"Canadian Forces warns members affiliated with radical groups"

[Eye In The Sky]

Gotta love the media.  It wasn't a Mi'kmaq ceremony.  It was a protest by a Squamish FN woman against Cornwallis for his actions against the Mi'kmaq.

But who am I to fix that factual error?  :

Did you see what the Admiral said?  ;D  He called it a Mi'kmaq ceremony. 

 

[Halifax Tar]

This quote from the linked CBC article scares me:

"I have heard [the men's] side of a story," Newton said. "It means nothing. What was perceived by the public is what matters …. No matter what they thought they were doing, or what was going to occur, it was not what occurred, and that they have to bear responsibility for, and they do."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/military-personnel-proud-boy-s-incident-jobs-1.4269952

Basically facts have been trumped by feelings and perception... No matter how misguided both are...

 

[Eye In The Sky]

This quote from the linked CBC article scares me:

"I have heard [the men's] side of a story," Newton said. "It means nothing. What was perceived by the public is what matters …. No matter what they thought they were doing, or what was going to occur, it was not what occurred, and that they have to bear responsibility for, and they do."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/military-personnel-proud-boy-s-incident-jobs-1.4269952

But hold on a second, because not long ago the same man said...

...He's moving on to the highest-ranking military job at Veterans Affairs Canada in Charlottetown, where he will work as a liaison officer.

He says he'll be relying on the listening skills he gained with the troops to help him in Veterans Affairs "to listen with empathy and understanding, to give the benefit of the doubt to people's complex stories," he said.

^-^

 

[jollyjacktar]

:rofl:  we should be good then.

 

[Journeyman]

"I have heard [the men's] side of a story," Newton said. "It means nothing. What was perceived by the public is what matters ….

WTF ? !     :stars:

Edit:  EITS beat me;  I was going to add that it will be a crappy time to deal with VAC, if the military's senior representative is relying on those dwelling in the CBC comment section for his wisdom. 
FML  :not-again:

 

[Strike]

Did you see what the Admiral said?  ;D  He called it a Mi'kmaq ceremony.

Yes, and knowing who fed him the words to say, the irony of this is not lost on me.

 

[Jarnhamar]

"I have heard [the men's] side of a story," Newton said. "It means nothing. What was perceived by the public is what matters ….

That's messed up.  Hopefully he doesn't look to Facebook and Twitter for optics advice with his new posting  :facepalm:

 

[Navy_Pete]

It's a great time to be in the Navy! People first, mission always.


If you don't like it, get out!  What you say means nothing.


We don't understand why we have a retention issue, this is going to be a challenge to man the new ships. :

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Personally, I suspect that Admiral Newton hasn't a friggin clue about "what was perceived by the public". To think that the spin put on news story by the CBC and the likes, paired with their limited left-wing constituency that constantly batters anything military in it's opinion forum, represents Canadian public perception is to live in an unreal world.

I very much doubt that he bothered to look at other media in the rest of the country and how it played - where he would have realized that nobody cared about this or held anything against the military as a result of it.

I was actually glad to see that he stated that those seamen have rights, and then went on to mention that when not at work in uniform (i'm paraphrasing here) they enjoy rights like all other Canadians, protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That got me to think that the powers-that-be were probably advised that, if they pushed for charges to be laid under the NDA for disobeying the rules limiting freedom of expression in this case, they would probably find themselves on the wrong side of Charter rights and the regulations/guidance would be struck by the courts. They didn't want to take that chance.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I suspect you are quite right on this. Eventually Charter rights are going limit how much influence the DND can have on it's members out of uniform.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Personally, I suspect that Admiral Newton hasn't a friggin clue about "what was perceived by the public". To think that the spin put on news story by the CBC and the likes, paired with their limited left-wing constituency that constantly batters anything military in it's opinion forum, represents Canadian public perception is to live in an unreal world.

I very much doubt that he bothered to look at other media in the rest of the country and how it played - where he would have realized that nobody cared about this or held anything against the military as a result of it ...

If the info-machine is doing its job, the good Admiral would have been shown the good, the bad and the ugly in media coverage, allowing the Admiral to come to his own conclusions.  Agreeing or disagreeing with the conclusions based on what you see/hear/read is fair ball.  That said, I don't know if one could build as strong a case saying "people were concerned" as they could for "nobody cared."  Me not caring =/= nobody caring.

And the whole "is what media says = what people hear = what people believe" issue could fill its own thread ...

All that said ...

... the powers-that-be were probably advised that, if they pushed for charges to be laid under the NDA for disobeying the rules limiting freedom of expression in this case, they would probably find themselves on the wrong side of Charter rights and the regulations/guidance would be struck by the courts. They didn't want to take that chance.

... you're probably right that CF legal beagles piped in, too.

 

[Brad Sallows]

"I have heard [the men's] side of a story," Newton said. "It means nothing. What was perceived by the public idiots making a fuss is what matters ….

 

[FJAG]

If the info-machine is doing its job, the good Admiral would have been shown the good, the bad and the ugly in media coverage, allowing the Admiral to come to his own conclusions.  Agreeing or disagreeing with the conclusions based on what you see/hear/read is fair ball.  That said, I don't know if one could build as strong a case saying "people were concerned" as they could for "nobody cared."  Me not caring =/= nobody caring.

And the whole "is what media says = what people hear = what people believe" issue could fill its own thread ...

All that said ...... you're probably right that CF legal beagles piped in, too.

Reminds me of years ago during Op Assistance (floods in Manitoba) when I did a stint as the legal advisor to 1 Div HQ, we had a bit of a shortage for office space so the Public Affairs people (shoulder flash "Truth") and the legal people (shoulder flash "Justice") occupied the same office just across the hall from the Comd and Chief of Staff. We would have about four or five quick, impromptu meetings with the four of us where the commander would ask "what are the public affairs and legal considerations on issue X". Very coordinated and very efficient.

On the Good Boys issue, I hope that the only issue that the legal folks weighed in on was whether or not disciplinary charges were appropriate (in which case the advice was correct as none were laid). I really hope there wasn't any input on what the Admiral said (especially the bit about "It means nothing. What was perceived by the public is what matters"). That statement (if accurately reported), IMHO, is contrary to the principles of procedural fairness/natural justice that underlie administrative law which is the legal field under which nondisciplinary actions against individuals are taken.

:cheers:

 

[Navy_Pete]

Out of curiousity, is that the kind of thing you could ever use as part of grievance, in addition to the CDS and MND statements?  It was pretty much tried in the press before the whole AR process would have kicked in, so curious how that would work.

Would probably require brass balls that would put a prize bull to shame to overturn/review something like this in a grievance though.

 

[FJAG]

Out of curiousity, is that the kind of thing you could ever use as part of grievance, in addition to the CDS and MND statements?  It was pretty much tried in the press before the whole AR process would have kicked in, so curious how that would work.

Would probably require brass balls that would put a prize bull to shame to overturn/review something like this in a grievance though.

One probably could because there are legal officers within the various layers of grievance process to advise on the matter.

The usual process to challenge an administrative law decision is by an application for Judicial Review to the Federal Court [or a a provincial superior court in the case of a provincial administrative body]) to have the decision set aside. Courts do not substitute their own decision in such a case but merely say that the decision failed the test of natural justice and send it back to the decision maker to rehear the matter properly.

The general concepts can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_administrative_law

:cheers:

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Out of curiousity, is that the kind of thing you could ever use as part of grievance, in addition to the CDS and MND statements?  It was pretty much tried in the press before the whole AR process would have kicked in, so curious how that would work.

Would probably require brass balls that would put a prize bull to shame to overturn/review something like this in a grievance though.

I am not SME, but I believe that the *reasonable apprehension of bias* etc would be a potentially valid argument. 

 

[McG]

I understand it is recomemded that members exhaust their options through the grievance process before seeking options through the court.  The grievance peocess will stop and wait for a court decision if both are initiated in overlapping timelines.  You should expect that the department's decision will not diverge from the court's decision, so a court action may take away the opportunity to get a favourable decision at the FA level.

 

[jollyjacktar]

On the Good Boys issue, I hope that the only issue that the legal folks weighed in on was whether or not disciplinary charges were appropriate (in which case the advice was correct as none were laid). I really hope there wasn't any input on what the Admiral said (especially the bit about "It means nothing. What was perceived by the public is what matters"). That statement (if accurately reported), IMHO, is contrary to the principles of procedural fairness/natural justice that underlie administrative law which is the legal field under which nondisciplinary actions against individuals are taken.

:cheers:

Sadly, this kind of comment and attitude from someone like the Admiral is exactly what I expect from the system.  Kangaroo comes to my mind.

And some ponder why morale is hurting...

 

[Sub_Guy]

I must be getting old.  I guess you could say I've been "triggered" by the Admiral's comments.  I just assumed a good leader would back his personnel up, even if that meant looking bad in the face of public opinion.  I am not saying these guys made the smartest choice, but at the same time they did not act (IMHO) in a disrespecting manner.  Very disappointed to say the least.

 

[jollyjacktar]

The new commander who took over from Admiral Newton comments on the subject.  He said he was in lockstep with him on things.  Sigh.

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/nova-scotia/change-of-command-admiral-newton-baines-1.4272148