Keep Politics Away From Forces

[leroi]

Mr. Campbell, hope you don't mind me posting this letter--it's a great letter and reminder so I thought posting it here would be for the 'greater good' (and perusal of the membership):

http://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics/story.html?id=2314424

Keep Politics Away From Forces
National Post: December 8, 2009
Re: Our Armed Forces Deserve Better, Marc Garneau, Dec. 5.

Like Liberal MP and former naval officer Marc Garneau, I come from a military family: my grandfathers both served; my father was killed in action in early 1943; I served over 35 years in the army, retiring as a senior officer; my son, like his grandfather, is a naval officer. My credentials, therefore, are at least as good as Mr. Garneau's.

I agree, mostly, with Mr. Garneau that our men and women in the Forces want and deserve our highest respect for their sacrifices. They're not only brave; they're intelligent. They know the difference between being honoured and being held out for partisan purposes. But most of all, they do not want to be made scapegoats for unsound social and economic policy decisions made by the Liberals in the Trudeau and Chretien eras.

Leaders of all stripes have never been shy about using any national institution as a partisan political backdrop. Our soldiers demonstrate their innate good taste and good sense and refuse to participate in the political theatre. Yes, our armed forces deserve better-- better than Mr. Garneau's whining -- from all political parties.

E.R. Campbell, Ottawa.

 

[George Wallace]

http://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics/story.html?id=231442

Sorry, this article is no longer available.

Wonder what happened?

 

[leroi]

That's weird. I just edited my post and re-posted the URL and it seems to work now.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Original post was missing the last 4......

 

[a_majoor]

Politics cannot be separated from the forces, nor the Forces from politics:

"Der Krieg ist eine bloße Fortsetzung der Politik mit anderen Mitteln"

One of the negative things that comes with the job.

 

[PanaEng]

As I said on another  thread (http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/90818.0) any publicity is better than none at all.
I think part of our problem in the 80's and 90's was that the Canadian public had lost collective knowledge of our existence let alone our usefulness - we started languishing in our own, self imposed, obscurity (self imposed bc we did not do anything about it).  As other priorities came to the fore it was easy for the politicians to take from Defence to fund something else.
We have to stay in the public eye and mind - hopefully with positive images. If both parties do it, even better.
Look south and you can notice that the common themes or symbols in any political campaign are the flag, religion and the military - ignoring any of those is political suicide.

just my $0.02 CAD

cheers,
Frank

 

[The Bread Guy]

Politics cannot be separated from the forces, nor the Forces from politics:

One of the negative things that comes with the job.

I think what we want to avoid is having the CF as a whole being seen as taking political sides, looking like it's only supporting one party or another.

Forgot to mention - good letter E.R.!

- edited to add congrats -

 

[leroi]

Hope I didn't mislead either with the use of the word "reminder" as I was referring, in a general way, that politicians sometimes need to be reminded not to toss around the CF like a football, er, so to speak ....

 

[Im Carl G carry me]

I think what we want to avoid is having the CF as a whole being seen as taking political sides, looking like it's only supporting one party or another.

While I agree with this, it irks me that I am not, as a serving cf member, allowed to be part of a political party or contribute money to one. I could see it being a problem if I were a senior officer, able through influence threats or armed revolution to influence policy...but as a mere private, I find the idea that I cannot actively participate in the democracy whose defence I have made my personal responsibility to be frustrating.

 

[Nauticus]

While I agree with this, it irks me that I am not, as a serving cf member, allowed to be part of a political party or contribute money to one. I could see it being a problem if I were a senior officer, able through influence threats or armed revolution to influence policy...but as a mere private, I find the idea that I cannot actively participate in the democracy whose defence I have made my personal responsibility to be frustrating.

It's equity. Why can't a senior member be part of a political party when a private can?

The Forces is supposed to be impartial. When members of the Forces are aligned with political parties, they're no longer impartial.

 

[armyvern]

While I agree with this, it irks me that I am not, as a serving cf member, allowed to be part of a political party or contribute money to one. I could see it being a problem if I were a senior officer, able through influence threats or armed revolution to influence policy...but as a mere private, I find the idea that I cannot actively participate in the democracy whose defence I have made my personal responsibility to be frustrating.

You are afforded every opportunity to participate in democracy ... with your vote on election day.

We exist to ensure that every Canadian maintains that right to exercise their democracy.

Difference is, no matter which political party we may/may not support, we're also required to ensure that democratic right to vote remains whichever political party is in power.  It's optics ... we've sworn to support and obey the Queen and her Canadian Government - whether it's the government that you or I voted for (or would/would not "publicly" support) is irrelevant.

Last time I checked, belonging to a political party wasn't a "right", just a "nice". If it were a "right" the parties wouldn't be able to boot out their own members whenever agendas dictate.

 

[Loachman]

From the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

 

[a_majoor]

Quoting from Canada's charter is a mugs game; there are a great many weasel words and phrases which essentially mean "Its OK only as long as WE say it is".

However, even in the United States, the military is still relatively apolitical (yes, people speak out of turn from time to time, just like here) and they have a similar solution: swear to uphold the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic...

Soldiers there (like here and in most Commonwealth nations that I know of) swear to defend their State by swearing aliegence to the symbols of the State (HRH the Queen in the Commonwealth, the Constitution of the United States in America). This demonstrates the apolitical nature of military service, you may not like having the CPC as the Canadian governing party, but it is irrelevant since you serve HRH Elizabeth II.

Since we are the armed power of the State, and in Westphalian terms the only true and legitimate arm of the State (without a military (or "the Kings Men" for Kirkhill), there is nothing to stop others from moving into your territory, levying taxes, expropriating your property etc.) then we must be apolitical
otherwise we will simply become barbarian warlords.

 

[armyvern]

From the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

Perfect!! Freedom of association ...

Not "right"of association ...

 

[ballz]

Maybe I misunderstood this but I thought CF members were allowed to be members of parties and donate money to parties and stuff, they just weren't allowed to flaunt that they were members of said party and of the Canadian Forces, aka you're not supposed to start waving around your membership card while in uniform.

Also, this goes along with lines of protesting. You are allowed to participate in organized protests as long as you don't identify yourself as a CF member, since you are there representing yourself, not the CF.

Please feel free to rein me in one if I'm wrong. Kind of important since I was literally about to send in a membership application...

 

[- m i l l e y -]

From what I knew you are correct.  CF members can be members of political parties; just no putting up signs on your front lawn or going around in uniform trying to "convert" people.

As far as protesting, you cannot protest against the forces or government and so on, but you can protest against having you road paved or not and so on.

They teach that kind of stuff on basic.  It's been awhile so i don't remember the actual's about it, but those are the basics

 

[gcclarke]

From QR&Os Chapter 19 - Conduct and Discipline:

19.44 – POLITICAL ACTIVITIES AND CANDIDATURE FOR OFFICE
(1) For the purposes of this article:

"political advertising" means advertising, the purpose of which is to gain support for the election of a candidate for federal, provincial or municipal office or to gain support for, or to encourage some action in support of, the maintenance or change of a policy that is the responsibility of government at the federal, provincial or municipal level; (publicité à caractère politique)
"political canvassing" means an activity by which an individual approaches another individual to gain support for the election of a candidate for federal, provincial or municipal office or to gain support for, or to encourage some action in support of, the maintenance or change of a policy that is the responsibility of government at the federal, provincial or municipal level; (sollicitation politique)
"political meeting" means a meeting that is planned for a specific time and place and is designed to promote political action by those attending; (réunion politique)
"political speech" means a speech, the purpose of which is to promote political action by those to whom it is addressed. (discours politique)


(2) Except as otherwise authorized under the Canada Elections Act (Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, Chapter E-2) or any other statute of the Parliament of Canada, a commanding officer shall ensure that any activity that takes place on a defence establishment, including a base or unit, under his command does not affect the actual or perceived political neutrality of the Canadian Forces and, in particular, no commanding officer shall:

(a) except as provided in paragraph (6), allow a political meeting to be held or a political speech to be delivered on a defence establishment;
(b) allow the display of political advertising anywhere on a defence establishment in areas exposed to public view; or
(c) except as provided in paragraphs (4) and (5), allow political canvassing or the distribution of political advertising, other than by mail, anywhere on a defence establishment.

(3) Subject to paragraph (7), paragraph (2) does not apply to any activity that takes place within the confines of a married quarter in Canada.

(4) A commanding officer shall permit political canvassing and the distribution of political advertising to single quarters and married quarters if, having regard to security and privacy requirements, the canvassers or distributors can be given access to such quarters.
(5) The Chief of the Defence Staff may authorize the broadcast, through Canadian Forces broadcasting facilities, of free-time political broadcasts.

(6) In exceptional circumstances, and where no practical alternative location can be found, the Minister may authorize the use of a defence establishment or any part thereof for the conduct of a political meeting or the delivery of a political speech.

(7) No member of the Regular Force shall:
(a) take an active part in the affairs of a political organization or party;
(b) make a political speech to electors, or announce himself or allow himself to be announced as a candidate, or prospective candidate, for election to the Parliament of Canada or a provincial legislature; or
(c) except with the permission of the Chief of the Defence Staff, accept an office in a municipal corporation or other local government body or allow himself to be nominated for election to such office.

(8) No officer or non-commissioned member shall organize or take part in a political meeting on a defence establishment.
(M)
NOTES
(A) Examples of meetings or speeches that might be considered to be political meetings or political speeches are those that are designed to:
(a) solicit votes for a candidate in a federal, provincial or municipal election;
(b) solicit funds to support a candidate in a federal, provincial or municipal election or a political party; or
(c) organize a lobby to maintain or change public policy at the federal, provincial or municipal level.
(B) An example of a meeting or speech that might not be considered to be a political meeting or political speech is a meeting or speech that is designed to impart information but does not require or expect any specific solicited political action to follow as a result.

Emphasis mine. From that reading, I see nothing that prevents someone from joining a political party, and voting to nominate members of that party to represent their riding in an upcoming election. The "active" part of that is key. Yes, you certainly can't, for example, become someone's campaign manager, or appear in a political ad, or canvass on behalf of someone else.

 

[pbi]

I agree with gc clarke's interpretation. Reservists, when not subject to the Code of Service Discipline, probably have no restrictions on their political activities at all: they are to all intents and purposes civilians.

I have always understood that although in the RegF we can't hold elected office or a party organizational position, we are free to join whatever party we want, and contribute funds in any legal manner we want. As for election posters: I have had these on my private property with no issues. Since most people in the RegF don't live in PMQs where signs may be restricted, it probably isn't a big issue.

Where I do draw the line is at members (especially senior officers) saying or doing anything in public that appears to suggest they support one party over another. That is wrong and probably dangerous. It can also be heartbreaking (as we may have learned over the years...): if you crawl into bed with a political party, don't cry if you wake up in the morning and they've left you for political opportunism.

While I agree that publicly the US military is honourably apolitical, my very strong impression is that the officer corps is overwhelmingly Republican, just as many Cdn soldiers tend to identify with the Tories.

Cheers

 

[a_majoor]

Politics follows us, though:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/01/11/adrian-macnair-smearing-the-troops-it-s-what-the-liberals-do.aspx

Adrian MacNair: Smearing The Troops. It’s What The Liberals Do
Posted: January 11, 2010, 4:00 PM by NP Editor
Full Comment, Adrian MacNair

This is the latest brain child of the Liberal war room. An attack ad which focuses, of all things, on unsubstantiated, unproven, unfounded allegations about our possible complicity in the maltreatment of suspected Taliban detainees. The Liberal Party is now so far removed from the foundations of a morally centred worldview, that rumours spread by the Taliban are the jusdtification for spending the donations of Liberal supporters to attack the Conservative government.

Think about this for a moment. You’re a Liberal supporter. You’re interested in the party because you want them to press the government on economic recovery, jobs, the environment, health care, and education. You donated your hard-earned after-tax dollars in the hope that the party would do something relevant to achieve these ends. And what you get instead is this. The same old manufactured controversy about another hidden agenda, except that this time it’s based upon the testimony of a single Canadian out of the entire mission in Afghanistan who believes there is a remote possibility that torture may have occurred after detainees were handed over.

Watch the video. Aside from the phony music and ridiculous barbed wire, the dishonesty in the narration is practically defamatory:

“When questions arose about what he and his government knew about torture in Afghanistan, Stephen Harper shut down Parliament.”

Even Vince Li, a man who beheaded Tim McLean in plain sight of dozens of other passengers on a greyhound bus outside of Portage La Prairie, was called an “alleged murderer” by the media. A man carrying the severed head around in his hand with a knife and blood-splattered clothing was “alleged” to have committed the crime.

But torture in Afghanistan? Of course it happened. The testimony of a single person, corroborated by the Taliban, is good enough for the Liberal Party of Canada. What does the government know about torture in Afghanistan? I have no idea. What does Michael Ignatieff know about Madeleine McCann? What is he hiding about her disappearance that he isn’t telling us about?

You see how this kind of stuff works?

As Rex Murphy points out, the Liberals would know all about coverups. Maybe that’s why they’re hammering on the Conservatives for every communion wafer the Prime Minister may not have swallowed, for every hockey logo that looks too much like the logo of the Conservative party, for every extra body bag that was ordered for a native community. If the Liberal Party were assigned to the Department of Homeland Security, the sheer number of false alarms would have 911 refusing to take their calls.

Yes, the Liberals are perfectly willing to use money from Liberal donors for attack ads which smear the government and our soldiers in Afghanistan in one fell swoop. They can always deny it later, and, unsurprisingly, one third of Canadians will probably believe them, despite the fact Michael Ignatieff went on record saying he wanted to investigate “the conduct of our troops in the field.” It doesn’t matter to the Liberal Party who they hurt, or who gets in the way during their attempt to convince Canadians that the Reform-Conservatives are trying to build their evangelical-fundamentalist movement to a majority government, whereupon they will cancel gay marriage and invoke the notwithstanding clause to stop abortions.

This is the mentality we’re supposed to accept as represented by the opposition. Where the innocent are guilty until proven otherwise, and hearsay and conjecture are legally binding evidence in the court of public opinion.

National Post

Adrian MacNair is a Vancouver writer and blogger. Read more here.

Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/01/11/adrian-macnair-smearing-the-troops-it-s-what-the-liberals-do.aspx#ixzz0cLzTzFHM
The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.

 

[ProudNewfoundlander]

Despite the formal apolitical approach the forces takes its no secret that the good majority are conservative ideologically and partisan wise. Same goes for other western countries