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

[Split] Discussion: Who is a civilian?

Alberta Bound

Jr. Member
Reaction score
11
Points
130
Therefore, not a citizen?
Different question. How are you defining citizenship?
Most civilians in Canada are citizens. The vast majority of citizens are civilians.
I would say practically all uniformed members are citizens, but are not civilians.
Then the question becomes how do you look at civilian vs uniformed when it comes to Class A / Volunteer FF / Aux Police. Civilian? Uniformed? All without introducing who is a “professional” among those. ;)
 

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
119
Points
680
Where did you get your definition of civilian?

From Oxford: a person not in the armed services or the police force.

This excludes EMS and Fire Fighters.

I could not find an official Canadian definition.
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
124
Points
680
Different question. How are you defining citizenship?
Most civilians in Canada are citizens. The vast majority of citizens are civilians.
I would say practically all uniformed members are citizens, but are not civilians.
Then the question becomes how do you look at civilian vs uniformed when it comes to Class A / Volunteer FF / Aux Police. Civilian? Uniformed? All without introducing who is a “professional” among those. ;)
I was actually channeling Robert A Heinlen when I posted that.

My definition of citizen is a person is a who was born in Canada, born outside of Canada and one of their legal or biological parents was either born in or naturalized in Canada before the time of birth. A Canadian citizen remains so, in my eyes, until they formally renounce their citizenship (e.g. Lord Conrad Black) or knowingly and willingly take up arms against Canada. The PM and I may disagree on this point, but we disagree on many others as well.
 

mariomike

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
115
Points
780
I could not find an official Canadian definition.
"Uniformed" and "civilian" had to do with the City emergency services collective agreements , where I worked. Nothing else.
 

Alberta Bound

Jr. Member
Reaction score
11
Points
130
Where did you get your definition of civilian?

From Oxford: a person not in the armed services or the police force.

This excludes EMS and Fire Fighters.

I could not find an official Canadian definition.
Merriam - Webster.
Also in my service in the police and as a firefighter both groups did not define themselves as civilians.
 

mariomike

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
115
Points
780
Merriam - Webster.
Also in my service in the police and as a firefighter both groups did not define themselves as civilians.
Designation as "uniformed" as opposed to "civilian" only had to do with the City / union negotiation procedure.

It eliminates one level of the two-tier negotiation process, and the union representing "uniform" employees is the only entity that negotiates with the City on their behalf.

( "Uniform" did not include all City employees who wore uniforms, as many who are "public-facing" do. It only applied to police officers, firefighters and paramedics. )

That was all it meant where I worked. Can't say for other employers.
 
Last edited:

lenaitch

Full Member
Reaction score
93
Points
430
Designation as "uniformed" as opposed to "civilian" only had to do with the City / union negotiation procedure.

It eliminates one level of the two-tier negotiation process, and the union representing "uniform" employees is the only entity that negotiates with the City on their behalf.

( "Uniform" did not include all City employees who wore uniforms, as many who are "public-facing" do. It only applied to police officers, firefighters and paramedics. )

That was all it meant where I worked. Can't say for other employers.

Ya, I've not seen a definition or distinction that would be universal; it needs context. Up until a number of years ago, OPP 'civilians' were represented by the broad public service employees union. Once they were brought into the fold, there is still a separate MOU for each. They are convenience words; the 'uniform' agreement covers members that work in plain clothes and some 'civilian' members wear a uniform. Even the 'sworn' descriptor doesn't work since there are special constables who are sworn.
 

Loch Sloy!

Jr. Member
Reaction score
10
Points
130
Although police don't generally call themselves civilians, in my mind if you are not subject to unlimited liability (police are not...) you are a civilian.
 

reveng

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
60
Points
480
Although police don't generally call themselves civilians, in my mind if you are not subject to unlimited liability (police are not...) you are a civilian.
Legal definitions aside, I'm not so sure I'd consider someone who runs toward a threat rather than away from it as a "civilian".
 

Alberta Bound

Jr. Member
Reaction score
11
Points
130
Although police don't generally call themselves civilians, in my mind if you are not subject to unlimited liability (police are not...) you are a civilian.
Unlimited Liability (UL);
The concept of the unlimited liability contract is that when members of the military ‘sign up’ for military duty they surrender certain rights by the very nature of their military service – they must obey legal orders, are placed at an increased risk of harm or death in certain situations due to their military service and they surrender certain rights by the very nature of their military service, such as their right to safety, to autonomy, to freedom of movement, and so on.
The idea of UL was stated about 60 years ago and then really brought up in discussions and to be defined about 40 years ago. In essence, you signed on the dotted line and that has consequences.

But respectfully. I don’t think it is the panacea that many think it is and quote.

In 15 years as a firefighter I was never ordered to do something knowing it would kill me. In fact, in all dangerous situations actions were taken in a very calculated way. In a few cases I was called out of fires when the calculation of risk for the crew were deemed too high based on the possible benefits. There were also other incidents where we took extreme risks based on our belief that the benefit ( the saving of a human life) was worth the risk.

In more than 25 years of policing I lived and worked in a number of small northern communities and spent time on the Tactical Troop and Emergency Response Team. I lived in restrictive conditions, giving up some of my rights due to my service. I attended more calls than I can count where there was an increased risk of injury or death. I have given orders to other members at calls that were calculated risks. I have been assaulted, shot at a number of times and run down by a vehicle once while on foot. All here in Canada. Often attending by myself, and there was no “opt out” option.

I deeply respect many veterans and many things about the military. I just think that some times the only thing missing about UL from policing, at least in the RCMP is that nobody adopted a British Generals expression of UL and published an equivalent to Duty with Honour: The Profession of Arms in Canada.

Oh, I did a 9 month tour in Afghanistan as an RCMP member. I was deployed in the field as a police mentor to the ANP. I never worked in a training camp or as an advisor at an HQ. I carried a 9mm pistol and a C7A2 and most of the time lived in a tent. I did my share of gate guard, foot patrols and vehicle patrols. I was present more than once when my unit was in contact. I once heard a CAF officer tell some other RCMP members in mission that when they go on patrol if anything happened that they could just stay behind the CAF members and they would be protected. As they had no UL. It sounded stupid when he said it. As it was. Probably why I am so cynical most times when I hear it used by people now. On July 22nd I will be a civilian.

For your discussion and dismemberment.
 
Top