• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Sexual Misconduct Allegations in The CAF

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
616
Points
1,010
Education Time on the Regimental System.

Colonel-in-Chief/Colonel of the Regiment (some Regiments have both) = Another term for Honourary Colonel. Figurehead. Recommended by a Regiment through a formal process governed by the CAF.

Senate/Guard/Conseil (title varies) = A forum for Generals and Colonels of a Regiment, who meet to discuss Regimental issues. This is largely related to Regimental fundraising, awareness, non-public services, linkages to associations, museums, etc. Some venues involve former members. If you want to see what one of these does, look online for published plans. Its not very operational - here is an example.

President/Chair = Acts as the executive officer of a Regiment by chairing a Regimental Senate/Guard/Conseil. A secondary duty for a busy General. Usually a senior serving officer of that Regiment, but not necessarily THE senior serving member due to duties. Some regiments have Deputies to assist who may or may not also be the Regimental Colonel.

Regimental Colonel = A Colonel from an infantry Regiment, appointed by the Army on recommendation of the Senate/Guard/Conseil, responsible for a myriad of things. Note that this too is also a secondary duty, so the officer has a (busy) day job somewhere. The Regimental Colonel's key task is the career management of Regimental officers, and coordination of these decisions with the Career Managers in DGMC.

Regimental Executive Committee = Generally run by Regimental Colonels or a Lieutenant-Colonel from the Regiment, and focused on more mundane Regimental management (think kit shop, parades, publications, events, fundraising) and attended by senior officers and WOs of the Regiment.
Yup, But does your assertion that they (collectively) have no impact, jive with reality. Otherwise , get rid of them, as they serve no valid purpose.
 

TCM621

Sr. Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
143
Points
430
Yup they sure are. And I am free to think anyone who would provide a statement in a positive light for an offender who committed crimes as is this subject is abhorrent.

Because he used his rank, position and organizational letter head to try to and paint the convict in a positive light and influence the sentencing in the convicts favor.


Is there any indication that he tried to paint the offender in a positive light? The only thing we have is a second hand account that he he said he was good guy who deserved a break because of his PTSD. We have two comments absent of any context.

Maybe he painted the person Hamilton was prior to his PTSD in a positive light but condemned his actions within the letter. People need to stop speculating and then projecting how they thought it went on to Dawe. Maybe he did everything you accuse him of but absent any evidence this man is being dragged through the mud as if he approved of the rape.
 

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
616
Points
1,010
Where did I assert that?
Education Time on the Regimental System.

Colonel-in-Chief/Colonel of the Regiment (some Regiments have both) = Another term for Honourary Colonel. Figurehead. Recommended by a Regiment through a formal process governed by the CAF.

Senate/Guard/Conseil (title varies) = A forum for Generals and Colonels of a Regiment, who meet to discuss Regimental issues. This is largely related to Regimental fundraising, awareness, non-public services, linkages to associations, museums, etc. Some venues involve former members. If you want to see what one of these does, look online for published plans. Its not very operational - here is an example.

President/Chair = Acts as the executive officer of a Regiment by chairing a Regimental Senate/Guard/Conseil. A secondary duty for a busy General. Usually a senior serving officer of that Regiment, but not necessarily THE senior serving member due to duties. Some regiments have Deputies to assist who may or may not also be the Regimental Colonel.

Regimental Colonel = A Colonel from an infantry Regiment, appointed by the Army on recommendation of the Senate/Guard/Conseil, responsible for a myriad of things. Note that this too is also a secondary duty, so the officer has a (busy) day job somewhere. The Regimental Colonel's key task is the career management of Regimental officers, and coordination of these decisions with the Career Managers in DGMC.

Regimental Executive Committee = Generally run by Regimental Colonels or a Lieutenant-Colonel from the Regiment, and focused on more mundane Regimental management (think kit shop, parades, publications, events, fundraising) and attended by senior officers and WOs of the Regiment.
Where did I assert that?
You did not assert that . My apologies.
 

Loachman

Former Army Pilot in Drag
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
360
Points
980
Colonel-in-Chief/Colonel of the Regiment (some Regiments have both) = Another term for Honourary Colonel.

Colonels-in-Chief are almost always, if not always (as I believe they are), members of the Royal Family.

For The RCR, it was HRH Prince Philip.
 

Infanteer

Army.ca Myth
Staff member
Directing Staff
Donor
Reaction score
408
Points
1,030
Almost, but not quite.

The Colonel-in-Chief of the PPCLI is now Adrienne Clarkson.
 

dangerboy

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
176
Points
710
For the PPCLI the criteria for which was established when Adrienne Clarkson was selected and will be used for her successor is:

a. the candidate must be female;
b. the candidate must not be a C-in-C for another Regiment but must be exclusively Patricia;
c. the candidate must have relevance to the Regiment;
d. although not a stated criterion, it is understood that if not a member of the Royal Family, the candidate must be able to receive special permission from the monarch to allow appointment; and 8 Minutes of Guard 37. 1-10/18
e. important but not essential criteria also include: record of public or military service, availability, age, and connection to Canada.
 

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
616
Points
1,010
Yup, But does your assertion that they (collectively) have no impact, jive with reality. Otherwise , get rid of them, as they serve no valid purpose.
My assertion that you asserted something was wrong. My assertion that Regimental "mafias' are fundamentally wrong is a correct assertion,
 

ArmyRick

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
33
Points
530
Statements on behalf of, or against, an offender are also a part of the process, even if you do not like it.

How is it "obviously being interpreted as the institution", when it is written and signed by somebody who knew the offender, both as he was prior to and after his deployment, and personally observed the effects that that deployment had upon him?

That is entirely relevant to the sentencing considerations, so that the judge can have all of the necessary information to impose an appropriate sentence.

Whatever you might choose to do is entirely up to you. You may not expect as much loyalty from your subordinates, however, if they perceived a tendency to throw people away.

Your not getting it. At all. It doesn't matter what is legal, allowable or can be done. Its about MORALITY and you seem lost. Very lost.

Like it or not, THE CAF is or is about to be on political trial, and don't forget the CAF serves at the whim of the politicians who control it. Don't forget what happened when the Airborne Regiment pissed off the Chretien Liberals in 1995. 1 stroke of a pen and the regiment was done.

Enough with regimental councils, CAF always standing by their own (Back up the rapist but to hell with the serving soldier and her husband also a soldier).

EVERY single Canadian that is paying attention to this, is going to look at this and I will bet, they will not be impressed at all with General Dawes decision and what appears to be a regret afterwards.

Piss the Canadian people and the politicians off and 1 stroke of a pen, no more PPCLI. Or no more CAF. Or no more CANSOFCOM. Remember what happened to the Airborne Regiment.

As far as the Van doo wife in Lahr, your point?
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
601
Points
910
Your not getting it. At all. It doesn't matter what is legal, allowable or can be done. Its about MORALITY and you seem lost. Very lost.

Like it or not, THE CAF is or is about to be on political trial, and don't forget the CAF serves at the whim of the politicians who control it. Don't forget what happened when the Airborne Regiment pissed off the Chretien Liberals in 1995. 1 stroke of a pen and the regiment was done.

Enough with regimental councils, CAF always standing by their own (Back up the rapist but to hell with the serving soldier and her husband also a soldier).

EVERY single Canadian that is paying attention to this, is going to look at this and I will bet, they will not be impressed at all with General Dawes decision and what appears to be a regret afterwards.

Piss the Canadian people and the politicians off and 1 stroke of a pen, no more PPCLI. Or no more CAF. Or no more CANSOFCOM. Remember what happened to the Airborne Regiment.

As far as the Van doo wife in Lahr, your point?
While we (Currently serving and retired members) certainly are engaged in this, a very large portion of the Canadian public could care less.

I do not think the politicians will disband or wipe out any regiments - we have allies to our south that may be observing our actions (The GoC's actions) and no doubt the threat to disband the CAF would trigger a few phone calls from our southern neighbour and both mother countries.

"Justin WTF do you think you're doing?"
 

YZT580

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
97
Points
480
You chaps would have fit right in in Salem Mass. about 200 years ago. Where Dawes made an error and this is purely conjecture taken from press coverage, is in not going to the victims and explaining the action that he was going to take and the reasons for that action. Everyone is entitled to express their views on the character of an individual. It enables a judge to understand who that person is, who they were, and provide insight into why the event occurred. Dawes was entitled to write that letter, in fact, it took a lot of guts to do so because he had to know what the reaction would be. He could have said no as some have suggested but he believed that there was more behind the action than simple sexual frustration and male ego. This incident should not be in the same discussion as the actions of the Vance.
 

McG

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
124
Points
680
Where Dawes made an error and this is purely conjecture taken from press coverage, is in not going to the victims and explaining the action that he was going to take and the reasons for that action.
Had he given due consideration to the victim or her husband, he might have realized earlier that writing such a letter was betraying a good person who was still under his command.

One of the reasons the CAF is in its current steaming pile of trouble is because we suffer from moral disengagement. We too easily minimize the harm caused by the behaviours of the people we see as our team. We too quickly minimize the injury inflicted on those who are not from out team. We are ready to make excuses or justifications for abhorrent conduct after a few cases of good performance. I've seen it with drugs, with many cases of drunk driving, and I've seen it with NCOs on a leadership course spending several drunken hours attempting to bash through the door of a female recruit while shouting demands for sex (she submitted her release fairly quickly there after by the way). Too many COs want to offer "oh, but he's an outstanding field soldier" and "this is so out of character, he would never do this again" all working toward the "this doesn't need a remedial measure; we can manage this informally." This is not malice on the part of some leaders; it's a recognized social psychological phenomena. Until we wake-up and hold people to the standard of conduct required of the CAF, there will continue to be incidents where the institution fails both victims and offenders. There will continue to be incidents where junior ranks question the moral compass of senior leaders, and there will continue to be incidents where the public questions the ability of the military to govern itself.

We can eject people and turn our back to them without remorse for performance. Same needs to be true for conduct.
 
Last edited:

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
678
Points
940
You chaps would have fit right in in Salem Mass. about 200 years ago. Where Dawes made an error and this is purely conjecture taken from press coverage, is in not going to the victims and explaining the action that he was going to take and the reasons for that action. Everyone is entitled to express their views on the character of an individual. It enables a judge to understand who that person is, who they were, and provide insight into why the event occurred. Dawes was entitled to write that letter, in fact, it took a lot of guts to do so because he had to know what the reaction would be. He could have said no as some have suggested but he believed that there was more behind the action than simple sexual frustration and male ego. This incident should not be in the same discussion as the actions of the Vance.

Lets say for argument sake him writing the character reference is out of the argument.

He still completely failed to support a victim of sexual assault and a victim of assault both at the onset of the incident and afterwards when the victims reached out to him to have a conversation.

Victims of sexual misconduct (on the more severe side) keep lamenting leaders in the CAF aren't listening and don't seem to care. This is a perfect example of what they're talking about IMO.

As for this not having anything to do with Vance, disagree. Vance is another perfrect example of leaders not caring. This incident was reported to him, he agreed it was wrong and said he would do something about it.
He lied.


General Dawe is probably a super cool reall nice guy. The issue is these senior leaders just don't seem to get it at best, and don't care thinking they're above the law at worst.
 

YZT580

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
97
Points
480
Had he given due consideration to the victim or her husband, he might have realized earlier that writing such a letter was betraying a good person who was still under his command.

It should have been possible to do both. A wise men said I may not agree with what you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it. The same logic applies to writing an appraisal defending a convicted felon. It sounds like it is ok to support some crimes but not others. If he had robbed a convenience store no one would have commented. Probably if he had shot his neighbour in a fit of rage a number of folks would have stepped forward and commented on his behavioral change but because it is an assault on one of your own he is all bad. And you just may have lost a good leader as a result.

We can eject people and turn our back to them without remorse for performance. Same needs to be true for conduct. I absolutely agree with you. But you need to very carefully define what constitutes bad conduct and the consequences and stick with it regardless of circumstances. Good luck with that though. When Harper tried that with defined sentences for specific offenses the Supreme Court had a fit and ruled against many of them. They wanted their exceptions. Having a standard that is etched in stone is an essential feature of any lasting civilization and the lack or removal of such a standard is a sure indication that the aforementioned civilization is about to collapse. Our current leadership (in all parties) are proof that our own civilization is currently circling the bowl.
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
350
Points
880
If not enough is done for victims, one solution that is not on the table is to take it out on criminals by withholding stuff that is customarily part of the system. Don't fuck them over a little extra because of someone else's indifference/neglect.

As to who is not getting it: I suppose the Canadian public, which is generally on board with compassionate justice (eg. sentencing circles) would, if it were paying more attention, be more alarmed at the hang-em-out-to-dry advocates.
 

ArmyRick

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
33
Points
530
Had he given due consideration to the victim or her husband, he might have realized earlier that writing such a letter was betraying a good person who was still under his command.

One of the reasons the CAF is in its current steaming pile of trouble is because we suffer from moral disengagement. We too easily minimize the harm caused by the behaviours of the people we see as our team. We too quickly minimize the injury inflicted on those who are not from out team. We are ready to make excuses or justifications for abhorrent conduct after a few cases of good performance. I've seen it with drugs, with many cases of drunk driving, and I've seen it with NCOs on a leadership course spending several drunken hours attempting to bash through the door of a female recruit while shouting demands for sex (she submitted her release fairly quickly there after by the way). Too many COs want to offer "oh, but he's an outstanding field soldier" and "this is so out of character, he would never do this again" all working toward the "this doesn't need a remedial measure; we can manage this informally." This is not malice on the part of some leaders; it's a recognized social psychological phenomena. Until we wake-up and hold people to the standard of conduct required of the CAF, there will continue to be incidents where the institution fails both victims and offenders. There will continue to be incidents where junior ranks question the moral compass of senior leaders, and there will continue to be incidents where the public questions the ability of the military to govern itself.

We can eject people and turn our back to them without remorse for performance. Same needs to be true for conduct.
Fully Agreed. Well said
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
1,647
Points
1,060
No surprise, the CAF's 'powerful' might need a little perspective to restore their moral authority, which is clearly lacking right now.

We seem to like coins. Maybe a coin that says 'memento mori' issued to all senior leaders?


How to Increase Leaders' Moral Authority

Perspective-taking, or imagining the world from another’s vantage point, has been shown to function like a psychological steering wheel. A 2014 study found that combining power with perspective taking improved interpersonal relationships and information-sharing, leading to more accurate decision making. This may be the ideal formula for morally authoritative leadership. Encouraging perspective-taking can be as simple as making sure that leaders are frequently reminded of their interdependence within the organisation. Role switching or regular interaction with peers in other departments as well as followers helps to contain self-focused myopia.


 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
750
Points
910
No surprise, the CAF's 'powerful' might need a little perspective to restore their moral authority, which is clearly lacking right now.

We seem to like coins. Maybe a coin that says 'memento mori' issued to all senior leaders?


How to Increase Leaders' Moral Authority

Perspective-taking, or imagining the world from another’s vantage point, has been shown to function like a psychological steering wheel. A 2014 study found that combining power with perspective taking improved interpersonal relationships and information-sharing, leading to more accurate decision making. This may be the ideal formula for morally authoritative leadership. Encouraging perspective-taking can be as simple as making sure that leaders are frequently reminded of their interdependence within the organisation. Role switching or regular interaction with peers in other departments as well as followers helps to contain self-focused myopia.


I find that (some? Most? Many?) GOFOs lose the plot and (their subordinates) because they are not true to themselves and come across as inauthentic. I see lots of bluster and buzzwords and misplaced attention to tiny details.

The very best ones I have been around are not loud; are humble; are not afraid to have a normal conversation with someone below their rank and actually devote time and energy to thinking about defence and are not afraid to admit a mistake.

Really, these are qualities that we want in any leader at any level, so this should not be a difficult problem to fix.
 

Good2Golf

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
735
Points
1,040
I do think there is also an element of ‘wanting to be like other execs in Ottawa’ (ie. PS) and there is (was, anyway in my experience) similar use of ‘fashionable lexicon’ in communicating in cross-Departmental senior meetings. I think that affects (erodes?) the otherwise pure (moral, professional, such as it is today) state of military senior leaders.

Regards
G2G
 

Gunnar

Sr. Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
21
Points
280
Has anyone assessed the impact on operational readiness of these non-stop accusations, and investigations, especially when they now involve people in the Intelligence branch? Not diminishing the severity of accusations, but questioning whether there is a plan for the surviving CoC to pick up the slack. Who is in charge? Is it clear to everyone beyond the regimental level?
 
Top