No more uniforms in court

[brihard]

Reg Force members are subjected to CSD 24/7/365 so saying it's because Court is "during working hours" is kind of irrelevant no?

I actually don't really think the Military has any say what someone can and can't do in a civilian court. re: wearing of medals and its an overstep on the CAFs part.

The CAF abdicated that right when they sent these cases to the civilian courts.

I think of this man when I think of this order:

Sure. Again, see my prior re: medals versus uniform. I believe I’ve already largely conceded that point.

I acknowledge the mootness of ‘on duty’ given 24/7 CSD for Reg force (or Class B/C).

If someone wants to try to test the legality of this order, they can. Realistically, anyone in a position to has bigger problems… Though that may be why eventually someone does so anyway.

 

[Weinie]

Witness intimidation comes to mind.

Which medal intimidates? Why?

You cannot just angrily post woke shit.

 

[dapaterson]

I acknowledge the mootness of ‘on duty’ given 24/7 CSD for Reg force (or Class B/C).

No court of competent jurisdiction has established that class B / C reservists are on duty 24/7. Nor has legislation, regulation, policy or an order established it.

It's an open sore in the CAF disciplinary and administrative systems.

 

[brihard]

No court of competent jurisdiction has established that class B / C reservists are on duty 24/7. Not has legislation, regulation, policy or an order established it.

It's an open sore in the CAF disciplinary and administrative systems.

No, but the fact that CSD explicitly applies when a CAF member wears uniform could create a fun tautology wherein by wearing a uniform, one immediately subjects oneself to lawful orders to not wear the uniform.

A fun one for us to hash out here in the court of incompetent jurisdiction.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Sure. Again, see my prior re: medals versus uniform. I believe I’ve already largely conceded that point.

I acknowledge the mootness of ‘on duty’ given 24/7 CSD for Reg force (or Class B/C).

If someone wants to try to test the legality of this order, they can. Realistically, anyone in a position to has bigger problems… Though that may be why eventually someone does so anyway.

I actually think we've achieved a sort of consensus.

I think the CAF has the right to restrict the wearing of uniforms but that right does not extend to medals & honours.

No, but the fact that CSD explicitly applies when a CAF member wears uniform could create a fun tautology wherein by wearing a uniform, one immediately subjects oneself to lawful orders to not wear the uniform.

A fun one for us to hash out here in the court of incompetent jurisdiction.

And then if they are on duty, don't we need to be paying them?



I think Rory Fowler summed it up best:

But what would be ‘wrong’ would be the sort of knee-jerk, defensive approach to decision-making that has characterized much of the policy-making regarding how to address sexual misconduct in the CF. All too often, that decision-making is driven by fear – fear of scrutiny, fear of negative news media coverage, fear of criticism (whether such criticism is objectively meritorious or not). And unchecked fear can lead to cowardly decisions by policy-makers.

Unchecked fear and a desire to be ‘seen to be doing something’ has led to problematic decision-making in the administration of the affairs of the CF. It has led to procedurally unfair and unreasonable statutory decision-making. When the principal determinative factor becomes consideration of what the news media might say, rather than what is transparently justifiable based upon reliable facts and articulable reasons, then the relevant decision-maker or policy-maker has lost his or her way.

Whatever policy the CF develops regarding the wearing of uniforms – or, as will likely be the case, which is handed down by the MND – it must be predicated upon objective, reasoned, and rational analysis. It must not be driven by fear. It must not be the refuge of a coward.

Wearing Canadian Forces Uniform in Civil Court

Wearing Canadian Forces Uniform in Civil Court Some people are upset that Major-General (MGen) Dany Fortin wore his uniform when appearing in in civil court to answer to charges of an alleged sexual assault dating to 1988. Other people applaud his decision. And as usual, senior leadership...

roryfowlerlaw.com

The CAF continues to seek refuge in cowardice. The inconsistencies in this decision are already apparent, see the fol:

No court of competent jurisdiction has established that class B / C reservists are on duty 24/7. Nor has legislation, regulation, policy or an order established it.

It's an open sore in the CAF disciplinary and administrative systems.

 

[FJAG]

No, but the fact that CSD explicitly applies when a CAF member wears uniform could create a fun tautology wherein by wearing a uniform, one immediately subjects oneself to lawful orders to not wear the uniform.

A fun one for us to hash out here in the court of incompetent jurisdiction.

Doesn't need hashing out. You nailed it the first time.

 

[dapaterson]

The stipulations on when Res F members are subject to the CSD are fascinating - if a Res F member is on Parliament Hill when the changing of the guard occurs, are they subject to the CSD? If they are out on the town and wearing CAF issue underwear, are they? Is a member who transferred to the Supp Res wearing their Beret on Remembrance Day?

So many fun questions...

 

[dimsum]

If they are out on the town and wearing CAF issue underwear, are they?

If you (or anyone) is at the point of seeing CAF issue underwear while out on the town, there may be more pressing issues than whether they are currently under CSD

 

[dapaterson]

If you (or anyone) is at the point of seeing CAF issue underwear while out on the town, there may be more pressing issues than whether they are currently under CSD

You must be new here.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Can't wait till the first guy flips this on it's head and shows up in court in full battle rattle w/helmet.

 

[markppcli]

I am in and I see nothing wrong with this rule.

Me either, wearing uniforms in civilian court is just grand standing for sympathy

 

[Kat Stevens]

Me either, wearing uniforms in civilian court is just grand standing for sympathy

A cornerstone of any smart defense lawyer's strategy.

 

[markppcli]

A cornerstone of any smart defense lawyer's strategy.

And not a great optic for the CAF when Cpl Bloggins is arguing a DUI in DEUs at 2 pm on a Tuesday in a packed court room.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

This whole thread has me sooooooooo confused. So now we have folks on here suggesting you can wear whatever you want whenever you wish?
I'm sorry but even today I figured you wear what uniform you're told and under what circumstances to do so.

Short shorts to a mess dinner with medals tied to chest hair?? I'm in....

 

[kev994]

This whole thread has me sooooooooo confused. So now we have folks on here suggesting you can wear whatever you want whenever you wish?
I'm sorry but even today I figured you wear what uniform you're told and under what circumstances to do so.

All that matters is that you can wear gloves without a toque, or a toque without gloves.

 

[dimsum]

All that matters is that you can wear gloves without a toque, or a toque without gloves.

That was a good day.

 

[brihard]

That was a good day.

And a great flow chart.

 

[FJAG]

Me either, wearing uniforms in civilian court is just grand standing for sympathy

Exactly how is this different from your standard Mark 1 No 1 * civilian druggie showing up in a suit?

The intent is to make a positive impression with the court.

I really have no issue with the right of the CoC to make the order that they did. They do.

My problem comes with what appears to be a knee-jerk reaction to random pressure groups using the media to influence policies. The CAF has just offloaded what are militarily connected offences to civilian courts. Again, the government has the right to do so. It just feels like individual soldiers are being thrown under the bus because of "appearances". Remember that whole presumed innocence thing?

That doesn't leave one with a warm and fuzzy feeling.

 

[Kat Stevens]

And not a great optic for the CAF when Cpl Bloggins is arguing a DUI in DEUs at 2 pm on a Tuesday in a packed court room.

Cpl Bloggins gives not fuck one about the CF optics when he's looking at 1000s of dollars out of his pocket, potentially kicked out, and loss of his license... and neither does a pervert general. they do what their lawyer(s) tell them.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

The CAF has just offloaded what are militarily connected offences to civilian courts.

What do you consider " military connected offences"? To me that's AWOL, disobeying a lawful command, etc.

If someone is touching things they shouldn't touch, stealing things, etc then those aren't "military related" ....they're Criminal Code related.