Is this legal?

[Lightguns]

One of the individuals in question received emails from about 100 people letting him know he was on there in an unflattering way.  Glad it is gone, hoping all participants are tracked down and summarily tried.

 

[Dissident]

I found myself on the site the other day. Some not very nice things about my wife were said so I'm not too pleased.

Looking again today it looks like the site has been taken down. It shows as not found.

Thank the gods

Still browsable through google cache. A bit tedious and not really worth it for what was on there.

I also would be more upset about something said about my wife then about me, but all in all you have to be able to laugh at yourself. I'm a bit disapointed that my platoon has an entry but none of us made it on there.

 

[vonGarvin]

It's no different then "ratemyprof" or "thedirty" or any other site like that.

Incorrect:

CANFORGEN 136-6 - Guidance on Blogs and Other Internet Communications – CAF Operations and Activities: “CAF members are to consult with their chain of command before publishing CAF-related information and imagery to the internet, regardless of how innocuous the information may seem. The chain of command has access to expert advisors, such as public affairs and intelligence staffs, who will ensure that such published information is not ultimately prejudicial to CAF operations and personnel.”

And:

QR&O 19.14 - Improper Comments: "No officer or non-commissioned member shall do or say anything that: if seen of heard by any member of the public, might reflect discredit on the Canadian Armed Forces or on any of its members."

 

[PMedMoe]

TV is correct.  Just received this email from Army COS Ops and G1 4 Cdn Div:

Subject: Inappropriate website postings  ---> contravenes various regulations and requirements including: QR&O 19.14  & CANFORGEN 136-6

All,

See below from Army COS Ops.  Some unacceptable comments about Canadian NCOs being uploaded anonymously to a US website called "Rank My Sarge" which contravene a number of CAF regulations.  Please push on your net(s) to remind all troops about the QR&O and CANFORGEN policies on improper comments and uploading information to internet sites and that contravention can have serious disciplinary and/or administrative consequences.  Thankyou in advance.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Madame et messieurs,

A website called "Rank My Sarge" launched last June and hosted anonymously on an American-based web server, has been brought to the attention of the Army chain of command.

The aim of the website appears to be to create an online place where military members can anonymously post comments, both good and bad, about non-commissioned members of militaries.

The site currently contains comments which vilify and demean a number of Canadian Armed Forces members, including currently serving members of the Canadian Army

The posting of such inappropriate comment by our members contravenes various regulations and requirements, including:

QR&O 19.14 - Improper Comments: "No officer or non-commissioned member shall do or say anything that: if seen of heard by any member of the public, might reflect discredit on the Canadian Armed Forces or on any of its members."

CANFORGEN 136-6 - Guidance on Blogs and Other Internet Communications > ->  CAF Operations and Activities: > "> CAF members are to consult with their chain of command before publishing CAF-related information and imagery to the internet, regardless of how innocuous the information may seem. The chain of command has access to expert advisors, such as public affairs and intelligence staffs, who will ensure that such published information is not ultimately prejudicial to CAF operations and personnel.> ">

Accordingly, I would ask you to remind everyone in your command of these policies. And that violation of them can have serious consequences, including disciplinary procedures and administrative actions.

(Edited by poster to remove names, email addresses and link to website)

 

[armyvern]

:facepalm:

I am willing to bet the vast majority of these photos were obtained from Facebook, which is already accessible enough to the media as is.

Why? What is the difference between them calling their boss something through anonymous means and ours calling ours something foul. Most of the members I saw were at the Cpl level, hardly a senior NCO. You're over-reacting.

When a RSM goes to Tim Hortons, he stands in line like the rest of us, just like a CEO, just like a member of Parliament or cabinet minister. Long have civilians lived with the image of the crusty Sgt Major (an image we have perpetuated through jokes, joshing, anecdotes, etc) and I hardly think this site will break the public conception of our military or our Senior NCOs.

Do MPs still acquaint themselves with QR&Os, CFAOs and DAODs on their QL3s??  You posts have left me wondering.  Alas, I see other have posted the applicable refs for you in the course of distributing the recent email about this site and regs.

I charged someone in theatre under these regs because they chose to publish an off comment about one of their superiors onto their facebook
-- let alone a site dedicated to such unprofessional nonsense.  Over-reacting not required; it's a no-no.

 

[JesseWZ]

We do, and it seems some crow-eating is in order for myself.  I wasn't even thinking about the NDA when I made those posts, only the criminal code, which in hindsight was an error in judgement.

 

[Shamrock]

We do, and it seems some crow-eating is in order for myself.  I wasn't even thinking about the NDA when I made those posts, only the criminal code, which in hindsight was an error in judgement.

You have no idea how aggravating it is to be a presiding officer and ask the accused if he or she knew, at the time of the commission, that his or her actions were an offence under [the relevant section] and receive a response of, "No."  And *poof* everything disappears.

Do judges have this same issue?

 

[PPCLI Guy]

You have no idea how aggravating it is to be a presiding officer and ask the accused if he or she knew, at the time of the commission, that his or her actions were an offence under [the relevant section] and receive a response of, "No."  And *poof* everything disappears.

Do judges have this same issue?

You are doing it wrong.

PM me if you would like an explanation.

 

[armyvern]

You are doing it wrong.
...

My thoughts were, "WTF!? - He can not have meant what he typed."  :-X

 

[Shamrock]

Wait.

Are you two suggesting that ignorance of the law is not a defence?

 

[Good2Golf]

Wait.

Are you two suggesting that ignorance of the law is not a defence?

They're not the only ones. 

Are you saying that you, as a presiding officer, dismissed charges laid under the CSD because the accused 'admitted' that they didn't know the applicable part of the NDA?

If so, you were wrong.

Ignorance is NOT a defence.

[added] Your DJA would or should have advised you that such ignorance might be considered as a mitigating factor in sentencing, but it is not a valid point in determination of guilt.

 

[Shamrock]

Oh my goodness.

Next you're going to tell me that every offence under the Criminal Code of Canada is also an offence under the NDA.

Ok.  I think I can adjust my reality a little.  It's not like there's any regulation or order requiring me to familiarize myself with the NDA as an officer or NCM in the Canadian Forces.

 

[CombatDoc]

Wait.

Are you two suggesting that ignorance of the law is not a defence?

Good one, people seem to be missing the sarcasm with your taunt!  ;D

What's next, "you mother is a hamster and your father smells of elderberries?"

 

[George Wallace]

Wait.

Are you two suggesting that ignorance of the law is not a defence?

Actually it is not a defence.  It is an excuse.  An excuse does not render a person innocent of a wrongdoing.

 

[OldSolduer]

Good one, people seem to be missing the sarcasm with your taunt!  ;D

What's next, "you mother is a hamster and your father smells of elderberries?"

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!

That would be more appropriate to this thread....

 

[jeffb]

Ok.  I think I can adjust my reality a little.  It's not like there's any regulation or order requiring me to familiarize myself with the NDA as an officer or NCM in the Canadian Forces.

The NDA specifically states ignorance is not a defence in S.150.

150. The fact that a person is ignorant of the provisions of this Act, or of any regulations or of any order or instruction duly notified under this Act, is no excuse for any offence committed by the person.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-5/page-46.html#docCont

 

[Kat Stevens]

The NDA specifically states ignorance is not a defence in S.150.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-5/page-46.html#docCont

But if you were unaware of this, how are you to know? QED...  8)

 

[jeffb]

I'd be willing to be that it is taught somewhere on BMQ/BMOQ. Either way, it's no defence. I think someone would have a hard time arguing that they are ignorant of the existence of the NDA....

 

[Emilio]

Just throwing out there but it seems the site is down, at least for now.

I'm guessing the owner pissed off the wrong people.

Some special people.

 

[donaldk]

Just throwing out there but it seems the site is down, at least for now.

I'm guessing the owner pissed off the wrong people.

Some special people.

Good... and it can stay down