RMC Officer Sues to Avoid Saluting, Toasting Queen?

[Occam]

Why hasn't he been discharged? I would have thought that this would be seen as insubordination.

There is no offence of "insubordination" in the NDA.  Insubordination is a group of service offences encompassing Disobedience of a lawful command, Striking or offering violence to a superior officer, Insubordinate behaviour (which is threatening or insulting language to, or contempt towards a superior officer), Quarrels and Disturbances, and Resisting or escaping from arrest or custody.  The Captain hasn't committed any of those.

You're looking for "Traitorous or disloyal utterances", which is under the category of Disgraceful Conduct in the NDA.

 

[Shamrock]

Why hasn't he been discharged? I would have thought that this would be seen as insubordination.

This would fall under section 94, not 85, of the NDA.

 

[Gardiners1]

Geez, this guy can stay in but I can't get in due to kidney stones even though I would do anything to be in the military.  Go figure.

 

[Kat Stevens]

I'm a bit fuzzy, as it was 28 years ago, but I believe there was a passage in the TOS I signed that goes roughly " Thou shalt not bring suit against The Crown."  Has this guy not violated those Terms of Service, and is therefore eligible to be dismissed with prejudice?

 

[medaid]

Huh... That looks more then just vaguely familiar..

 

[Occam]

I'm a bit fuzzy, as it was 28 years ago, but I believe there was a passage in the TOS I signed that goes roughly " Thou shalt not bring suit against The Crown."  Has this guy not violated those Terms of Service, and is therefore eligible to be dismissed with prejudice?

I can't see it.  All he did was follow the CF Grievance procedure.  Grievance to CO, grievance to IA, grievance to CDS, appeal to Federal Court of Canada.  While I don't support his argument, he's followed the letter of the law to air his perceived grievance and can't be faulted for the process.  What remains to be seen is the action he takes when forced with the dilemma of following his oath, or following his conscience.

Some of the comments in this thread are treading pretty heavily upon NDA 84, 85 and 129.  Like I said, while I don't condone or approve of his argument, and at the risk of making it appear that I'm defending the officer (I'm not), the actions he's taken so far in no way grant subordinates carte blanche to offer violence upon him, or act with contempt toward him.  While the public might be a little puzzled about his beliefs while wearing the Queen's uniform, I'm certain they're probably just as puzzled at the public bashing he's enduring here by other members of the CF.

 

[Kat Stevens]

I'm no lawyer, and apparently you are, but as soon as he stepped outside our big green family, he in fact DID violate those terms by moving his case to a civil court.  By asking a civilian court to intervene in what amounts to an internal matter, he in fact did leave himself subject to that particular TOS.  But I'm probably wrong, as I was just a Corporal, and was therefore subject to a bit less liberal interpretation of the regs as this foine son of the auld sod.....err, grandson, or is it great-grandson?

 

[Occam]

I'm no lawyer, and apparently you are, but as soon as he stepped outside our big green family, he in fact DID violate those terms by moving his case to a civil court.  By asking a civilian court to intervene in what amounts to an internal matter, he in fact did leave himself subject to that particular TOS.  But I'm probably wrong, as I was just a Corporal, and was therefore subject to a bit less liberal interpretation of the regs as this foine son of the auld sod.....err, grandson, or is it great-grandson?

Nope, not a lawyer at all.  The reference is right in the Grievance manual.  http://www.cfga.forces.gc.ca/pubs/griev_instruments/manual_e.asp

7.7 Federal Court
Under the Federal Court Act, a FA decision is the same as a ruling by a federal board, commission or tribunal. Therefore, grievors who are not satisfied with the FA decision may seek "judicial review," at their own expense, before the Federal Court within 30 days of receiving the decision. Grounds for such application lie in a perceived error of law or fact, in the appearance that the decision was made in breach of the duty of fairness or of the principles of natural justice, without due consideration of the evidence, or where the deciding authority seems to have acted in any other way that is contrary to the law. As remedy, the Federal Court could declare the decision invalid, quash it, set it aside or refer the matter back for a new decision.

 

[Neill McKay]

I'm no lawyer, and apparently you are, but as soon as he stepped outside our big green family, he in fact DID violate those terms by moving his case to a civil court.  By asking a civilian court to intervene in what amounts to an internal matter, he in fact did leave himself subject to that particular TOS.

I think the thread is mis-named.  He hasn't actually sued anyone; he's just taken the next step in the established grievance procedure.

 

[JBoyd]

If I am not mistaken, that is the Queen's crown on the top of the tri-service badge.

Also perhaps this would be a good read for some,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada

as well as this,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander-in-Chief_of_the_Canadian_Forces

Despite the fact that the GG does represent her, She has been the CiC since 1968 and shall continue to be until such time as her reign ends.

I would also like to point out

Most of the Queen's powers in Canada are exercised by the Governor General, at present Michaëlle Jean, though the monarch does hold several powers that are hers alone.

 

[x-zipperhead]

This is an interesting thread.  Yes, she is our CiC and we swear loyalty to her.  In practice, however, what real power does the Queen exercise in Canada?  Not looking to get flamed here.  I have always served by the oath I took but it is a valid question, I beleive. 

 

[RangerRay]

In my opinion, the judge made the proper decision.  It's nice to see that there are still some sound minds sitting on the bench!

Slightly off topic, but I would support a move to patriate the monarchy.  As opposed to what Mr. Campbell has outlined, at the time of Her Majesty's demise (long may she reign), Parliament should invite someone from the House of Windsor who is further removed from the immediate line of succession to become the new King (or Queen) of Canada.

Having said that, I fully support the current situation in sharing the Sovereign with the UK and other realms.  Patriation of the monarchy is an option, however.

God save the Queen!

 

[Kilo_302]

I don't see how anyone here can positively say they know exactly what this man's motivation is. Maybe he IS grandstanding, maybe he's not. Imagine the coincidence, he's Irish and he has a problem with Queen. Shock Horror!!!! And if he is indeed committing career suicide let him. I don't think many of you will lose sleep over it. Righteous indignation over such a non-issue is pathetic. I believe the saying goes, "Don't get your panties in a knot."



Oh and Mr. Wallace, I am an Atheist, I hope you weren't suggesting that we are ALL wing nuts.

 

[armyvern]

I don't see how anyone here can positively say they know exactly what this man's motivation is. Maybe he IS grandstanding, maybe he's not. Imagine the coincidence, he's Irish and he has a problem with Queen. Shock Horror!!!! And if he is indeed committing career suicide let him. I don't think many of you will lose sleep over it. Righteous indignation over such a non-issue is pathetic. I believe the saying goes, "Don't get your panties in a knot."



Oh and Mr. Wallace, I am an Atheist, I hope you weren't suggesting that we are ALL wing nuts.

Career suicide?? Well, he IS a Captain, but he HAS been serving since '75.



Perhaps some of us believe that, in his case, assisted-suicide is not the answer? I'm talking about NOT allowing mandatory-retirement-age-assisted-suicide; as in ... the sooner -- the better.

I don't believe for an instant that allowing him to fade into the wallpaper's gawd-awful flower design and leave when his age dictates he shall is the correct COA in this instance. That certainly gets my knickers in a knot.

I'm an atheist too BTW (& of Irish heritage at that) ... so George W already knew that not all athiests (or Irish descendants) are wingnuts, only some; take it as you wish.

 

[the 48th regulator]

I don't see how anyone here can positively say they know exactly what this man's motivation is. Maybe he IS grandstanding, maybe he's not. Imagine the coincidence, he's Irish and he has a problem with Queen. Shock Horror!!!! And if he is indeed committing career suicide let him. I don't think many of you will lose sleep over it. Righteous indignation over such a non-issue is pathetic. I believe the saying goes, "Don't get your panties in a knot."



Oh and Mr. Wallace, I am an Atheist, I hope you weren't suggesting that we are ALL wing nuts.

There is your first mistake, he is not Irish, he is Canadian.

Serving in the Canadian armed forces, of his own free will and accord.

HE was not drafted where he was forced to lay an oath or allegiance to the Queen.  He only had to do this afer he joined voluntarily.

And for the record, Canada, and Ireland has many astronomical observatories where he can apply for work.

And since I wear a kilt, I do not have any panites on that are in a knot.

dileas

tess

 

[George Wallace]

Oh and Mr. Wallace, I am an Atheist, I hope you weren't suggesting that we are ALL wing nuts.

???

OK wingnut, where did that come from?

If you have an axe to grind, come straight out and say so.  We are quite obliging here. 

 

[eurowing]

I wonder whether he has either the Silver or Golden Jubilee Medals.  If this officer is wearing either, well, words would fail me.

 

[RTaylor]

I don't have any feelings for the Queen myself, well, any good ones. She's just a figurehead for tradition for Canada and has been the center of debate for years whether Canada should sever the ties with the Monarchy.

Since she represents Canada I'd salute her, but not because she's part of the Royal Family as they should have no bearing in Canada, except as foriegn officers and the like. If push came to shove she has no say over the Canadian Miltary as it now stands (from what I understand, has no real political power at all), and that's all that matters to me.

 

[aesop081]

I wonder whether he has either the Silver or Golden Jubilee Medals.  If this officer is wearing either, well, words would fail me.

The CD......it has the queen on it. He must have one of those

 

[vonGarvin]

I don't have any feelings for the Queen myself, well, any good ones. She's just a figurehead for tradition for Canada and has been the center of debate for years whether Canada should sever the ties with the Monarchy.

She is more than just a figurehead.  Canada is a constitutional monarchy.  At the head of this monarchy is a sovereign.  Currently, that is Elizabeth the Second, by the grace of God, Queen of Canada.  You don't have to like her, and I acknowledge that you would salute her.  But she is more than just a figurehead.