• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Operation HONOUR discussion

Humphrey Bogart

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
4,938
Points
1,360
Navy_Pete said:
Maybe will be clearer when the actual CM decision is out in a few months, but any reason why something like this couldn't have had sexual assault as the primary, with the behaving in a disgraceful manner as an alternate? Understand there is discretion for the prosecutor but not really clear why this wouldn't meet the elements of the charge.

Does it have to be more sustained or not through clothes or something?  From looking at other CMs seems to be a range of similar behaviour that may or may not hit the threshold.

Because cultural/societal biases, that's why.

 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
11,361
Points
1,160

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,979
Points
1,060
Jarnhamar said:
Severe punishment (career ending perhaps?) handed down to Canadian Forces officer who repeatedly grabbed the genitals of colleagues.

I'm guessing the guilty party making the statement "Oh, I know you like it," had a hand to play in the judges decision.

https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/news/halifax/fondling-of-frigate-mates-earns-navy-officer-a-reprimand-346626/

A severe reprimand and a $3,000 fine?  That doesn't seem too severe to me.  I wonder if the Officer found guilty had been male and the victims female if the punishment would have been so (IMO) light.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
11,361
Points
1,160
Eye In The Sky said:
A severe reprimand and a $3,000 fine?  That doesn't seem too severe to me.  I wonder if the Officer found guilty had been male and the victims female if the punishment would have been so (IMO) light.

I'm tracking a couple of FB groups that are blowing up about that right now....
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
5,070
Points
1,110
Navy_Pete said:
Maybe will be clearer when the actual CM decision is out in a few months, but any reason why something like this couldn't have had sexual assault as the primary, with the behaving in a disgraceful manner as an alternate? Understand there is discretion for the prosecutor but not really clear why this wouldn't meet the elements of the charge.

Does it have to be more sustained or not through clothes or something?  From looking at other CMs seems to be a range of similar behaviour that may or may not hit the threshold.

She was charged with Sexual Assault x3, Assault x1, and Disgraceful x3. She pled guilty to disgraceful x3, which suggests a plea deal with the SA/Assault charges being stayed. Many men have gotten that same plea deal. CDS direction suggests that findings of guilt in such cases will probably result in an administrative (vs disciplinary) release from the CAF.
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
405
Points
880
Maybe things have changed, but in my days a Severe reprimand on an officer's file was pretty career limiting.

She may make it to two-ringer, late, on the "automatic" process but extremely unlikely to make it past that rank unless she turns into the superstar of the fleet in all she does. Moreover, in my days, such finding could've security clearance implications. Not sure if that would still be the case today, though.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
3,673
Points
1,060
Eye In The Sky said:
A severe reprimand and a $3,000 fine?  That doesn't seem too severe to me.  I wonder if the Officer found guilty had been male and the victims female if the punishment would have been so (IMO) light.

$3000 fine paid in convenient $300 installments.

Would a male officer found guilty of grabbing women's crotches, saying "I knoe you like it" got the same punishment through today's op honour crosshairs? No idea, lots of people don't seem to think so from what I'm reading.

It sounds like she was promoted to LT(N) and redeployed on the same ship, in the same role.
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
4,378
Points
1,110
Jarnhamar said:
$3000 fine paid in convenient $300 installments.

Would a male officer found guilty of grabbing women's crotches, saying "I knoe you like it" got the same punishment through today's op honour crosshairs? No idea, lots of people don't seem to think so from what I'm reading.

It sounds like she was promoted to LT(N) and redeployed on the same ship, in the same role.

All good questions. Her career will probably stop, at least short term due to the severe reprimand.

I would not be surprised if she was released administratively. I've been out for over two years now so who knows how they will treat this situation.

 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
294
Points
880
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Maybe things have changed, but in my days a Severe reprimand on an officer's file was pretty career limiting.

She may make it to two-ringer, late, on the "automatic" process but extremely unlikely to make it past that rank unless she turns into the superstar of the fleet in all she does. Moreover, in my days, such finding could've security clearance implications. Not sure if that would still be the case today, though.

The member is now a LT(N).
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,627
Points
1,040
Brihard said:
She was charged with Sexual Assault x3, Assault x1, and Disgraceful x3. She pled guilty to disgraceful x3, which suggests a plea deal with the SA/Assault charges being stayed. Many men have gotten that same plea deal. CDS direction suggests that findings of guilt in such cases will probably result in an administrative (vs disciplinary) release from the CAF.

Thanks, that makes sense. The CMJ site only lists the disgraceful x3; didn't realize they don't list stayed charges from plea bargains on there. Learn something everyday; now I can start my weekend with confidence!  :cheers:

AR with possible release seems reasonable. Seems like a pretty light fine, but guessing this was par for the course with similar cases. On paper, severe reprimand is pretty bad, but kind of a moot point if you will get a dishonourable release anyway. Will be interesting to read the decision and see what the judge had for mitigating/aggravating factors. Speculating before that is available is a waste of time (IMHO).

If she was that close to getting her NOPQ she had enough experience that 'I'm just a dumb Subbie' doesn't wash. Especially to do it multiple times. I'm a fan of the bigger responsibility = bigger hammer if you mess up, so think generally that officers and senior NCMs should get smote for things like this to set an example for the sailors/troops.
 

FSTO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,490
Points
1,090
Chief Engineer said:
The member is now a LT(N).

Members are either a physical appendages or in the RCMP.

She's a Naval Officer (although a tainted one now)
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
294
Points
880
FSTO said:
Members are either a physical appendages or in the RCMP.

She's a Naval Officer (although a tainted one now)

Yes this Naval Officer is now a LT(N), my bad.
 

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
1,727
Points
1,060
Hamish Seggie said:
All good questions. Her career will probably stop, at least short term due to the severe reprimand.

I would not be surprised if she was released administratively. I've been out for over two years now so who knows how they will treat this situation.

If she's not released, its grounds for grievance for any male released after having similar charges and findings of guilt. Possibly even brought to a human rights tribunal, if someone was bold enough.
 

kratz

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
122
Points
880
Sadly, grievances can only be made while in the service.

Those who were released would have to make use of other methods of recourse. As you suggested, a HRT.
 

Humphrey Bogart

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
4,938
Points
1,360
daftandbarmy said:
Perception vs. reality related to crime is very different oin different countries e.g., https://www.visualcapitalist.com/crime-rate-perception-gap/
*WARNING: UNPOPULAR OPINION ALERT!*

I'm glad she didn't get convicted of sexual assault, it shows that there actually is some common sense in the legal system.

Yah she did wrong but ffs, she isn't a sex offender and I don't think it's in the public interest to have her on the registered sex offenders list with 3x sexual assault convictions which would essentially destroy her life.

She is essentially guilty of being pig headed and promiscuous which btw I can go to any bar in town and watch the same thing happen multiple times in one night.  They don't have OP HONOUR in bars though so it's all good there.

Which btw, I think brings up an important point.  The whole purpose of the military justice system is to firstly, maintain discipline in the ranks but also correct behaviour and make someone employable by the CAF again. 

It is not supposed to be step 4 in the 30 step process of modern society's equivalent of tarring and feathering. I would personally offer her counselling and education and give her the chance to prove her worth again and that goes for anyone else OF EITHER SEX who did something similar. 

If everyone were judged by their worst moments, we would all be in prison (shamelessly stole that quote from someone else). 

This is kind of the point of my comment above regarding our society now.  We are a society of excess.  We promote absolute decadence in many instances (our celebrity obsessed culture) and then act all POed when someone acts exactly like the very people we spend most of our time idolizing.  Loudly yelling FOR SHAME!

I won't participate in it, I refuse to.




 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,979
Points
1,060
Humphrey Bogart said:
She is essentially guilty of being pig headed and promiscuous which btw I can go to any bar in town and watch the same thing happen multiple times in one night.  They don't have OP HONOUR in bars though so it's all good there.

I think you're downplaying what this (commissioned) Officer did.  She is, if what the story says is factual, likely (and hopefully, IMO) looking at an AR for both alcohol misconduct/misuse and sexual misconduct.  Should the AR recommendation be release?  I don't know, and never will, because I don't know her entire CAF career history.  The people who need to know will know and I'll have to be satisfied they took all info into account.

Let's turn the situation around some;  let's say, the Officer who was guilty was a man, and the female he touched more than once was your daughter.  Would you think/feel the same?

Using conduct at a bar downtown as a measuring stick for conduct in the CAF, from Officers especially...is that the benchmark we want to go with?
 

PPCLI Guy

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
1,188
Points
1,040
Eye In The Sky said:
Using conduct at a bar downtown as a measuring stick for conduct in the CAF, from Officers especially...is that the benchmark we want to go with?

So CAF personnel can't go to bars and behave like......people in bars.....those places you go to in order to consume alcohol, and often to meet other people? 

That's quite the standard you have there. 

 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,979
Points
1,060
They can, of course.  However, their conduct is still subj to CAF standards, policies, etc.  If they step out of line, on duty or not, they can still face disciplinary/admin consequences. 

But, the point was we should not be using 'conduct in downtown bars' as a benchmark starting point for CAF members *acceptable conduct*, particularly those holding a Commission.  *Just because it happens downtown* isn't a good metric for conduct for CAF members is it? 
 

Humphrey Bogart

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
4,938
Points
1,360
Eye In The Sky said:
I think you're downplaying what this Commissioned Officer did.  She is, if what the story says is factual, likely (and hopefully, IMO) looking at an AR for both alcohol misconduct/misuse and sexual misconduct.  Should the AR recommendation be release?  I don't know, and never will, because I don't know her entire CAF career history.  The people who need to know will know and I'll have to be satisfied they took all info into account.

Let's turn the situation around some;  let's say, the Officer who was guilty was a man, and the female he touched more than once was your daughter.  Would you think/feel the same?

Using conduct at a bar downtown as a measuring stick for conduct in the CAF, from Officers especially...is that the benchmark we want to go with?

Not downplaying it one bit.  My personal opinion is all are equal before the law.  Which is supposed to be one of the cornerstones of our legal system.  If we wanted her removed from the service, the mechanism to do that is through the court martial and sentencing.  Dismissal is a punishment that can be given.  My pal Rob Semrau was sentenced to dismissal and demoted two ranks for one count of disgraceful conduct.  Her position would be one of the factors considered.

What exactly is the difference between a 23 year old ASlt and a 23 year old Corporal anyways? 

A piece of paper and the fact one most likely spent 4 or 5 years at one of our Nations great institutions of higher learning.  Known for such events as binge drinking, experimentation with narcotics and sexual experimentation. 

The fact we subscribe to this Caste System still is kind of dumb tbh.  I also think it's very Un-Canadian but that's for another discussion.  She is an Officer yes, but just because someone holds some sort of rank or title doesn't somehow make them infallible. 

Also, your logic that an officer should be treated differently than a non-commissioned is flawed.  I'll explain why:

The same people that say "if this was a troop they would be getting the book thrown at them" are the ones who would loudly decree "they are only a corporal so that means they should be punished less".  It's "Rules for thee but not for me" only inversed.

Sexual misconduct isn't a crime btw, it's a term that is used to describe behaviours we have defined as unacceptable for whatever reason, whether it's cultural, spiritual, etc.  These beliefs change and evolve over time.  Being a homosexual used to be considered sexual misconduct btw.

As I said, we are in a weird period right now.  People have more "freedom" than ever but we are arguably more censored than ever.  I can self-identify as a Cat, be totally useless at my actual job and I can show up and get paid, but heaven forbid I make a poorly worded remark to the wrong person or drink a little too much and make an *** of myself.

I am not saying what she did was right, I am saying a little perspective and analysis from people would be nice. 

What also needs to be a consideration is "can this person be rehabilitated?"  If the answer is yes then the next question is "can this person still be a valuable contributor to the Canadian Armed Forces?" If the answer is again yes, then steps need to be taken to make that happen.

What we seem to be moving slowly towards is an American style criminal justice industry.  We need to give people who screw up the tools to still be valuable contributors to society otherwise we just end up with larger social problems and a certain proportion of our population that is institutionally criminalized.  You know, like what occurred with the Residential School System.







 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,979
Points
1,060
Are we still looking at this from the same perspective I wonder?  I'm looking at it from the Admin/AR side and career consequences aspect, as the criminal/legal side has been determined.  I'm assuming the Sexual Misconduct Incident Management Decision Tree process is already in play, and the CAF/file is at the Step 7.

A review of the facts of the case is required to determine whether, on a balance of probabilities, an incident, special circumstance, or professional deficiency has occurred. If such a determination is made, then a review of the facts of the case is required in order to ensure that the most appropriate administrative action is selected in accordance with DAOD 5019-2. This includes the CAF member's entire period of service (taking into account their rank, military occupation, experience & position), previous conduct deficiencies, if any, and leadership role, if any,

Humphrey Bogart said:
What also needs to be a consideration is "can this person be rehabilitated?"  If the answer is yes then the next question is "can this person still be a valuable contributor to the Canadian Armed Forces?" If the answer is again yes, then steps need to be taken to make that happen.

What we seem to be moving slowly towards is an American style criminal industry.  We need to give people who screw up the tools to still be valuable contributors to society otherwise we just end up with larger social problems and a certain proportion of our population that is institutionally criminalized.  You know, like what occurred with the Residential School System.

I agree 100%. 
 
Top