if they continue to throttle the voices of those in need, how can things ever improve?

Mods: I don't want to start a flame war or anything of that sort so if this is better left unsaid, please delete.
 
The horror stories that could come out of the JPSU would make you want to punch someone. If you've known someone who works or worked there ask about some of the unfair things they have seen.

Keeping vets quiet is part of the tax savings strategy.  To accomplish this Vets have to feel isolated and powerless. If they saw that the problems were systemic and deliberate,.....
 
A few answers here, from a fat old guy who's been outta the system 20+ years ....
PrairieThunder said:
I understand that the NDA, CSD; do remove many of our rights and freedoms and surplants other methods to achieve those now-privileges... But could a member then have a case for Charter violation?
Interesting question, but practically speaking, it would take a loooooooooot of lawyer money to get an answer to that one.
PrairieThunder said:
I also understand that the NDA and CSD also outlines the strict use of Social Media and discussing/criticising the Government/Monarchy/CAF... But if they continue to throttle the voices of those in need, how can things ever improve?
I think there's more than one way to look at this:
1)  The Chain of Command is there to make sure if there are issues to be dealt with, everyone above one who may be able to fix the problem gets a fair chance to do so.  If the system works as it should, problems get solve as they go up the line.
2)  Once an issue reaches a certain point, it may come down (in a grossly over-simplified way) to "what do the troops want?" and "what do those elected by the taxpayers of Canada want?"  Remember if push comes to shove, "loyalty up" has to take precedence over "loyalty down" because of civilian oversight of the CF?  If the "loyalty up" solution conflicts with the "loyalty down" solution, one can accept it, one can try to change it within the system, or one can try to change things outside the system - and accept the consequences of doing so.

I wish I had a better answer for ya.
 
What if the civilian oversight has decided that it is financially prudent not to honour the unlimited liability agreement between soldiers and the government?

If Public Relations now needs to resort to intimidation to try and stop the free flow of information I think the word is getting out already.

 
Nemo888 said:
What if the civilian oversight has decided that it is financially prudent not to honour the unlimited liability agreement between soldiers and the government?
Since we live in a democracy, we patiently await our chance to speak our piece at the ballot box.  Also, taxpayers who believe in doing more for those needing the help can remind politicians of things they've said like this:
.... We will continue to listen to Veterans, and to work with partners who share our common goal of supporting those who put their lives on the line for Canada. We are here to deliver the care and support Veterans need, when they need it. That is our promise to Veterans. Always has been. Always will be.

Again, I'd like to see more done for vets/wounded warriors, too, and would like quicker action as well.
Nemo888 said:
If Public Relations now needs to resort to intimidation to try and stop the free flow of information ....
A.K.A. "message discipline"
 
It makes it rather hard to follow(or give) dangerous orders knowing you and your family are screwed if you get hurt. If this keeps up we will turn into France's Armée de Terre.
 
ARMY_101 said:
I've signed the document and I don't work for/am not being seen by JPSU. I was told it was becoming a standard form for all members.

I'd refuse to sign it and deal with the repercussions.
 
ObedientiaZelum said:
I'd refuse to sign it and deal with the repercussions.

I'd want to see a DJAG letter stating it was legal for them to order you to sign it. Could become one of those "Signed as Reviewed" like a PER is.

I don't see the issue as long as it is simply rehashing the CANFORGEN on Social Media and the relevant QR&O/NDA sections. Something tells me its not though, until I see a copy of subj letter.
 
Pissing off the guys with the guns is never a good idea, it only takes one really PO'ed individual to cause a gigantic shit storm. 

 
PuckChaser said:
I'd want to see a DJAG letter stating it was legal for them to order you to sign it. Could become one of those "Signed as Reviewed" like a PER is.

I don't see the issue as long as it is simply rehashing the CANFORGEN on Social Media and the relevant QR&O/NDA sections. Something tells me its not though, until I see a copy of subj letter.

Yes, it's "signed as read," not agreed. And it's purposely written ambiguously so it could (probably) survive a court challenge within the established rules and orders.
 
ARMY_101 said:
Yes, it's "signed as read," not agreed. And it's purposely written ambiguously so it could (probably) survive a court challenge within the established rules and orders.

Did your copy mirror what the CANFORGEN states?
 
PuckChaser said:
Did your copy mirror what the CANFORGEN states?

Yes, with a lot more fluffy language. A lot of sentences like 'while we cannot silence free speech or impede Charter rights...' or 'while social media has been an enormous benefit to Canadian society, it can also have grave negative impacts.'
 
Back
Top