Poor Vision for Chaplain in Reserves

[FastEddy]

In closing, I might mention, your Colleagues at the Montreal CFRC, must be thrilled of your opinion of them.

Really?  Well since I don't work at CFRC Montreal or in recruiting it doesn't matter what my "colleagues" think does it?

Sorry, I wonder where I got that impression, oh!, maybe I read it some where, that you were also the Guru and this Forums last word on Recruiting and no one should ever question your posts on the subject. Also I was not inferring that you were posted at CFRC Montreal.

Apparently I have erred in my presumptions and apologize for same.

Now back on track, as for a Chaplain not being able to find injured CF Members on Land or Sea, I can not believe that Religious Institutions Recruit Candidates that would have such impaired vision.

I can only guess that many a Brave Chaplain crawled out in the Blackness of Night, guided only by the cries or moans of the dying or wounded of WW I.

The argument for a comparable degree of vision for a sniper, should be the same as a Chaplain is ridiculous. Though I'll bet the Gentleman in question has a valid Drivers Lic.

 

[Brett]

You people give me headaches.... 

 

[Sig_Des]

Allright. I remembered that there was a legal precedent here.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/1994/1994canlii3483/1994canlii3483.html

It's a case from 1994 of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (Applicant) vs. the Canadian Armed Forces (Respondent)on behalf of Julia Husband (Mise en cause).

Miss Husband claiming that she was discriminated against by the CAF based on a physical disability. She had applied for a direct entry position as a musician with the CAF, a position in which the candidate fills a designated position. "Candidates are judged initially on their musical abilities and then, on recommendation, they are made a recruitment offer. Once recruited, they must, like all other recruits, pass basic training. Although the complainant's musical skills qualified her for the position, her eyesight did not meet the minimum entry standard for the CAF."

The majority of the Tribunal concluded that the types of activities which must be performed by members of the military carry with them a reasonable risk of the loss, breakage or other problems associated with the use of corrective lenses. It held that the entry level standard for visual acuity, while constituting discrimination based on disability, was a bona fide occupational requirement and was therefore not a discriminatory practice. It expressly found that the minimum standard for visual acuity for entry into the CAF had met the objective test laid down in Ontario Human Rights Commission et al. v. Borough of Etobicoke, i.e. that the minimum standard was reasonably necessary to assure the efficient and economical performance of the job without endangering the employee, her fellow employees and the general public

Now this was for a musician, but I see the principle of the ruling still applying.

 

[FastEddy]

Edited to correct background, Sorry !

 

[FastEddy]

Allright. I remembered that there was a legal precedent here.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/1994/1994canlii3483/1994canlii3483.html

It's a case from 1994 of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (Applicant) vs. the Canadian Armed Forces (Respondent)on behalf of Julia Husband (Mise en cause).

Miss Husband claiming that she was discriminated against by the CAF based on a physical disability. She had applied for a direct entry position as a musician with the CAF, a position in which the candidate fills a designated position. "Candidates are judged initially on their musical abilities and then, on recommendation, they are made a recruitment offer. Once recruited, they must, like all other recruits, pass basic training. Although the complainant's musical skills qualified her for the position, her eyesight did not meet the minimum entry standard for the CAF."

Now this was for a musician, but I see the principle of the ruling still applying.

Very Interesting and informative reading, which I would not attempt to argue concerning the case of Ms.Husband, favouring the CAF on the "Soldier first policy".

But wonder if the MOC of Clergy were substituted for Musician if those arguments would be effected or different ?, concerning the under noted extract,

"Before proceeding to consider the second issue, it would be useful to discuss the occupation against which the determination of that issue must be assessed. After considering the preponderance of uncontroverted evidence on the point, the majority concluded that the primary role or occupation was that of a soldier. It therefore assessed the entry standard in light of the evidence concerning the unique role assigned to that occupational group by the National Defence Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. N-5, sections 14, 31 [as am. by R.S.C., 1985 (1st Supp.), c. 31, s. 60, Sch. I, s. 14], 33 [as am. idem, s. 15] and 34 [as am. idem] which provide, in substance, that any member of the CAF may be placed on active service by reason of emergency, for the defence of Canada and is at all times liable to perform any lawful duty."

This simply means in one sense that any Member of the CAF's can and must bear arms and willfully engage an enemy with deadly force, be it that he or she is a Musician, Clerk or other wise.

But in the case of the Clergy, is this a lawfull order or if its against the tenants of that Clergy's Religion is he/she required to obey those orders ?. Therefore can the CAF's policy Soldier first be applicable or applied ?.

Cheers.

 

[Trinity]

Just because you take the "weapon" away from the chaplain, doesn't make him/her any LESS of a soldier.

Chaplains are still required to do all other aspects of soldiering on top of their own trade. And the CF has decided
that the minimum requirement for soldiering is and thus every trade must meet that. 

 

[FastEddy]

Just because you take the "weapon" away from the chaplain, doesn't make him/her any LESS of a soldier.

Chaplains are still required to do all other aspects of soldiering on top of their own trade. And the CF has decided
that the minimum requirement for soldiering is and thus every trade must meet that. 

That has never been in dispute. But it is not the question at hand.

But since you wished to enter the Arena, I respectfully put it to you, do and are the Clergy required to take human life and be used or placed in a Combat Roll as a stipulation for enrolment.

If it is not, therefore it would be fair to presume that DND's Standards are with exceptions and the argument of Soldier First .  Would a Clergy candidate with a V4 or V5 with minimun corrective equipment be denied enrolment using this argument, where the Candidate would never be ordered into a Combat Roll. And these Exemptions would not place the DND and other CAF Members at risk or harms way.

These questions are most certainally not meant to be Critical of the Chaplains Corps, quite the opposite.

Cheers.

 

[xena]

Pardon me for interjecting, but I believe there is something of "tradition" vs. "regulation" going on.  I am aware that the QR&O's prohibit a Chaplain from issuing an order.  There is no such regulation preventing a (whatever level) commander from issuing a Chaplain an order.

However, this is "traditionally" not done.  The idea is that no commander would ever tell a Chaplain what to preach about from the pulpit, etc.

Similarly, I don't believe there is a true exemption in the regulations regarding Chaplains carrying weapons.  It is within the traditions of the various denominations and faiths, that they do not.  Therefore, they could be expected to be capable of bearing arms, even if they do not.

I will welcome any corrections on this matter by members of the Chaplain's branch, or others with the pertaining regs at hand.

 

[Emenince Grise]

Pardon me for interjecting, but I believe there is something of "tradition" vs. "regulation" going on.  I am aware that the QR&O's prohibit a Chaplain from issuing an order.  There is no such regulation preventing a (whatever level) commander from issuing a Chaplain an order.

However, this is "traditionally" not done.  The idea is that no commander would ever tell a Chaplain what to preach about from the pulpit, etc.

Similarly, I don't believe there is a true exemption in the regulations regarding Chaplains carrying weapons.  It is within the traditions of the various denominations and faiths, that they do not.  Therefore, they could be expected to be capable of bearing arms, even if they do not.

I will welcome any corrections on this matter by members of the Chaplain's branch, or others with the pertaining regs at hand.

NON-COMBATANT STATUS
4. Under the terms of the Geneva Convention, chaplains are non-combatant. The policy of the ICCMC and
Chaplain General is that chaplains shall not bear arms. Consistent with this policy is the guideline that a chaplain
will only learn to make the weapon safe on the Chaplain’s Officers Basic Training Course (ChBOTC) and,
subsequently, when accompanying troops on Firing Ranges. The Chaplain General’s direction prohibits the firing
of the weapon.
COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY
5. Chaplains have no authority of command.

A-CG-001-000/JD-000  S 3-1

http://www.forces.gc.ca/Chapgen/docs/pdf/Branch_manual.pdf

I think this answers the question succinctly.

 

[xena]

Ack.  Thanks.  I'll be quiet now. :-X

 

[armyvern]

...
If it is not, therefore it would be fair to presume that DND's Standards are with exceptions and the argument of Soldier First .  Would a Clergy candidate with a V4 or V5 with minimun corrective equipment be denied enrolment using this argument, where the Candidate would never be ordered into a Combat Roll. And these Exemptions would not place the DND and other CAF Members at risk or harms way.
...

The other side of this coin is that, although Chaplains would never be placed directly into a combat role, they, by virtue of their calling, can be found at the front lines and in the FOBs. I agree that any soldier worth his salt would lay down his/her life without a thought to protect that Padre as well.

That being said, fighting on the lines, or attacks on FOBs, often occur at night in reduced visibility. Even in daylight, vision can be reduced significantly due to dust, debris, etc kicked up in the battle.  It is the duty of all CF personnel to be ever vigilant and to observe their surroundings, to detect, determine and report all threat possibilities. The ability to do so quite often can be the deciding factor between life and death. Minimum vision standards exist for every CF member precisely because of conditions existant at that front line and everyone must meet those standards to avoid placing anyone else at that front line at a greater, or unnecessary, risk; including themselves.

Edited to add: "including themselves."

 

[Trinity]

That has never been in dispute. But it is not the question at hand.

Actually...  yes it is. By you here...

But in the case of the Clergy, is this a lawfull order or if its against the tenants of that Clergy's Religion is he/she required to obey those orders ?. Therefore can the CAF's policy Soldier first be applicable or applied ?.

Based on your statement/question that chaplains cannot be a solider first.


The reality is it takes at least 9 years to train a chaplain (needs B.A, M.Div, 2 years civilian parish time), that if
you need to employ a chaplain in the solider first idea, i.e. put a weapon in their hand and assist in battle would be
a severe misuse of resources.  But they can do all other aspects of soldiering as required and/or ordered to.


Sure, even a blind chaplain could administer to the sick and the dying in combat, however, it is the training and environments that the chaplain
must endure in all aspects of military life, including field and deployment, which they must be able to complete first before giving care
(using your own example from earlier).  For WHATEVER reason the military has decided that the MINIMUM eyesight for soldiering skills is (whatever it is),
and SADLY this chaplain does not meet them. 

Hopefully he can apply for an exemption.  The chaplain hiring procedure is not straight forward and the Interfaith Committee on Canadian Military Chaplaincy is
also involved.  An inquiry by them to the military on vision standards for chaplain might cause a review to see if a lower standard or exception is possible.
  http://www.forces.gc.ca/chapgen/engraph/iccmc_e.asp?cat=1

 

[daftandbarmy]

One reason why we always had great respect for our (unarmed) padres. Another Falklands story...

Transcript:  Major The Reverend David Cooper, Padre, 2 PARA, Battle of Goose Green, 1982

Major The Reverend David Cooper

I was busy trying to collect casualties. We'd got a lot, we couldn't get them out, this was the real problem and indeed, a helicopter had coming forward to try to take 'H' out was shot down. So, not unreasonably, the Air Corps were reluctant to come out and for some hours we were on and around Darwin hillside with dwindling ammunition and an increasing number of casualties and no means of getting them out. I decided I was going to try to get to one of the forward companies having heard that they'd got casualties and I walked up Darwin Hill to try to get to them. At the top I came to the Gorse line and I passed main headquarters said where I was going and tried to get forward and had the gorse hedge just shot apart around me. I was aware of an enormous amount of noise, of shots going by, of the hedge disintegrating in splinters, twigs flying about, something plucked my sleeve. I eventually got through it and lay down with a soldier who was in a small hollow and could smell whisky. We had a conversation about which of us had been drinking before I realised in fact the hip flask I had been carrying with Bob Fox's whisky in had diverted a bullet and the shot had hit the flask and glanced off to the left. In the event, and I rather regret it now, but I threw the flask away and said "Its no use to me, the Argentines might as well have it."

 

[FastEddy]

 

Hopefully he can apply for an exemption.  The chaplain hiring procedure is not straight forward and the Interfaith Committee on Canadian Military Chaplaincy is
also involved.  An inquiry by them to the military on vision standards for chaplain might cause a review to see if a lower standard or exception is possible.
  http://www.forces.gc.ca/chapgen/engraph/iccmc_e.asp?cat=1

Yes, this is the exact reason for my inquiry.

You seem to think the questions raised are designed to Demean or make Members of your Corps any less Soldiers, they are NOT !. They are only to explore and hopefully advance efforts by the above noted Committee.

Though I can appreciate you Esprit-De-Corps, I can assure there is no cause for Saber Rattling. ;D

Cheers.

 

[Trinity]

Though I can appreciate you Esprit-De-Corps, I can assure there is no cause for Saber Rattling. ;D

Cheers.

I can't.  I'm not issued a sword either.  :-\

 

[FastEddy]

I can't.  I'm not issued a sword either.   :-\

Good One !  ;D  Sorry I never considered that.

Cheers.

 

[Emenince Grise]

I can't.  I'm not issued a sword either.   :-\

I'm sure, however, that you do a pretty mean asperges with the Holy Water. 

 

[chaplainLD]

Hopefully he can apply for an exemption. 

Thanks for your good wishes. After a fairly lengthy wait (to decide who issues adminstrative waivers of this sort), a waiver was finally  issued! I am very excited to say that I will very soon be sworn in as a Reserve Chaplain!

 

[Emenince Grise]

Thanks for your good wishes. After a fairly lengthy wait (to decide who issues adminstrative waivers of this sort), a waiver was finally  issued! I am very excited to say that I will very soon be sworn in as a Reserve Chaplain!

Congratulations!

 

[Trinity]

Welcome to the club.