New Dress Regs 🤣

[Halifax Tar]

Without derailing this thread anymore, the new online clothing contracts that ADM (Mat) is working on should eliminate ever having to go to clothing stores to get yearly entitlements of t-shirts and underwear.

Some things we do just make sense.

 

[Weinie]

I think you nailed it once more. The right answer is somewhere in the middle.

Or the right answer (for the CAF) will only reveal itself in 10-15 years.

 

[KevinB]

I'm only skimming the posts here because I really couldn't care less, but it's so nice to know I might have a MH problem because I have tattoos, piercings and have coloured my hair.

We knew that already about you. I mean anyone wanting to be a PMed is clearly imbalanced

 

[lenaitch]

Oakes Test? Olease define in a few words.

It's a benchmark SCOC ruling (handed down in R. vs Oakes in 1986) to guide courts on how to apply the 'reasonable limits' provision is Section 1 of the Charter:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.​

​

I won't try to summarize, so here is a quick analysis (there are many online, some more in depth):

Oakes Test - Centre for Constitutional Studies

The Oakes test was created by the Supreme Court of Canada in the 1986 case of R v Oakes. The test interprets section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states that rights are guaranteed, “subject only to such reasonable limits . . .

www.constitutionalstudies.ca

In the context of this thread, it has been mentioned in relation to Section 2(b), Freedom of Expression. I'm not convinced matters of appearance fall under 'expression'. If it isn't a protected right, then the courts don't get to determine if it can be reasonably limited by the State. All my opinion only.

 

[KevinB]

Without derailing this thread anymore, the new online clothing contracts that ADM (Mat) is working on should eliminate ever having to go to clothing stores to get yearly entitlements of t-shirts and underwear

Entirely irrelevant to the thread but my last pair of CF issued underwear (from probably 2002 ish) finally lost its waistline elastic ability.

Honestly they lasted longer than MEC underwear and a bunch of fairly high end underwear.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Again, it's not my job to support someone else's position.

So far all anyone has provided is opinions, anecdotal points and go for search for yourself and don't use google.

Sounds to me like more scared of change folks grasping at straws to rail against what they don't like and understand.

There isn't always a black and while way mental health manifests itself in terms of symptoms.

For example someone with borderline personality disorder:

National Institute of Mental Health

People with borderline personality disorder may experience intense mood swings and feel uncertainty about how they see themselves.[I need bright blue hair today!] Their feelings for others can change quickly, and swing from extreme closeness to extreme dislike. These changing feelings can lead to unstable relationships and emotional pain.

People with borderline personality disorder also tend to view things in extremes, such as all good or all bad.[I need to shave my head/do a crazy haircut!] Their interests and values can change quickly, and they may act impulsively or recklessly.[I changed my mind I'm dying it back. Next week, another drastic chang

Other signs or symptoms may include:

• Efforts to avoid real or perceived abandonment, such as plunging headfirst into relationships—or ending them just as quickly.
• A pattern of intense and unstable relationships with family, friends, and loved ones.
• A distorted and unstable self-image or sense of self. [Dye their hair in an effort to modify their self-image, or change it often because they're uncomfortable]
• Impulsive and often dangerous behaviors, such as spending sprees, unsafe sex, substance abuse, reckless driving, and binge eating. [expensive fake nails, expensive hair cuts and dying]
• Self-harming behavior, such as cutting.
• Recurring thoughts of suicidal behaviors or threats.
• Intense and highly variable moods, with episodes lasting from a few hours to a few days.[I'm really happy I want my hair colour to match my mood!]
• Chronic feelings of emptiness.[maybe dying my hair will make me feel something]
• Inappropriate, intense anger or problems controlling anger.
• Feelings of dissociation, such as feeling cut off from oneself, observing oneself from outside one’s body, or feelings of unreality.

So it could be a sign of deeper mental health issues, or someone could just enjoy dying their hair.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Do you menstruate? Do you have a uterus? A vagina? ovaries?

Except Trans women don't menstruate, have a uterus, and have ovaries. Do they still get the underwear claim?

 

[PMedMoe]

We knew that already about you. I mean anyone wanting to be a PMed is clearly imbalanced

Retired now and not working in the field at all.

 

[btrudy]

Studies, synopses, and discussions are easy to find with web searches. Much of it seems equivocal to me; it almost all leans the same way so I doubt it's all wrong. Behaviours typically mentioned are risk-taking and attention-seeking, along with greater likelihood of having some kind of mental health diagnosis (which is broad but still not meaningless). Expect to find lower rates as time passes and more people indulge in body art. Obviously some kinds of body art are markers intended to signal membership in a tribe.

Again, wearing your hair the way you want it isn't the same thing as "attention seeking behaviour".

Honestly, I think your problem is that you're making this all about you. You're viewing everything through the lens of how you'll react to someone's hair. People aren't trying to get a rise out of you by dying their hair. They're not seeking attention. They just like it better that way.

Having a preference for the way you look is not unusual. Literally everyone likes to be able to style their hair a certain way. The only difference now is that almost everyone will actually be allowed to style their hair the way they prefer it, as opposed to before where it was only a subset of CAF members whose preferred hair styling fell within the regulations.

I rather get the impression that a lot of people here, including yourself Mr. Sallows, were lucky enough to have preferences that were previously allowed. The fact that you did style your hair that was, in accordance with your preferences was nice for you. Now do us all a favour and let the rest of us enjoy the same privilege now that the range of what it allowed has opened up to include our preferred hair styles.

Someone who likes having a pony tail or rainbow hair deciding to wear a pony tail or rainbow hair is no more "attention seeking" than someone who preferred "#2 on the sides and about 2 inches on the top" who decided to wear "#2 on the sides and about 2 inches on the top". It's not indicative of mental illness or a lack of dedication to the institution or any of those other insults that have been cast around to have preferences that didn't suit the restrictive 50s era regulations we previously had in place.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Except Trans women don't menstruate, have a uterus, and have ovaries. Do they still get the underwear claim?

Read the language of the CANFORGEN and the answer is right there. Para 1 sub paras b and c.

If you menstruate and require leakproof undergarments, you get the allowance.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I think this is really the thing; maintaining long hair, fancy beards, hair dye, nails etc takes time and effort. If you are rocking an office job, you do you.

If you have time to do all of this while deployed, you probably aren't pulling your weight, or your deployment job could maybe be done from Canada. I suspect most people will have an 'office standard' then put their game face on because they just can't be arsed on deployment.

From my own experience the people I met that were worried about this stuff weren't operators or in line units. Nobody that stands watches, works outside the wire, etc is going to have time to even think about.

Caring about this is for the REMFs

This will be an interesting one for OUTCAN posting; suspect a lot of them will just follow local dress standards for grooming, at least for things like requiring a natural hair colour.

"For OPERATIONAL/SECURITY reasons, your dress and deportment will conform to the following standards"

Except Trans women don't menstruate, have a uterus, and have ovaries. Do they still get the underwear claim?

How do you know?

 

[Weinie]

I rather get the impression that a lot of people here, including yourself Mr. Sallows, were lucky enough to have preferences that were previously allowed. The fact that you did style your hair that was, in accordance with your preferences was nice for you. Now do us all a favour and let the rest of us enjoy the same privilege now that the range of what it allowed has opened up to include our preferred hair styles.

Mmmmmmmmm. I am not sure that I would refer to (us old folks) hairstyles/facial hair as preferences. They were standards, that were enforced to ensure uniformity across the CAF. There were no privileges/exceptions, unless you were a pioneer, or had a chit.

Your constant disparaging of the way some have reacted, is counter-balanced/negated by your position of their (our) apparent small-mindedness. Freedom of expression includes freedom of opinion.

I have no dog (or tattoo/coloured hair) in the fight. In the end, it will come down to the impact on the Op effectiveness. I suspect, that both sides have some very valid points.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Read the language of the CANFORGEN and the answer is right there. Para 1 sub paras b and c.

If you menstruate and require leakproof undergarments, you get the allowance.

Nice. I'm glad the military is doing more and more initiatives like this to support service members. Seen a CANFORGEN today that reinburst members for some kind of device to pee with PPE on, something like that.

 

[btrudy]

Mmmmmmmmm. I am not sure that I would refer to (us old folks) hairstyles/facial hair as preferences. They were standards, that were enforced to ensure uniformity across the CAF. There were no privileges/exceptions, unless you were a pioneer, or had a chit.

Everyone has a preference. Everyone has some style of hair cut they like the best (which can of course change at times).

The standards went from "shave it bald, everything goes" to "15 cm of length and up to 4 cm inches of bulk". And a lot of people's "ideal" preferred hair cut fell well within those parameters. And thus they've been lucky enough to just be able to go about their time in the CAF, wearing their ideal hair cut without any problems. Because they had an overlap between their preferences and the standards.

And not everyone was so lucky. Some people want hair that's coloured differently than allowed. Some people want hair that's longer than that. Etc.

But simply wearing your hair the way you want is not indicative of any mental illness, "attention seeing behaviour", or any of the other insulting assertions that have been constantly thrown about on this thread; dudes who like their hair shaved, and thus chose to shave their head aren't doing so because they're crazy; they're doing so because that's what they like, and they're allowed to do it.

How is it any different for coloured hair or longer hair?

 

[Kilted]

I'm pretty sure that the sky is falling at this point.

 

[Brad Sallows]

You're viewing everything through the lens of how you'll react to someone's hair.

You're viewing this as if you think my interest is about my reaction to someone's hair. It's not.

In a general all-out war, the CAF has to be able to usefully train and employ just about everyone available who is capable of some sort of useful service. Conscription might even be thought necessary.

Well short of general all-out war, the CAF is very small relative to the population from which it draws and does not - as a matter of military necessity - need to worry about whether some people are excluded from consideration, or exclude themselves. Whether or not inclusion is a matter of constitutional necessity is an entirely separate question and can be taken up as such.

Policies restricting self-expression are one way of discouraging the fraction of people whose propensity to serve themselves is extreme.

 

[Kat Stevens]

WTF ever happened to "the CAF does not owe you a job"? Don't want to wear booty shorts? Don't apply to Hooters. Don't want to cut your hair? Don't join the CAF. Bread and circuses.

 

[Kilted]

Hey, maybe it won't be all bad. Maybe everyone will just follow the trend of looking like the cast of Vikings. At least we will all look scarier than we actually are.

 

[btrudy]

You're viewing this as if you think my interest is about my reaction to someone's hair. It's not.

In a general all-out war, the CAF has to be able to usefully train and employ just about everyone available who is capable of some sort of useful service. Conscription might even be thought necessary.

Well short of general all-out war, the CAF is very small relative to the population from which it draws and does not - as a matter of military necessity - need to worry about whether some people are excluded from consideration, or exclude themselves. Whether or not inclusion is a matter of constitutional necessity is an entirely separate question and can be taken up as such.

Policies restricting self-expression are one way of discouraging the fraction of people whose propensity to serve themselves is extreme.

Now I'm convinced you're being deliberately obtuse.

Tell me, if the rules were changed to mandate and neon green reverse-mohawks, would you be perfectly happy about adhering to that change? Be honest now.

If doing that would irk you, then you're just as guilty as anyone else of desiring your own self-expression regarding your hair. You just happen to want hair that was already allowed.

Desiring hair that is not currently allowed but will be in Sept is not indicative of a "propensity to serve themselves". It's indicative of a difference in aesthetic preferences. That's all.

Wanting purple hair because you like purple hair is no more selfish or self-serving than wanting brown hair because you like brown hair. Literally the only difference is that one of those is currently allowed and one won't be allowed until Sept.

WTF ever happened to "the CAF does not owe you a job"? Don't want to wear booty shorts? Don't apply to Hooters. Don't want to cut your hair? Don't join the CAF. Bread and circuses.

We decided that driving people out because they don't want to adhere to completely arbitrary rules isn't reasonable or beneficial?

 

[rmc_wannabe]

@Mods,

I think we have all said our piece. This is devolving into personal attacks and has circled the bowl twice already. Can we lock this?