- Reaction score
- 5,615
- Points
- 1,360
E.R. Campbell said:
Must drink more tea before I respond......hehehe
Lets just say if you think some organizations in the military are self-licking ice cream cones.......
Sexual Assault & Sexual Misconduct in the CF
- Thread starter bossi
- Start date
Must drink more tea before I respond......hehehe
Lets just say if you think some organizations in the military are self-licking ice cream cones.......
- Reaction score
- 2,592
- Points
- 1,260
Big part of the problem, indeed. To be more specific, if more leaders consistently applied the rules/systems that are currently in place, even if it's hard to do, you don't get outsiders making new rules up. Such rules don't get put into place because of the 99.9% of those wanting to do the job right. They get into place because some may not want to make the hard decision (or aren't supported in doing so).E.R. Campbell said:
All all fairness, though, the CF isn't the ONLY big group of people who struggle with bosses/leaders/managers being reluctant to have "hard" conversations and perservere and be consistent in their handling of problem employees.
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
Was talking with a friend of mine over the past weekend, and he had read the report, and was also in on one of the town halls, and filled out the questionaire that circulated.
He felt that perhaps Justice Deschamps may well have had a preconceived outcome going into the mandate, and most of the questions and interviews were gear to deliver the outcome she was looking for.
Anyone else have that same experience?
He felt that perhaps Justice Deschamps may well have had a preconceived outcome going into the mandate, and most of the questions and interviews were gear to deliver the outcome she was looking for.
Anyone else have that same experience?
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
cupper said:
Well....Some feel that she just plagiarized the MacLeans articles. Her report reads to me like that of someone with an agenda.
Yes, we can all agree that there are things wrong with the system. We have 'growing pains' in the integration of women into previously male dominated fields of the military. At the same time, little is being said of the women who have used and abused the current system to exact revenge on males, or attain promotion. Could those figures match the figures toted out to back up statistics on sexual misconduct? There is more to this story than just "evil men assaulting females".
In fact, there have been cases where the system has promoted women, in a PC manner, well before they have been ready. In some cases this has led to PTSD and even suicide by the female member.....but that is another matter altogether.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
This article was the hot topic around Shilo/1 RCHA today....
Outside of the article, I can honestly say that this is about the most disappointed I've been with military leadership. Not one of our Sr Officers (male or female) that I've seen has stepped forward to defend the institution or the individuals within it. Reading statements such as, "Officers tend to excuse incidents of inappropriate conduct on the basis that the CAF is merely a reflection of civilian society. There is also a strong perception that senior NCOs are responsible for imposing a culture where no one speaks up and which functions to deter victims from reporting sexual misconduct" is disheartening to say the least.
http://aptn.ca/news/2015/05/02/inuk-soldier-wanted-die-decade-racism-sexual-harassment-broke/
Outside of the article, I can honestly say that this is about the most disappointed I've been with military leadership. Not one of our Sr Officers (male or female) that I've seen has stepped forward to defend the institution or the individuals within it. Reading statements such as, "Officers tend to excuse incidents of inappropriate conduct on the basis that the CAF is merely a reflection of civilian society. There is also a strong perception that senior NCOs are responsible for imposing a culture where no one speaks up and which functions to deter victims from reporting sexual misconduct" is disheartening to say the least.
http://aptn.ca/news/2015/05/02/inuk-soldier-wanted-die-decade-racism-sexual-harassment-broke/
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
All of the Snr NCOs in the NCR were required to attend the Mess a few days before the report came out and we were told in no uncertain terms that we were part of the problem and needed to step up and be part of the solution. Now, I have no doubt that there is an issue however I don't believe it is anywhere near what it is portrayed in this report and I'm getting a little tired of the generalities being used to paint us all with the same brush. I've read the report and it's obvious that Justice Deschampes both strayed from her lanes and has made some pretty broad and inflammatory accusations. Anyone who has read the report with an open mind sees it very clearly, unfortunately the average citizen gets their news and their opinions from sound bites from a media looking to sell papers.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
Schindler's Lift said:
MPs are pretty roundly torn down in the report. What are your thoughts on that from a MP perspective?
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
Schindler's Lift said:
:goodpost:
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 7,188
- Points
- 1,040
How does the mantra go? "Know the standard, follow the standard, teach the standard, enforce the standard"?
The "standard" already exists. If it is complex to know, follow, teach, and enforce because of all the bits and pieces grafted on as panicked responses, more bits and pieces grafted on will not serve. [Add:]The more you graft on, the more opportunities you create for barrack lawyers and other administrative burdens.
Lead, and use common sense.
"****", and other colorful metaphors, are just part of the language. Fragile people need to get over it or seek employment in academia.
Everyone who is not "part of the problem" should explain clearly, tactfully, and forcefully to the dipshit who uttered the phrase why it is not so, and encourage him to stick to facts.
The "standard" already exists. If it is complex to know, follow, teach, and enforce because of all the bits and pieces grafted on as panicked responses, more bits and pieces grafted on will not serve. [Add:]The more you graft on, the more opportunities you create for barrack lawyers and other administrative burdens.
Lead, and use common sense.
"****", and other colorful metaphors, are just part of the language. Fragile people need to get over it or seek employment in academia.
Everyone who is not "part of the problem" should explain clearly, tactfully, and forcefully to the dipshit who uttered the phrase why it is not so, and encourage him to stick to facts.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Bird_Gunner45 said:
To be perfectly honest with you I can see some of the points being made. Not in regards to the training investigators have because besides training at our Academy there are also many of us who have done courses at the Ontario Police College, Atlantic Police College and other civilian police training centers and in many ways there are plenty of MPs with more advanced training the many civilian cops. On my SA invest course there was a Toronto cop on the same course who had been working in their sex crimes unit for 7 years without any specialized training. That is unacceptable in my books and it is one of the reasons we have a training matrix which dictates the level of training required by our investigators.
The issues I agree with though are ones caused by the actual restrictions the NDA places on the investigations and charging process. Under the NDA all CFNIS investigators who investigate sexual assault complaints have the ability to independently investigate and, where grounds exist, lay a charge in either the civilian courts or under the NDA. If there is any attempts by the CoC to interfere with an investigation the MP has the ability to lodge an interference complaint with the MPCC (and if you check their case log on their website you'll see it's been done before). Once the NIS lays a charge though, from that point the relevant legal system takes over and the matter gets dealt with and the CoC has no influence. Even within the military justice system our military lawyers and judges are bound by the rule of law and the code of conduct of their Bar Association to act impartially and in the interests of justice.
For those lesser complaints though, ones where the base MPs conduct the investigation, I don't like the process they are limited to where they conduct the investigation and must refer the matter back to the CoC for any charge action. The base MP doesn't have the authority/ability to exercise their discretion and lay a charge under the NDA like their NIS counterparts can. Furthermore, their ability to lay a charge under the Criminal Code for the same incident is also restricted unless the unless the military justice system waves prosecutorial jurisdiction. Under the current system the CO gets all of the information and after reviewing it he/she makes a decision to proceed with a charge or not. Oh sure, they need to justify their decision but if they don't view the matter as serious enough or they wanted to make it go away they can always find a way. There is also the potential for the complainant to be viewed as a troublemaker if the CoC is so inclined, regardless of how wrong that is. Even if the matter is dealt with effectively though, and many are, the complainant/victim still goes into the process with the knowledge that their CoC is going to have all the details and control all the cards in how the matter is disposed of.
Regardless of what the report states, I have every confidence in the abilities of MPs to investigate sexual assault complaints. If, God forbid, my daughter was a victim of an SA on base and one of the MPs showed up at my door to investigate it I'd be quite comfortable. Personally though, I'd take away the potential for interference by the CoC and allow all MPs to lay charges under the NDA when reasonable and probable grounds exist, just like they can under the Criminal Code.
- Reaction score
- 9
- Points
- 530
I know you're asking SL but I will chime in from my perspective:Bird_Gunner45 said:
As others have pointed out, this is a self selected group who had very specific instances they wished to convey to the Justice. I doubt there were very many members who had been sexually assaulted who came forward expressing they were fully satisfied with their treatment at the hands of the Military Justice system.
This quote speaks volumes:
One person says something so it is treated as fact and used to damn us all. Reading that, and considering the Military Justice system does not prosecute cases investigated by civilian police, and I can't see the retired Justice interviewing civilian defence attorneys in relation to cases tried in Criminal Court as that wasn't her mandate, the likely source of the comment is obvious, and biased.
Now I'm confused. We're not capable of investigating sexual assaults, but sometimes we are. Herein lies the rub. We are accused of being incapable of investigating sexual assaults due to the number of sexual assaults we investigate so we need to refer them to civilians. Except in some places. Then we are supposed to take our investigators who now have even less opportunity to gain experience in investigating sexual assaults and have them investigate the sexual assaults where civilian police lack that experience as well??
Reality is, MP are an easy target when you want bang for the buck right now, as proven by Stannard with his press conference announcing his findings from the Fynes public interest hearings. Nobody speaks about how gun shy certain RMP are; those who will refuse to take a case to trial unless every conceivable eventuality has been covered and accounted for. How it is that cases which are prescreened by a RMP or JAG before charges are laid, or recommended, suddenly are quietly dropped when the work on behalf of the RMP has to actually start. Nobody speaks about the difficulty of investigating what, on many cases, are "he said, she saids" - like it or not, "date rape" usually devolves to this. It quite often comes down to two people (quite often with both having at least some amount of alcohol in their system) telling two very different stories about what actually occurred and in cases like this, the tie will generally go to the accused give that whole burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt thing and charges will not likely be laid on the advice of RMP...thus proving yet again the ineptness of CFNIS. Nobody talks about the RMP who quite probably have prosecuted or defended even fewer Sexual Assaults than the MP investigator has investigated who make mistakes at trial by failing to introduce evidence, adequately examine or cross examine witnesses. Nobody talks about Court Martial decisions that seem to run counter to the evidence presented and heard...and nobody will even comment on the abilities of Military Judges who have little, or no, experience with presiding over Sexual Assault cases rendering those decisions.
Nobody is talking about the success rates of civilian police who are held up as the paragons of all that is done right and why it is the rate of reporting in the civilian world is just as low, if not lower, as it apparently is in the CAF?
Yep, MP make mistakes but it is hardly fair to lay the entire failings of the system at our feet but it is oh so convenient to do so.
Finally, the retired Justice certainly doesn't give mention to the number of Sexual Assault cases which have been fully and successfully prosecuted as a result of MP investigations. Is this because it runs counter to the narrative she wishes to weave or a case of no "satisfied" clients seeing the need to beat their drum of contentment and she never thought to pull those stats?
Now, a few general observations:
Yes, we have a problem. After the initial over reaction in the mid-90's, I thought we had settled into a fairly sane place by about 2000 where the issue was treated with seriousness and I saw the Units I served in became very respectful. I believe we have regressed to a point which allows harassment to occur without fear of repercussion at some times and in some places, yet in most others, people "get it" and are behaving properly.
I truly believe the retired Justice is out of touch with what the youth of today are like. The civilian youth culture is sexualized, not just males. Some females, just like some males, show up at St Jean with a distorted sense of what is appropriate. The worst case of serial sexual harassment (and truth be told at least one case of sexual assault with witnesses) I have been privy to in my career was perpetrated by a female on numerous males and in speaking with those who have known her throughout her career, she showed up at basic training with that flaw and the system allowed her to carry on and flourish due to the reticence of her chain of commands to take action against her for fear of what it would look like with them holding a female harasser to account. It was only when she (a PO2 at the time) met her match in a LS who refused to let the issue "go away", that she was eventually held to task, albeit not to the full extent that she should have been given the rank disparity. And today, several years on, she had the audacity to post this very article in a MP Facebook group and state that she had been witness to several terrible examples of sexual harassment in her time in and was appalled by it and the fact nothing was done...
The idea that rank differences alone makes a relationship unequal due to the power dynamics differing ranks bring is ludicrous. I'm sure in her mind the senior ranking member is always a male...which we all know is untrue.
I find it interesting that she takes a shot at anyone and everyone with the exception of two groups in her report. MP - fail. Chain of Command (male and female) - fail. Padres - fail. Ombudsman (who she was miffed wouldn't meet with her) - fail. Doctors - fail. Victim Services - fail. Social workers and Nurses - pass (but they are failed by the system) Interesting, considering the demographics of those professions.
The Dispute Resolution Centers don't even gain a mention yet in my experience, they are an invaluable resource for anyone who ends up involved in a harassment case whether as a Supervisor, complainant or respondent. I am actually quite shocked that it appears that she didn't even look at these, or if she did, she couldn't bring herself to mention them as a "best practice" because that might mean we have something going right. This is the building block upon which to build her vaunted...whatever acronym she made up for what she wants to have put in place.
Her disdain about lowest level resolution doesn't make sense. Yes, there are times when it can't work, or the victim shouldn't even be encouraged to try due to the dynamics involved but in my experience, most "issues" can be sorted out by someone actually standing up for them self and calling the perpetrator out on their own. I wonder if this is a case of WRAs/HAs treating the checklist as a "must do" as opposed to "should do"? But we're all adults here, we can't be running to mom and dad to solve our problems every time someone says something that we don't like or which hurts our feelings.
One thing I would like to see implemented is what I see in some jurisdictions, and that is the ability of the victim of a Sexual Assault to have the investigative process stopped after the initial collection of forensic evidence. In our system, once someone in authority has the complaint, the victim loses a say in what is going to happen, I sincerely think this adversely affects victims coming forward. I would like to see the victim have the ability to have the time sensitive material collected and then be given time to think about whether or not they wish to proceed with a full investigation, with all that entails. I suspect this is the gist of what she is trying to say by recommending an "outside agency" that people can go to for support and advice.
And...the elephant in the room. I don't think the retired Justice is ready for the actual outcome of a more diligent system. In order for any system to be fair, it has to be equal. As I illustrated above, my sense right now there is a huge impediment to holding female harassers to account for their actions and I expect...well...perhaps hope is a better emotion, that this will disappear. It has to, there is no room for double standards if we truly wish to have a harassment free CAF and that means some females are going to find out that what they have been doing is not acceptable anymore either.
SL: COs do not have to justify their decision to proceed with a charge recommended by non-CFNIS MP or not, unless there is perhaps a query from higher up their chain of command. There isn't even a legal obligation on COs currently to inform non-CFNIS MP on their decision to proceed with charges or not, and if a Summary Trial is held, to inform the Guardhouse of the outcome. On numerous occasions I tried to push back to JAG when I was finally able to figure out the CoC was not proceeding with a charge and they refused to intervene or even ask for an explanation in case there was a lesson to be learned WRT the invest.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
garb811 said:
Further to this, I find it interesting how she views Padres and Doctors as a fail, given how they are governed by different professional standards and, in the case of our Doctors, many times civilian or working at civilian medical facilities. And her complaints about Victim Services are just as baseless considering we have no victim services of our own and all are referred to outside agencies that exist specifically to deal with SA and SH issues.
garb811 said:
This ability already exists. I've had extensive experience with complaints where the victim does not wish to proceed. At one time we would actually go through and gather the evidence we could and try to get possession of the SA kit from the hospital (if the victim would allow us to have it) and we would tell them that if they didn't wish to proceed at that time they could always change their mind later and we'd have retained what evidence we could gather. Now, owing to case law, we tell them that if they choose not to make a complaint they will not be able to do so in the future.
garb811 said:
Actually, COs do have to report their reasons for not proceeding with a charge where it's warranted. They report it to DMP and as far as them reporting back to the MP/CFNIS offices, I don't really care as long as its tracked by DMP. I also don't really care if they report back to the MP with the outcome of any Summary Trial since none of that info goes on CPIC and it doesn't really matter if the MPs are informed or not....other then out of curiosity for the MP involved in the file. Pressing the JAG for resolution or lessons learned is a waste of effort since they are the legal advisor to the CoC and as such he/she provides the advice to the CO who decided not to proceed. The RMP, through DMP, is the one who prosecutes once it is determined a CM is warranted and it's DMP that the COs must report their decisions to proceed or not.
- Reaction score
- 13,504
- Points
- 1,010
Gents- two really good posts. I have learned a great deal.
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 12,766
- Points
- 1,140
Tomorrow evening I'm going to discuss this with my troops. Readers Digest version is that NCOs will be expected to enforce the rules, and troops are expected to follow the rules. I expect my troops to also take care of each other - if you see someone going astray, lead them back to the path. If they fail to follow, report them to the CoC.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
SL and Garb- Great points, I have learned a lot about the issues MPs face when dealing with these issues. Thanks!
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 27,269
- Points
- 1,160
Bird_Gunner45 said:
Yes, first class
The phrase "Methinks (she) doth protest too much' comes to mind in connection with this particular report.
- Reaction score
- 9
- Points
- 530
I mean them having the ability to make a complaint in the future. Given the turmoil that is already going on with all that SA entails, nobody should be forced to make a "do it now or never" decision, particularly in the case of a date/spousal SA. I'd be interested in the case law you're citing here, for PD purposes, have the citation handy?Schindler's Lift said:
You're mixing apples and crab apples, take off your CFNIS goggles. ;D
Not all SA are investigated by CFNIS anymore, so called "low level" SAs are routinely referred back to the Guardhouses, particularly in places that have a dedicated GIS. In those instances, the charge laying authority IS the CO and they are not compelled to justify their decision to anyone. Further, Guardhouses are routinely recommending other charges that could...should...end up with the member being charged by the CO and the charges either going to CM via the member electing to go that route or by the CO directly referring the charges. There is no provision for any sort of review by anyone as to the CO's decision to lay that charge or not. HUGE flaw in the system that you, yourself, have acknowledged in a previous post.
Ref your comment about you not really caring if MP learn about the outcome of summary trials or not, is a pretty asinine statement from a Snr MP. We have a computerized database in which we are routinely identifying persons as "subject", "suspect" and "charged/accused". If we are a professional police service we should be very aware of the need to maintain the accuracy of our database, if for no other reason than when we do it for our own investigative purposes or get a local indices check from another police agency we are able to state the actual outcome for all of those people we are classifying as "charged/accused". Right now they end up in limbo with no way for the Guardhouses to actually track them. I'm pretty sure civilian police services are able to tell you the outcome of their summary offence files via a query of their local indices, even though they haven't been entered on CPIC. That's the whole point of doing local indices checks as part of the overall criminal record checks as I learned back in my polyester suited SIU days, all kinds of relevant information is held at the local level that never makes it to CPIC, but it needs to be accurate to be useful, and we are failing at that, badly.
- Reaction score
- 9
- Points
- 530
And one other general comment. I'm shocked at the quality of that report, just in overall terms. For a retired Supreme Court justice to produce that and give it such emphasis, I am very disappointed. I highly doubt if a lawyer had produced a document such as that and tried to introduce it as "evidence" to her while she was sitting on the bench, she would have run him out of the court. A good example is her footnotes. Yes, I get the requirement to keep people anonymous but there also needs to be a way to tell who, specifically, is being referenced when she is providing quotes and examples. The way that report is written it is impossible to tell, and she actually admits to drawing an inference when stating something as fact. From a page where MP are discussed:
:facepalm:
:facepalm:
- Reaction score
- 6,516
- Points
- 1,310
Where I am, the junior ranks received it to read and sign off that we have read it.
It was reinforced by our chain that it will not be tolerated and that everyone had a responsibility to report any abuse, etc.
For the most part it was met (both male and female alike) with indifference or mild humour.
While trying to explain the brief to a subordinate, he interrupted me with this summation: "so, don't be a douchecreeper, stop other guys from being a douchecreeper, and report it to the MPs if someone is being a douchecreeper. How is this any different than before?"
I had to sort of shrug and say that it has failed a few times in the past and now we just need a refresher, like with TOETs.
I hope to see this as a refresher and a shake out of existing policies than to see the wheel reinvented too far. If there is a better way to deal with the problem then by all means lets implement it. However, I hope this doesn't create another layer of bureacracy that will hinder and not help the situation.
It was reinforced by our chain that it will not be tolerated and that everyone had a responsibility to report any abuse, etc.
For the most part it was met (both male and female alike) with indifference or mild humour.
While trying to explain the brief to a subordinate, he interrupted me with this summation: "so, don't be a douchecreeper, stop other guys from being a douchecreeper, and report it to the MPs if someone is being a douchecreeper. How is this any different than before?"
I had to sort of shrug and say that it has failed a few times in the past and now we just need a refresher, like with TOETs.
I hope to see this as a refresher and a shake out of existing policies than to see the wheel reinvented too far. If there is a better way to deal with the problem then by all means lets implement it. However, I hope this doesn't create another layer of bureacracy that will hinder and not help the situation.
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
Brad Sallows said:
I agree. As I stated earlier, the policies are all in place. All that really needs to be done is to consolidate into one easily accessed document that allows any party to go and find the policy, its application and so forth. The individual policy pieces (NDA, CCC, QR & O's etc) can then referenced as necessary should more detailed information be required.
Similar threads
