Petitioning Minister of National Defence to fix the injustice induced by the CF.

[ballz]

"Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms

Marginal note:Rights and freedoms in Canada

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."

On its surface, QR&O 19.10 violates the provisions of ss 2(b) and (d) of the Charter and in my humble civilian opinion a strong arguable case can be made for the fact that it does and that therefore it should be of no force and effect.

I was surprised at your humble civilian opinion on this one. As a professional military, we are bound by law to execute orders impartially. Without QR&O 19.10 we would be opening up a crazy can of worms by allowing military members to effectively band together and try to influence policy. Can you imagine if the MND ordered us to deploy and soldiers started petitioning against the MND's orders? It could literally affect the political stability of the country. I would call QR&O 19.10 a "reasonable limit" given our profession.

 

[Occam]

I didn't see the original post.  With that said, from what I've seen, I don't think anyone is questioning the validity of QR&O 19.10.  What is being questioned is whether it's proper or not to advertise a link here to an online petition.  For serving members, following the link and completing the petition clearly contravenes QR&O 19.10 if it deals with any military matter.  However, there are lots of topics that would be of interest to retired military that I don't foresee causing wrath to fall upon the site owner, and would be completely okay for retired members to sign if they were petitions.

I was among the members named in the last legal kerfluffle the site went through because the subject of the comments made irked the individual being discussed.  That's pretty clear cut in how the site owner could be held responsible for hosting a venue for defamatory comments.  However, I'm not sure how the site owner could be held responsible for Pte Bloggins seeing a link here to a petition hosted elsewhere, and going off and signing it in contravention of QR&O 19.10.  The link to the petition (or the petition itself) isn't illegal in any way, shape or form - but it's entirely Bloggins' responsibility to know whether he's allowed to sign it or not.

 

[X Royal]

Here's my question as a former member of the Forces.
Would a serving member be in violation of 19.10 if they signed a petition as an individual about "about alterations in existing regulations for the Canadian Forces"?

19.10 seems to state
"No officer or non-commissioned member shall without authority:

combine with other members for the purpose of bringing about alterations in existing regulations for the Canadian Forces;
sign with other members memorials, petitions or applications relating to the Canadian Forces; or
obtain or solicit signatures for memorials, petitions or applications relating to the Canadian Forces."

Would it be considered combining if none of those had any other knowledge of the others actions?

 

[TCM621]

"Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms

Marginal note:Rights and freedoms in Canada

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 was surprised at your humble civilian opinion on this one. As a professional military, we are bound by law to execute orders impartially. Without QR&O 19.10 we would be opening up a crazy can of worms by allowing military members to effectively band together and try to influence policy. Can you imagine if the MND ordered us to deploy and soldiers started petitioning against the MND's orders? It could literally affect the political stability of the country. I would call QR&O 19.10 a "reasonable limit" given our profession.

I don't think allowing members of the military the right to have a say in the running of said CAF , in the form of petitions is really going to ruin the military.  There is a difference between having a voice and interfering with lawful commands.

I think this is where FJAG was going. If one felt the need to challenge the prohibition on the signing of petitions on charter grounds, they would have a strong argument.  In the end, I think there are better routes for CF members to pursue then petitions.

 

[ModlrMike]

Would it be considered combining if none of those had any other knowledge of the others actions?

I think it might. There's no stipulation that members of the combination (conspiracy) know of each others' actions. I think there may also be case law to that effect. FJAG???

 

[Blackadder1916]

Having not seen the original post that kicked off this discussion, I was left wondering what was this great "injustice induced by the CF" that needed fixing.  I will suggest that a petition be introduced to judge the original poster an idiot, and not just a plain garden variety found in any village, but a cowardly idiot.  I will accept that he (or she) is probably accustomed to the standard practice of internet anonymity and a usual demonstration of poor judgement, however that doesn't excuse registering here for the sole purpose of soliciting signatures on a petition.  My grievance is exacerbated because the nondescript username he chose (as well as no profile details) provided no clue as to his agenda.  A quick google of his username yielded only a couple of hits on other forum sites that suggest he was trolling them to do there what he tried to accomplish here.  I would visit one of those petition starting sites to start an idiot petition and post a link, but I'm too lazy.

But I was still left wondering "what injustice" or was the idiot's post as poorly worded as its title and would it have confused me just as much as its deletion.  By using some googling, I think I found the situation that raised the fervour of uneke125 to skip about the internet this weekend trying to get additional signatures on this petition.  The circumstances (if I have correctly found the right one) are mildly troubling and would probably raise some discussion (both pro and con) on these means - there has already been a similar thread as well some initial reporting of the original events.  While I won't provide a link to the story or the petition, I will say that it is not that new - the petition was started 4+ months ago and has gathered only 1315 signatures to the time of this post.  While my sympathy is with those affected, I would not sign the petition because I disagree with the premise (as well as the poor wording of the missive).  Being no longer a serving member, I have the option.

 

[cupper]

Ok, we need to stop pussyfooting around what the original subject of the petition was and post it to allow a discussion to ensue (perhaps a dangerous move as some past discussions have devolved) or lock the thread, as this appears to be going nowhere. :2c:

 

[SeaKingTacco]

The OP solicited the readership to sign a petition to the MND to provide compensation to a Naval Reservist who was allegedly (I only say that, because am not party to any of the facts. It is no judgement on the situation) misdiagnosed over a brain tumour while on Class  C and permanently disabled as a result.

I could care less about the petition- I pointed out QR&O 19.10 to everyone still serving and reported it to moderator, so the site owner would be aware.

Now, aside from that, why this would be a MND issue (other than maybe asking Surg General if a misdiagnosis did occur and if so, what is being done to prevent future misdiagnosis) vice a clear cut VAC issue is beyond me...

 

[Blackadder1916]

The OP solicited the readership to sign a petition to the MND to provide compensation to a Naval Reservist who was allegedly (I only say that, because am not party to any of the facts. It is no judgement on the situation) misdiagnosed over a brain tumour while on Class  C and permanently disabled as a result.

Oh, guess I found the wrong a different petition.  Still, no change in my opinion.

 

[dapaterson]

The key characteristic of mutiny and QR&O 19.10 is prohibiting actions by two or more members acting together in an unauthorized way or for an unauthorized purpose.

On its surface, QR&O 19.10 violates the provisions of ss 2(b) and (d) of the Charter and in my humble civilian opinion a strong arguable case can be made for the fact that it does and that therefore it should be of no force and effect.

That said, do I think individual, serving members should sign petitions etc advocating change within the CF? -- HELL NO!! -- QR&O 19.10 is a valid, lawful order until a court says otherwise.

I suspect that a court might uphold 19.10, or direct minor changes, as it could be argued that it can be categorized as a reasonable limit within a free and democratic society.  The unique nature of military service has been upheld by the Supreme Court in cases such as Genereux; it's not a carte blanche, but it is clear that there remains a significant level of deference to the military within the courts.

 

[FJAG]

I suspect that a court might uphold 19.10, or direct minor changes, as it could be argued that it can be categorized as a reasonable limit within a free and democratic society.  The unique nature of military service has been upheld by the Supreme Court in cases such as Genereux; it's not a carte blanche, but it is clear that there remains a significant level of deference to the military within the courts.

Going just a bit  ff topic: here but I don't think that the SCC would go far in protecting the "unique nature of military service" on this issue. Remember that much of the case law which protects the military justice system comes about from the fact that the Constitution itself makes provisions for a distinct military justice system.

There are legal principles called "overbreadth" and "vagueness" which attack laws that are too broadly stated or too vaguely worded and thereby limit constitutionally protected activities.

I fully agree that the military requires a justice system that mandates that orders are obeyed even though they may lead to serious injury or death; that's what we're all about at the end of the day.

That said, when we deal with administrative matters, and even matters of policy, the rules could easily be much looser. It is very hard to present a cogent argue that if one soldier has the right to seek a redress of a grievance, or apply to the ombudsman then if two or more, who are equally effected or interested in the outcome, state their complaint together then the fabric of the entire military structure will come apart. Hopefully we're not that fragile.

eace:

:cheers:

 

[McG]

Hopefully we're not that fragile.

Emotionally, some organizations and individuals amongst us are.