• 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
4,438
Points
1,360
Eye In The Sky said:
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 legal side has been determined.

I see your point EITS, I guess my beef is the AR Process has become politicized.  OP HONOUR is 20% an exercise in Justice, 80% an exercise in Political Brinksmanship. 

If a member wasn't sentenced to dismissal during a court martial, how can we then dismiss them administratively?

What's even the point of holding a trial and punishing someone found guilty if we are just going to turn around and administratively nail them no matter what? 

If the military justice system; which is supposed to be independent of the chain of command and is supposedly the most serious form of disciplinary action a member can be subjected to, doesn't think a member should be dismissed, how can the CoC say "nah we know better" and go ahead and do it anyways?

Does that not seriously undermine the legal system itself? 
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
333
Points
880
I am going to interrupt this discussion for a small point of ... order?

EITS, you used Commissioned Officer (both words capitalized. I believe you meant that as emphasis. However, in the Navy, Commissioned Officer (capitalized) is (or used to be) a rank: It is/was the rank used to designate an officer who commissioned from the ranks to the level of SLt after achieving the rate of Petty Officer or above. They either wore the same stripes as SLt but were referred to as Commissioned Officer (and in my days, most of them insisted on it as they didn't want to be confused with a mere subbie). The distinction usually ceased when they made Lt or above.

I know that when I released, they were trying to eliminate the usage, but I don't know if they ever were fully successful.  ;)
 

Humphrey Bogart

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
4,438
Points
1,360
Oldgateboatdriver said:
I am going to interrupt this discussion for a small point of ... order?

EITS, you used Commissioned Officer (both words capitalized. I believe you meant that as emphasis. However, in the Navy, Commissioned Officer (capitalized) is (or used to be) a rank: It is/was the rank used to designate an officer who commissioned from the ranks to the level of SLt after achieving the rate of Petty Officer or above. They either wore the same stripes as SLt but were referred to as Commissioned Officer (and in my days, most of them insisted on it as they didn't want to be confused with a mere subbie). The distinction usually ceased when they made Lt or above.

I know that when I released, they were trying to eliminate the usage, but I don't know if they ever were fully successful.  ;)

Order in the court you say?  This is the internet OGBD, ain't nobody got time for that!

I apologize for ranting a bit (more like a lot)but I was triggered reading CAF Reddit today. 


 

ballz

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
402
Points
910
Let's be serious, the CDS making a blanket decision that all instances of sexual misconduct will result in release through administrative action was dumb and was pure pandering to the media. It undermined the entire discipline and administrative system for him to score cheap points.

I don't know if the direction was ever watered down after he made those remarks, but I sure hope so.

Onto my actual point for posting....

Interestingly, the same judge made a ruling less than a year ago in a somewhat similar case. I sure do look forward to reading the official court martial decision for this latest case to compare, as having read the prior case I thought she had hit the nail right on the head in that case.

A male Pte who had just arrived at St. Jean was charged with 4 counts of sexual assault on 3 different victims. It was plastered all over the news.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/soldier-sex-assault-charges-1.4068855

Reading the court martial documents, the 4 sexual assaults were similar in nature. The Pte allegedly grazed two girls on the back of their butt with the back of his hand in the Green Room (Charges 1 and 3), the Pte allegedly touched one girls boob while demo'ing how to make a bed (Charge 4), and the Pte allegedly touched one of the girls on the butt with his fist in the elevator room (Charge 3).

These charges were eventually lowered to 129s before going to court (not through a plea deal... but because there was no chance of conviction of sexual assault given the evidence), and he was then found guilty of only one of them (the elevator room incident). The other three, quite honestly, seem a little bit ridiculous, but you can read the whole thing and judge for yourself.
https://decisia.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/jmc-cmj/cm/en/item/346527/index.do?q=taylor

In the end, the Pte was found guilty of ONE charge of 129. He received a fine of $2000.

In this case, we have a commissioned officer guilty of THREE counts of a disgraceful conduct (a worse charge than a 129) for essentially the same action as Pte Taylor, repeated thrice. She received a $3000 fine, and a severe reprimand (and shortly after was promoted???).

These decisions were made by the same judge, less than a year apart. Like I said, I look forward to reading the decision when it's published, but on the face of it it feels like there are two standards here.
 

Humphrey Bogart

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
4,438
Points
1,360
ballz said:
Let's be serious, the CDS making a blanket decision that all instances of sexual misconduct will result in release through administrative action was dumb and was pure pandering to the media. It undermined the entire discipline and administrative system for him to score cheap points.

I don't know if the direction was ever watered down after he made those remarks, but I sure hope so.

Onto my actual point for posting....

Interestingly, the same judge made a ruling earlier in the year in a somewhat similar case. I sure do look forward to reading the official court martial decision for this latest case to compare, as having read the case I thought she had hit the nail right on the head in that case.

A male Pte who had just arrived at St. Jean was charged with 4 counts of sexual assault on 3 different victims. It was plastered all over the news  (interesting that I don't remember hearing about this Officer on the news).
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/soldier-sex-assault-charges-1.4068855

Reading the court martial documents, the 4 sexual assaults were similar in nature. The Pte allegedly grazed two girls on the back of their butt with the back of his hand in the Green Room (Charges 1 and 3), the Pte allegedly touched one girls boob while making his bed (Charge 4), and the Pte allegedly touched one of the girls on the butt with his fist in the elevator room (Charge 3).

These charges were eventually lowered to 129s before going to court (not through a plea deal... but because there was no chance of conviction of sexual assault given the evidence), and he was then found guilty of only one of them (the elevator room incident). The other three, quite honestly, seem a little bit ridiculous, but you can read the whole thing and judge for yourself.
https://decisia.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/jmc-cmj/cm/en/item/346527/index.do?q=taylor

In the end, the Pte was found guilty of ONE charge of 129. He received a fine of $2000.

In this case, we have a commissioned officer guilty of THREE counts of a disgraceful conduct (a worse charge than a 129) for essentially the same action as Pte Taylor, repeated thrice. She received a $3000 fine, and a severe reprimand (and shortly after was promoted???).

These decisions were made by the same judge, less than a year apart. Like I said, I look forward to reading the decision when it's published, but on the face of it it feels like there are two standards here.

I don't think people even understand what a severe reprimand is.  It's basically saying, you can do a 110% awesome job at whatever your doing now and in the future and no matter how good of a job you do, this will carry over and seriously impact your ability to excel ahead of your peers forever.

Now pretend for a second this individual is not in the military and is in some other career and all of a sudden their career is limited (a vocation they have been trained for) no matter what they do or how they perform?  How is that not a serious punishment?

I also agree 100% with your initial point.
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,779
Points
1,060
Humphrey Bogart said:
I see your point EITS, I guess my beef is the AR Process has become politicized.  OP HONOUR is 20% an exercise in Justice, 80% an exercise in Political Brinksmanship. 

If a member wasn't sentenced to dismissal during a court martial, how can we then dismiss them administratively?

What's even the point of holding a trial and punishing someone found guilty if we are just going to turn around and administratively nail them no matter what? 

If the military justice system; which is supposed to be independent of the chain of command and is supposedly the most serious form of disciplinary action a member can be subjected to, doesn't think a member should be dismissed, how can the CoC say "nah we know better" and go ahead and do it anyways?

Does that not seriously undermine the legal system itself?

I see them as complimentary.  The legal system, to determine guilt/innocence, looks at the evidence as it related only to that alleged crime/action.  Our Admin processes like an AR take into account the members entire service history and all RMs, etc over a mbr's career are taken into consideration.  We've a 400 page Admin Law Manual to guide us in matters of Admin Law, and fairly specific direction on how an AR will happen for any CAF mbr involved with sexual misconduct.

We aren't 'just' civilians at the end of the day.  Because of that distinction, I believe the CAF needs additional disciplinary and administrative tools and options to address conduct on and off duty. 

I also don't have much faith in the Canadian "legal" system which the CAF is more and more in tune with...so, personally, I'm one of those who are thankful we have the administrative law/processes we do.
 

Bruce Monkhouse

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
2,122
Points
1,260
Humphrey Bogart said:
I don't think people even understand what a severe reprimand is.  It's basically saying, you can do a 110% awesome job at whatever your doing now and in the future and no matter how good of a job you do, this will carry over and seriously impact your ability to excel ahead of your peers forever.

Now pretend for a second this individual is not in the military and is in some other career and all of a sudden their career is limited (a vocation they have been trained for) no matter what they do or how they perform?  How is that not a serious punishment?

I also agree 100% with your initial point.

It's not a punishment at all except for you brainwashed military folk......most jobs have no advancement,  that is your job and you get paid for it.
Doing this same job for 30 years, along with thousands of other CO'S,  and we're doing just fine.
A line on a piece of paper 25 years ago would have been about as bothersome as a small cloud on a sunny day.
 

Humphrey Bogart

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
4,438
Points
1,360
Bruce Monkhouse said:
It's not a punishment at all except for you brainwashed military folk......most jobs have no advancement,  that is your job and you get paid for it.
Doing this same job for 30 years, along with thousands of other CO'S,  and we're doing just fine.
A line on a piece of paper 25 years ago would have been about as bothersome as a small cloud on a sunny day.

Have you ever aspired to be a Supervisor, Warden, Specialist, etc? 

 

Bruce Monkhouse

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
2,122
Points
1,260
Nope.....if I had wanted to push papers I'd have been a clerk. 
It's not like on TV....
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,779
Points
1,060
Oldgateboatdriver said:
I am going to interrupt this discussion for a small point of ... order?

EITS, you used Commissioned Officer (both words capitalized. I believe you meant that as emphasis. However, in the Navy, Commissioned Officer (capitalized) is (or used to be) a rank: It is/was the rank used to designate an officer who commissioned from the ranks to the level of SLt after achieving the rate of Petty Officer or above. They either wore the same stripes as SLt but were referred to as Commissioned Officer (and in my days, most of them insisted on it as they didn't want to be confused with a mere subbie). The distinction usually ceased when they made Lt or above.

I know that when I released, they were trying to eliminate the usage, but I don't know if they ever were fully successful.  ;)

I think I was trying to emphasize the commissioned Officer aspect so there was no doubt I meant Officers solely and not Warrant/Petty or non-commissioned ones.  ;D

I know I'm getting grey and close to a 2nd clasp on the CD;  I'm one of those people who still believe "higher rank = higher expectations" for things like conduct, ethics, etc. 
 

Humphrey Bogart

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
4,438
Points
1,360
Eye In The Sky said:
I think I was trying to emphasis the commissioned Officer aspect so there was no doubt I meant Officers solely and not Warrant/Petty or non-commissioned ones.  ;D

I know I'm getting grey and close to a 2nd clasp on the CD;  I'm one of those people who still believe "higher rank = higher expectations" for things like conduct, ethics, etc.

You old dog you!  You are going to need to temper those expectations.  The most I expect now is that someone be good at Rocket League.

950x426-eng.jpg


Don't knock it, makes you cool with the youths!
 

ballz

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
402
Points
910
Humphrey Bogart said:
I don't think people even understand what a severe reprimand is.  It's basically saying, you can do a 110% awesome job at whatever your doing now and in the future and no matter how good of a job you do, this will carry over and seriously impact your ability to excel ahead of your peers forever.

Now pretend for a second this individual is not in the military and is in some other career and all of a sudden their career is limited (a vocation they have been trained for) no matter what they do or how they perform?  How is that not a serious punishment?

I know what a severe reprimand is.

The fact is every disciplinary measure comes with somewhat of a "reprimand" to your career which is essentially however everyone judges you during that time and for how long after they judge you, for those actions that led to disciplinary action.

I can assure your Pte Taylor experienced and is experiencing "severe reprimand" to his career (assuming he still has one) regardless of the judge not having given him one. The severe reprimand is implicit and only measured by those who supervise you afterwards. Having a judge formally acknowledge one makes zero difference.

What "rules" exist surrounding the use of a severe reprimand to ensure it will be respected and to what degree? It's a pure judgement call on the supervisors going forward.
 

ModlrMike

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
837
Points
960
Regardless of the outcome, her career as an NWO is effectively torpedoed.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,259
Points
1,060
Humphrey Bogart said:
I don't think people even understand what a severe reprimand is.  It's basically saying, you can do a 110% awesome job at whatever your doing now and in the future and no matter how good of a job you do, this will carry over and seriously impact your ability to excel ahead of your peers forever.


Except in this job being female means you might get accepted for a trade you want over a male applicant who's told its closed.

We also make a show of bragging about gender metrics like (attempting to) deploy 15% females to Mali.

I'm confident if the CAF wants more female navy officers for their optics a severe repremand on someone's file won't get in the way.
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,823
Points
1,110
Now that I am at my own keyboard I'd like to offer my thoughts, hopefully in a coherent, measured fashion.

1. Being a Commissioned Officer or an NCO in the CAF sets one apart from society in general and the troops you lead. I think we can all agree to that.
2. As leaders, you are entrusted with the welfare of the troops you lead. This includes their well being. This is a trust which should never be broken.
3. By groping her subordinates she broke that trust, pure and simple.

Quite simply, the sons and daughters the CAF commands haven't signed up to be groped or abused.

My  :2c:
 

Ralph

Member
Reaction score
7
Points
180
Jarnhamar said:
We also make a show of bragging about gender metrics like (attempting to) deploy 15% females to Mali.

All countries sending staff and military observers on UN missions are expected to send 15% female personnel.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
10,371
Points
1,160
Ralph said:
All countries sending staff and military observers on UN missions are expected to send 15% female personnel.

I'm so old that I remember when it was '50% of reservists to Bosnia/Afghanistsan etc' #differenttimesdifferentequitygroups
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
4,383
Points
1,110
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.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,259
Points
1,060
Ralph said:
All countries sending staff and military observers on UN missions are expected to send 15% female personnel.

Thanks Ralph. I'd believe it. Is there a source for that though that I can use in the future?


 

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
607
Points
1,260
Jarnhamar said:
Is there a source for that though that I can use in the future?

There was this,

PPCLI Guy said:
Unless of course the stated goal for the mission, and inherent ask from the UN, was to have 15% of Staff Officer positions female, and we hit just shy of that mark....

See also,
https://www.google.com/search?biw=1280&bih=641&ei=3H9qXdPxEMWd-gSU35aIBw&q=UN+15%25++female+peacekeeping&oq=UN+15%25++female+peacekeeping&gs_l=psy-ab.3...20414.26224..26563...0.2..0.306.3673.0j7j9j1......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j35i39j33i22i29i30.kwFxApSB6wE&ved=0ahUKEwjTz_vrpK3kAhXFjp4KHZSvBXEQ4dUDCAo&uact=5#spf=1567260666124
 
Top