Man, there's some weird hand-wringing going on in this thread.
Sexual assault is a crime. It's a pretty straightforward concept, and it has a clear meaning in law. Unfortunately it happens a lot in society you can indeed go out on a weekend evening, and there's a reasonable chance that if you're in the bars, some sexual assaults on the 'lower' end of the spectrum of what that offense covers will occur near you. Being reasonably frequent, and being 'lower end' doesn't make them any less criminal, it just makes them a prevalent problem. I have the right to go to a bar, or the mechanic's, or the library, or to my place of employment, or the furniture store, or to a work party without having my dick touched if I don't want it to be. Everyone does. A victim being male and a perpetrator female doesn't change the gravity of a situation at all. So let's start with that- you grab someone's junk without permission, regardless of the nature or configuration of their junk or of yours, you're offside. If you tell them "You know you like it" and you do it again, it's difficult to suggest it was unintentional or a misread of a sexually charged but still somewhat ambiguous situation. Does it happen a lot in bars? Yes. And if someone comes to me with a credible allegation of that and there's a suspect, I can and will arrest and charge that person. In the strictly criminal law side of the house, there's no differnet, higher standard being applied here simply because it's the CAF and the eyes of society are on us. The conduct was in and of itself sufficient to justify charges,a dn charges were laid. A plea deal resulted, also common in civilian criminal court. Nobody got railroaded here.
The CAF, quite wisely, has decided that for valid institutional reasons, we impose a standard of conduct higher than 'don't get convicted of a criminal offense'. Any employer can and most do. The CAF is hardly unique for having certain situations in which someone will lose their job if it's reasonably believed they engaged in certain conduct. While the CAF is one of only a few employers with its own specific legislation, and its own conduct expectations that have the weight of law, that's not what it has to rely upon to determine that someone is best removed from employment. McDonalds doesn't need a National Fast Food Act passed by a legislature to have the power to fire someone who grabs someone else's dick, either during work hours or at an after hours work function. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the CAF has one of the most rigorously procedural employee administration systems, with some of the strongest oversight mechanisms to be found anywhere. You grope a coworker at TD Bank, watch how fast you're fired. You probably won't be seeing an NOI, there's probably not going to be a grievance procedure. Brief meeting with HR, and here's the banker's box with your personal effects... The CAF has a lot in place to make sure that administrative measures are enacted fairly.
I acknowledge that the role of the CAF justice system is in part rehabilitation. Absolutely, and yes it should be. But that does not obviate the requirement for CAF leadership to identify systemic problems int he institution, and to use the measures they have available to target unacceptable behaviours that fall short of outright criminality. Being fired from a job does not carry the weight of a criminal conviction. It sucks, but when you choose the behaviour you choose the consequences, and there has been nothing unclear about the consequences of not keeping your damned hands to yourself for a fair bit of time now.
An individual who engages in such behaviours against / among CAF members does more than just grab someone's dick. They're wilfully engaging in conduct that perpetuate a type of behaviour that is rightly or wrongly seen as endemic within our ranks, and that has been deemed (rightly) to constitute a threat to the institution. They are wilfully engaging in behaviour that makes some other members uncomfortable at or afraid to come to work, and that has caused some significant psychological distress. In the case of a leader, they are damaging ocnfidence in the integrity of the chain of command and they are damaging the trust that should implicitly be vested both upwards and downwards through the chain of command. I recognize also that institutionally the CAF sees such things from an officer as more egregious. Frankly I tire of that nonsense and I think that as we're all adults (or damned close to it) and professionals, and as our junior ranks are no longer Wellington's 'scum of the earth', we should be able to view misconduct equitably regardless of a degree or a commission. But I digress- that was just the (not quite released yet) NCO in me taking umbrage at the residual classism we still have. In any case, there is no person so lowly in rank or junior in experience who is not aware of where these particular lines are drawn, and whose conduct can be mitigated by being junior.
This is not something 'everyone is guilty of'. Most of us are perfectly capable of keeping our hands to ourselves. Those who can't give me pause- I question their ability to exercise sound judgment, and I question their self control. I won't leave those concerns in the frictionless vacuum of an after work party, because character is character.
Maybe I'm pretty die hard on this, but I don't think we need every single person who enters our organization to stay, and I don't think the recruitng process perfectly weeds in who should and who should not be here. I believe that over time, people will revert to their nature even when they 'wear a mask' in a professional environment. I believe that a small portion of our members, by virtue of their choices and their conduct, eventually show themselves to not be worth the cost of keeping. It might be a one off, it might not. But in an institution where discipline is so key, I fully support the CDS on down in keeping a very tight grip on the consequences of poor choices.