I get your point about Dawe.
Now what about my question about Allen?
It is a valid question, if the institution is being honest about judgement…
And let’s take this further, then. If the CAF should be filtering out personnel with judgement issues or greater, related to sexual misconduct, then should it be waiting for cases to be fully investigated up to a degree of criminality? Should they not then be immediately processed for release? For example, should not VAdm Edmumdson be released, as many judge there to be enough credibility to numerous sexual misconducts and intransigencies in his career, that he should be released now? I mean, if we’re going to release Dawe, then surely Edmundson must go? No?
If hes tried and found guilty yes he should be dismissed."Then he turned me around and he raped me. There's no other way to say it ... My body just froze. I didn't know what to do. I was terrified."
Or maybe, unlike you, she thinks human beings deserve a second chance to prove themselves.
Like I said earlier, who better to know what the line is now then one who got burned by that line.
If I was JT I'd fire the MND and CDS. I put Leslie in as MND and a Civil Servant in as CDS. Send a message loud and clear, the BS is over.
Appointment, rank and duties of Chief of Defence Staff
18 (1) The Governor in Council may appoint an officer to be the Chief of the Defence Staff, who shall hold such rank as the Governor in Council may prescribe and who shall, subject to the regulations and under the direction of the Minister, be charged with the control and administration of the Canadian Forces.
(a) a person who holds Her Majesty’s commission in the Canadian Forces,
(b) a person who holds the rank of officer cadet in the Canadian Forces, and
(c) any person who pursuant to law is attached or seconded as an officer to the Canadian Forces; (officier)
Ever had a comrade or friend, co worker, fellow sailor who maybe took things a bit far? Ever cover for them?You're right. And lets make sure the victims of all this continue to serve under the guy who went to the wall for her/his rapist/assailant.
IMHO he can have his second chance with a pension and as a civilian.
Ever had a comrade or friend, co worker, fellow sailor who maybe took things a bit far? Ever cover for them?
I will admit I have. Guys late for parade, drunk on morning PT (guilty) etc. Should we be released for such actions?
He made a mistake like we all have.
Your frustration is understandable, however certain things cannot be done (unless the NDA is changed). Unlike the RCMP (who once recently had a civilian commissioner) the CAF's top job is, by law, to be filled by an officer.
Now there are probably ways to play fast and loose with interpretation of the NDA, but politicization of the CAF (more than currently practiced) is probably not a good thing.
Ahh . . . to go back to the old, old days when an officer who was an embarrassment to the regiment received a quiet word in the mess that concluded with a veiled suggestion involving a pistol in the drawer and taking a few minutes alone. (sarcasm)
went to the wall for her/his rapist/assailant.
Wow, you've got a turd stuck in your ass that just won't come out.
That happens in just about EVERY single case of a sentencing hearing. The judge wants, and needs, to know previous history.
The defense could have asked him (or equivalent) for a letter saying how this has effected her work duties and may have had several letters for all we know. It's STANDARD stuff ....
For the last time (we hope), these are not "please excuse the convicted" letters, they are to give the judge some insight into the whole big picture.
No one here is defending the criminal and forgetting the victim. This moron did unforgivable crap, but he's getting out one day, the letter might be the difference between rotting or getting mental help so he's not looking at your woman folk someday with evil intent.
My understanding is the full meal deal as the character reference was to sway the sentencing not the verdict.
WRT the NDA and CDS the GOC and Crown own the NDA. They can and add and delete at their pleasure.
At their pleasure?
Now add a minority government.
I stand to be corrected...
So the case, plus what he personally knew. Presumably that's the minimum to bother writing a reference. What about prior history of wrongdoing?
Neither the CBC nor G&M article answers my last question. If there was a prior history of convictions AND Dawe knew of them, it's relevant. But absent that, nothing wrong with writing a reference - the whole point is that it's being provided on behalf of a guilty person. References on behalf of assholes are OK with me.
Just going to be the broken record here and point out yet again that "if only we had a properly set-up system for professional discipline that was transparent and fair" then perhaps we wouldn't need to be arguing about this and instead could judge what's going on with all these GOFOs with the actual facts, arguments, and considerations that were presented...
I would love a union! But I think you mean something more along the lines of a professional society like:
Again, I stand to be corrected.
Definitely not a union..... I'm talking about a system that most self-regulated professions have, such as law, medicine, accounting, etc... to handle matters of professional misconduct, which are public and transparent and allow both the public and the members of the profession to judge their leadership and the governance of their profession accordingly.
Instead, our leadership hides behind the Privacy Act.
Bold statement - have you ever served with or under him?
Read the VCDS message. The investigation found he did something for which he regretted and he has shown a willingness now to reach out to "stakeholders and the affected persons."
The point is good people make bad decisions - I'm not sure if a bad decision automatically makes him a dirtbag and can be used to characterize a 30-year career....
That's not entirely accurate. She was not his subordinate, her husband was. Not that it changes anything, but the fact that you aren't getting basic facts right when making character assumptions leads me to question your statements.