Author Topic: Operation HONOUR discussion  (Read 103158 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 226,940
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,956
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Operation HONOUR discussion
« Reply #75 on: August 30, 2019, 16:13:55 »
She is essentially guilty of being pig headed and promiscuous which btw I can go to any bar in town and watch the same thing happen multiple times in one night.  They don't have OP HONOUR in bars though so it's all good there.


I think you're downplaying what this (commissioned) Officer did.  She is, if what the story says is factual, likely (and hopefully, IMO) looking at an AR for both alcohol misconduct/misuse and sexual misconduct.  Should the AR recommendation be release?  I don't know, and never will, because I don't know her entire CAF career history.  The people who need to know will know and I'll have to be satisfied they took all info into account.

Let's turn the situation around some;  let's say, the Officer who was guilty was a man, and the female he touched more than once was your daughter.  Would you think/feel the same?

Using conduct at a bar downtown as a measuring stick for conduct in the CAF, from Officers especially...is that the benchmark we want to go with?
« Last Edit: August 30, 2019, 18:13:21 by Eye In The Sky »
"What a f$$kin' week!" - me, every Monday at about 1130hrs.

Offline PPCLI Guy

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 184,795
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,505
  • It's all good
Re: Operation HONOUR discussion
« Reply #76 on: August 30, 2019, 16:47:59 »
Using conduct at a bar downtown as a measuring stick for conduct in the CAF, from Officers especially...is that the benchmark we want to go with?

So CAF personnel can't go to bars and behave like......people in bars.....those places you go to in order to consume alcohol, and often to meet other people? 

That's quite the standard you have there. 

 
"The higher the rank, the more necessary it is that boldness should be accompanied by a reflective mind....for with increase in rank it becomes always a matter less of self-sacrifice and more a matter of the preservation of others, and the good of the whole."

Karl von Clausewitz

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 226,940
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,956
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Operation HONOUR discussion
« Reply #77 on: August 30, 2019, 16:51:09 »
They can, of course.  However, their conduct is still subj to CAF standards, policies, etc.  If they step out of line, on duty or not, they can still face disciplinary/admin consequences. 

But, the point was we should not be using 'conduct in downtown bars' as a benchmark starting point for CAF members *acceptable conduct*, particularly those holding a Commission.  *Just because it happens downtown* isn't a good metric for conduct for CAF members is it? 
« Last Edit: August 30, 2019, 16:59:13 by Eye In The Sky »
"What a f$$kin' week!" - me, every Monday at about 1130hrs.

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 121,399
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,283
Re: Operation HONOUR discussion
« Reply #78 on: August 30, 2019, 16:58:59 »
I think you're downplaying what this Commissioned Officer did.  She is, if what the story says is factual, likely (and hopefully, IMO) looking at an AR for both alcohol misconduct/misuse and sexual misconduct.  Should the AR recommendation be release?  I don't know, and never will, because I don't know her entire CAF career history.  The people who need to know will know and I'll have to be satisfied they took all info into account.

Let's turn the situation around some;  let's say, the Officer who was guilty was a man, and the female he touched more than once was your daughter.  Would you think/feel the same?

Using conduct at a bar downtown as a measuring stick for conduct in the CAF, from Officers especially...is that the benchmark we want to go with?

Not downplaying it one bit.  My personal opinion is all are equal before the law.  Which is supposed to be one of the cornerstones of our legal system.  If we wanted her removed from the service, the mechanism to do that is through the court martial and sentencing.  Dismissal is a punishment that can be given.  My pal Rob Semrau was sentenced to dismissal and demoted two ranks for one count of disgraceful conduct.  Her position would be one of the factors considered.

What exactly is the difference between a 23 year old ASlt and a 23 year old Corporal anyways? 

A piece of paper and the fact one most likely spent 4 or 5 years at one of our Nations great institutions of higher learning.  Known for such events as binge drinking, experimentation with narcotics and sexual experimentation. 

The fact we subscribe to this Caste System still is kind of dumb tbh.  I also think it's very Un-Canadian but that's for another discussion.  She is an Officer yes, but just because someone holds some sort of rank or title doesn't somehow make them infallible. 

Also, your logic that an officer should be treated differently than a non-commissioned is flawed.  I'll explain why:

The same people that say "if this was a troop they would be getting the book thrown at them" are the ones who would loudly decree "they are only a corporal so that means they should be punished less".  It's "Rules for thee but not for me" only inversed.

Sexual misconduct isn't a crime btw, it's a term that is used to describe behaviours we have defined as unacceptable for whatever reason, whether it's cultural, spiritual, etc.  These beliefs change and evolve over time.  Being a homosexual used to be considered sexual misconduct btw.

As I said, we are in a weird period right now.  People have more "freedom" than ever but we are arguably more censored than ever.  I can self-identify as a Cat, be totally useless at my actual job and I can show up and get paid, but heaven forbid I make a poorly worded remark to the wrong person or drink a little too much and make an *** of myself.

I am not saying what she did was right, I am saying a little perspective and analysis from people would be nice. 

What also needs to be a consideration is "can this person be rehabilitated?"  If the answer is yes then the next question is "can this person still be a valuable contributor to the Canadian Armed Forces?" If the answer is again yes, then steps need to be taken to make that happen.

What we seem to be moving slowly towards is an American style criminal justice industry.  We need to give people who screw up the tools to still be valuable contributors to society otherwise we just end up with larger social problems and a certain proportion of our population that is institutionally criminalized.  You know, like what occurred with the Residential School System.







« Last Edit: August 30, 2019, 17:23:05 by Humphrey Bogart »

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 226,940
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,956
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Operation HONOUR discussion
« Reply #79 on: August 30, 2019, 17:05:21 »
Are we still looking at this from the same perspective I wonder?  I'm looking at it from the Admin/AR side and career consequences aspect, as the criminal/legal side has been determined.  I'm assuming the Sexual Misconduct Incident Management Decision Tree process is already in play, and the CAF/file is at the Step 7.

A review of the facts of the case is required to determine whether, on a balance of probabilities, an incident, special circumstance, or professional deficiency has occurred. If such a determination is made, then a review of the facts of the case is required in order to ensure that the most appropriate administrative action is selected in accordance with DAOD 5019-2. This includes the CAF member's entire period of service (taking into account their rank, military occupation, experience & position), previous conduct deficiencies, if any, and leadership role, if any,

What also needs to be a consideration is "can this person be rehabilitated?"  If the answer is yes then the next question is "can this person still be a valuable contributor to the Canadian Armed Forces?" If the answer is again yes, then steps need to be taken to make that happen.

What we seem to be moving slowly towards is an American style criminal industry.  We need to give people who screw up the tools to still be valuable contributors to society otherwise we just end up with larger social problems and a certain proportion of our population that is institutionally criminalized.  You know, like what occurred with the Residential School System.

I agree 100%. 
« Last Edit: August 30, 2019, 17:17:00 by Eye In The Sky »
"What a f$$kin' week!" - me, every Monday at about 1130hrs.

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 121,399
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,283
Re: Operation HONOUR discussion
« Reply #80 on: August 30, 2019, 17:17:15 »
Are we still looking at this from the same perspective I wonder?  I'm looking at it from the Admin/AR side and career consequences aspect, as the legal side has been determined.

I see your point EITS, I guess my beef is the AR Process has become politicized.  OP HONOUR is 20% an exercise in Justice, 80% an exercise in Political Brinksmanship. 

If a member wasn't sentenced to dismissal during a court martial, how can we then dismiss them administratively?

What's even the point of holding a trial and punishing someone found guilty if we are just going to turn around and administratively nail them no matter what? 

If the military justice system; which is supposed to be independent of the chain of command and is supposedly the most serious form of disciplinary action a member can be subjected to, doesn't think a member should be dismissed, how can the CoC say "nah we know better" and go ahead and do it anyways?

Does that not seriously undermine the legal system itself? 
 
« Last Edit: August 30, 2019, 17:22:02 by Humphrey Bogart »

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 142,395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,694
Re: Operation HONOUR discussion
« Reply #81 on: August 30, 2019, 17:34:01 »
I am going to interrupt this discussion for a small point of ... order?

EITS, you used Commissioned Officer (both words capitalized. I believe you meant that as emphasis. However, in the Navy, Commissioned Officer (capitalized) is (or used to be) a rank: It is/was the rank used to designate an officer who commissioned from the ranks to the level of SLt after achieving the rate of Petty Officer or above. They either wore the same stripes as SLt but were referred to as Commissioned Officer (and in my days, most of them insisted on it as they didn't want to be confused with a mere subbie). The distinction usually ceased when they made Lt or above.

I know that when I released, they were trying to eliminate the usage, but I don't know if they ever were fully successful.  ;)

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 121,399
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,283
Re: Operation HONOUR discussion
« Reply #82 on: August 30, 2019, 17:45:39 »
I am going to interrupt this discussion for a small point of ... order?

EITS, you used Commissioned Officer (both words capitalized. I believe you meant that as emphasis. However, in the Navy, Commissioned Officer (capitalized) is (or used to be) a rank: It is/was the rank used to designate an officer who commissioned from the ranks to the level of SLt after achieving the rate of Petty Officer or above. They either wore the same stripes as SLt but were referred to as Commissioned Officer (and in my days, most of them insisted on it as they didn't want to be confused with a mere subbie). The distinction usually ceased when they made Lt or above.

I know that when I released, they were trying to eliminate the usage, but I don't know if they ever were fully successful.  ;)

Order in the court you say?  This is the internet OGBD, ain't nobody got time for that!

I apologize for ranting a bit (more like a lot)but I was triggered reading CAF Reddit today. 



Offline ballz

    ...

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 122,021
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,352
Re: Operation HONOUR discussion
« Reply #83 on: August 30, 2019, 17:47:55 »
Let's be serious, the CDS making a blanket decision that all instances of sexual misconduct will result in release through administrative action was dumb and was pure pandering to the media. It undermined the entire discipline and administrative system for him to score cheap points.

I don't know if the direction was ever watered down after he made those remarks, but I sure hope so.

Onto my actual point for posting....

Interestingly, the same judge made a ruling less than a year ago in a somewhat similar case. I sure do look forward to reading the official court martial decision for this latest case to compare, as having read the prior case I thought she had hit the nail right on the head in that case.

A male Pte who had just arrived at St. Jean was charged with 4 counts of sexual assault on 3 different victims. It was plastered all over the news.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/soldier-sex-assault-charges-1.4068855

Reading the court martial documents, the 4 sexual assaults were similar in nature. The Pte allegedly grazed two girls on the back of their butt with the back of his hand in the Green Room (Charges 1 and 3), the Pte allegedly touched one girls boob while demo'ing how to make a bed (Charge 4), and the Pte allegedly touched one of the girls on the butt with his fist in the elevator room (Charge 3).

These charges were eventually lowered to 129s before going to court (not through a plea deal... but because there was no chance of conviction of sexual assault given the evidence), and he was then found guilty of only one of them (the elevator room incident). The other three, quite honestly, seem a little bit ridiculous, but you can read the whole thing and judge for yourself.
https://decisia.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/jmc-cmj/cm/en/item/346527/index.do?q=taylor

In the end, the Pte was found guilty of ONE charge of 129. He received a fine of $2000.

In this case, we have a commissioned officer guilty of THREE counts of a disgraceful conduct (a worse charge than a 129) for essentially the same action as Pte Taylor, repeated thrice. She received a $3000 fine, and a severe reprimand (and shortly after was promoted???).

These decisions were made by the same judge, less than a year apart. Like I said, I look forward to reading the decision when it's published, but on the face of it it feels like there are two standards here.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2019, 17:54:45 by ballz »
Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 121,399
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,283
Re: Operation HONOUR discussion
« Reply #84 on: August 30, 2019, 17:59:10 »
Let's be serious, the CDS making a blanket decision that all instances of sexual misconduct will result in release through administrative action was dumb and was pure pandering to the media. It undermined the entire discipline and administrative system for him to score cheap points.

I don't know if the direction was ever watered down after he made those remarks, but I sure hope so.

Onto my actual point for posting....

Interestingly, the same judge made a ruling earlier in the year in a somewhat similar case. I sure do look forward to reading the official court martial decision for this latest case to compare, as having read the case I thought she had hit the nail right on the head in that case.

A male Pte who had just arrived at St. Jean was charged with 4 counts of sexual assault on 3 different victims. It was plastered all over the news  (interesting that I don't remember hearing about this Officer on the news).
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/soldier-sex-assault-charges-1.4068855

Reading the court martial documents, the 4 sexual assaults were similar in nature. The Pte allegedly grazed two girls on the back of their butt with the back of his hand in the Green Room (Charges 1 and 3), the Pte allegedly touched one girls boob while making his bed (Charge 4), and the Pte allegedly touched one of the girls on the butt with his fist in the elevator room (Charge 3).

These charges were eventually lowered to 129s before going to court (not through a plea deal... but because there was no chance of conviction of sexual assault given the evidence), and he was then found guilty of only one of them (the elevator room incident). The other three, quite honestly, seem a little bit ridiculous, but you can read the whole thing and judge for yourself.
https://decisia.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/jmc-cmj/cm/en/item/346527/index.do?q=taylor

In the end, the Pte was found guilty of ONE charge of 129. He received a fine of $2000.

In this case, we have a commissioned officer guilty of THREE counts of a disgraceful conduct (a worse charge than a 129) for essentially the same action as Pte Taylor, repeated thrice. She received a $3000 fine, and a severe reprimand (and shortly after was promoted???).

These decisions were made by the same judge, less than a year apart. Like I said, I look forward to reading the decision when it's published, but on the face of it it feels like there are two standards here.

I don't think people even understand what a severe reprimand is.  It's basically saying, you can do a 110% awesome job at whatever your doing now and in the future and no matter how good of a job you do, this will carry over and seriously impact your ability to excel ahead of your peers forever.

Now pretend for a second this individual is not in the military and is in some other career and all of a sudden their career is limited (a vocation they have been trained for) no matter what they do or how they perform?  How is that not a serious punishment?

I also agree 100% with your initial point.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2019, 18:01:58 by Humphrey Bogart »

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 226,940
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,956
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Operation HONOUR discussion
« Reply #85 on: August 30, 2019, 18:06:57 »
I see your point EITS, I guess my beef is the AR Process has become politicized.  OP HONOUR is 20% an exercise in Justice, 80% an exercise in Political Brinksmanship. 

If a member wasn't sentenced to dismissal during a court martial, how can we then dismiss them administratively?

What's even the point of holding a trial and punishing someone found guilty if we are just going to turn around and administratively nail them no matter what? 

If the military justice system; which is supposed to be independent of the chain of command and is supposedly the most serious form of disciplinary action a member can be subjected to, doesn't think a member should be dismissed, how can the CoC say "nah we know better" and go ahead and do it anyways?

Does that not seriously undermine the legal system itself?

I see them as complimentary.  The legal system, to determine guilt/innocence, looks at the evidence as it related only to that alleged crime/action.  Our Admin processes like an AR take into account the members entire service history and all RMs, etc over a mbr's career are taken into consideration.  We've a 400 page Admin Law Manual to guide us in matters of Admin Law, and fairly specific direction on how an AR will happen for any CAF mbr involved with sexual misconduct.

We aren't 'just' civilians at the end of the day.  Because of that distinction, I believe the CAF needs additional disciplinary and administrative tools and options to address conduct on and off duty. 

I also don't have much faith in the Canadian "legal" system which the CAF is more and more in tune with...so, personally, I'm one of those who are thankful we have the administrative law/processes we do.
"What a f$$kin' week!" - me, every Monday at about 1130hrs.

Offline Bruce Monkhouse

    Is a pinball wizard.

  • Lab Experiment #13
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 253,860
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,019
  • WHERE IS MY BATON?
    • http://www.canadianbands.com./home.html
Re: Operation HONOUR discussion
« Reply #86 on: August 30, 2019, 18:08:46 »
I don't think people even understand what a severe reprimand is.  It's basically saying, you can do a 110% awesome job at whatever your doing now and in the future and no matter how good of a job you do, this will carry over and seriously impact your ability to excel ahead of your peers forever.

Now pretend for a second this individual is not in the military and is in some other career and all of a sudden their career is limited (a vocation they have been trained for) no matter what they do or how they perform?  How is that not a serious punishment?

I also agree 100% with your initial point.

It's not a punishment at all except for you brainwashed military folk......most jobs have no advancement,  that is your job and you get paid for it.
Doing this same job for 30 years, along with thousands of other CO'S,  and we're doing just fine.
A line on a piece of paper 25 years ago would have been about as bothersome as a small cloud on a sunny day.
IF YOU REALLY ENJOY THIS SITE AND WISH TO CONTINUE,THEN PLEASE WIGGLE UP TO THE BAR AND BUY A SUBSCRIPTION OR SOME SWAG FROM THE MILNET.CA STORE OR IF YOU WISH TO ADVERTISE PLEASE SEND MIKE SOME DETAILS.

Everybody has a game plan until they get punched in the mouth.

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 121,399
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,283
Re: Operation HONOUR discussion
« Reply #87 on: August 30, 2019, 18:11:25 »
It's not a punishment at all except for you brainwashed military folk......most jobs have no advancement,  that is your job and you get paid for it.
Doing this same job for 30 years, along with thousands of other CO'S,  and we're doing just fine.
A line on a piece of paper 25 years ago would have been about as bothersome as a small cloud on a sunny day.

Have you ever aspired to be a Supervisor, Warden, Specialist, etc? 


Offline Bruce Monkhouse

    Is a pinball wizard.

  • Lab Experiment #13
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 253,860
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,019
  • WHERE IS MY BATON?
    • http://www.canadianbands.com./home.html
Re: Operation HONOUR discussion
« Reply #88 on: August 30, 2019, 18:12:32 »
Nope.....if I had wanted to push papers I'd have been a clerk. 
It's not like on TV....
« Last Edit: August 30, 2019, 18:15:43 by Bruce Monkhouse »
IF YOU REALLY ENJOY THIS SITE AND WISH TO CONTINUE,THEN PLEASE WIGGLE UP TO THE BAR AND BUY A SUBSCRIPTION OR SOME SWAG FROM THE MILNET.CA STORE OR IF YOU WISH TO ADVERTISE PLEASE SEND MIKE SOME DETAILS.

Everybody has a game plan until they get punched in the mouth.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 226,940
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,956
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Operation HONOUR discussion
« Reply #89 on: August 30, 2019, 18:12:49 »
I am going to interrupt this discussion for a small point of ... order?

EITS, you used Commissioned Officer (both words capitalized. I believe you meant that as emphasis. However, in the Navy, Commissioned Officer (capitalized) is (or used to be) a rank: It is/was the rank used to designate an officer who commissioned from the ranks to the level of SLt after achieving the rate of Petty Officer or above. They either wore the same stripes as SLt but were referred to as Commissioned Officer (and in my days, most of them insisted on it as they didn't want to be confused with a mere subbie). The distinction usually ceased when they made Lt or above.

I know that when I released, they were trying to eliminate the usage, but I don't know if they ever were fully successful.  ;)

I think I was trying to emphasize the commissioned Officer aspect so there was no doubt I meant Officers solely and not Warrant/Petty or non-commissioned ones.   ;D

I know I'm getting grey and close to a 2nd clasp on the CD;  I'm one of those people who still believe "higher rank = higher expectations" for things like conduct, ethics, etc. 
« Last Edit: August 30, 2019, 18:22:27 by Eye In The Sky »
"What a f$$kin' week!" - me, every Monday at about 1130hrs.

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 121,399
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,283
Re: Operation HONOUR discussion
« Reply #90 on: August 30, 2019, 18:32:18 »
I think I was trying to emphasis the commissioned Officer aspect so there was no doubt I meant Officers solely and not Warrant/Petty or non-commissioned ones.   ;D

I know I'm getting grey and close to a 2nd clasp on the CD;  I'm one of those people who still believe "higher rank = higher expectations" for things like conduct, ethics, etc.

You old dog you!  You are going to need to temper those expectations.  The most I expect now is that someone be good at Rocket League.



Don't knock it, makes you cool with the youths!

Offline ballz

    ...

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 122,021
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,352
Re: Operation HONOUR discussion
« Reply #91 on: August 30, 2019, 18:46:38 »
I don't think people even understand what a severe reprimand is.  It's basically saying, you can do a 110% awesome job at whatever your doing now and in the future and no matter how good of a job you do, this will carry over and seriously impact your ability to excel ahead of your peers forever.

Now pretend for a second this individual is not in the military and is in some other career and all of a sudden their career is limited (a vocation they have been trained for) no matter what they do or how they perform?  How is that not a serious punishment?

I know what a severe reprimand is.

The fact is every disciplinary measure comes with somewhat of a "reprimand" to your career which is essentially however everyone judges you during that time and for how long after they judge you, for those actions that led to disciplinary action.

I can assure your Pte Taylor experienced and is experiencing "severe reprimand" to his career (assuming he still has one) regardless of the judge not having given him one. The severe reprimand is implicit and only measured by those who supervise you afterwards. Having a judge formally acknowledge one makes zero difference.

What "rules" exist surrounding the use of a severe reprimand to ensure it will be respected and to what degree? It's a pure judgement call on the supervisors going forward.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2019, 18:56:18 by ballz »
Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?

Offline ModlrMike

    : Riding time again... woohooo!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 217,924
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,893
    • Canadian Association of Physician Assistants
Re: Operation HONOUR discussion
« Reply #92 on: August 30, 2019, 18:53:23 »
Regardless of the outcome, her career as an NWO is effectively torpedoed.
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may create the illusion that you are tougher,smarter, faster and better looking than most people.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. (H.L. Mencken 1919)
Zero tolerance is the politics of the lazy. All it requires is that you do nothing and ban everything.

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 302,331
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,115
Re: Operation HONOUR discussion
« Reply #93 on: August 30, 2019, 19:07:55 »
I don't think people even understand what a severe reprimand is.  It's basically saying, you can do a 110% awesome job at whatever your doing now and in the future and no matter how good of a job you do, this will carry over and seriously impact your ability to excel ahead of your peers forever.


Except in this job being female means you might get accepted for a trade you want over a male applicant who's told its closed.

We also make a show of bragging about gender metrics like (attempting to) deploy 15% females to Mali.

I'm confident if the CAF wants more female navy officers for their optics a severe repremand on someone's file won't get in the way.
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Hamish Seggie

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 229,952
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,369
  • This is my son Michael, KIA Afghanistan 3 Sep 08
Re: Operation HONOUR discussion
« Reply #94 on: August 30, 2019, 21:46:36 »
Now that I am at my own keyboard I'd like to offer my thoughts, hopefully in a coherent, measured fashion.

1. Being a Commissioned Officer or an NCO in the CAF sets one apart from society in general and the troops you lead. I think we can all agree to that.
2. As leaders, you are entrusted with the welfare of the troops you lead. This includes their well being. This is a trust which should never be broken.
3. By groping her subordinates she broke that trust, pure and simple.

Quite simply, the sons and daughters the CAF commands haven't signed up to be groped or abused.

My  :2c:
Freedom Isn't Free   "Never Shall I Fail My Brothers"

“Do everything that is necessary and nothing that is not".

Offline Ralph

  • Member
  • ****
  • 3,280
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 179
Re: Operation HONOUR discussion
« Reply #95 on: August 31, 2019, 00:01:22 »

We also make a show of bragging about gender metrics like (attempting to) deploy 15% females to Mali.


All countries sending staff and military observers on UN missions are expected to send 15% female personnel.

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 254,625
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,101
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Operation HONOUR discussion
« Reply #96 on: August 31, 2019, 00:09:26 »
All countries sending staff and military observers on UN missions are expected to send 15% female personnel.

I'm so old that I remember when it was '50% of reservists to Bosnia/Afghanistsan etc' #differenttimesdifferentequitygroups
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 240,540
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,839
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: Operation HONOUR discussion
« Reply #97 on: August 31, 2019, 08:24:46 »
Man, there's some weird hand-wringing going on in this thread.

Sexual assault is a crime. It's a pretty straightforward concept, and it has a clear meaning in law. Unfortunately it happens a lot in society you can indeed go out on a weekend evening, and there's a reasonable chance that if you're in the bars, some sexual assaults on the 'lower' end of the spectrum of what that offense covers will occur near you. Being reasonably frequent, and being 'lower end' doesn't make them any less criminal, it just makes them a prevalent problem. I have the right to go to a bar, or the mechanic's, or the library, or to my place of employment, or the furniture store, or to a work party without having my dick touched if I don't want it to be. Everyone does. A victim being male and a perpetrator female doesn't change the gravity of a situation at all. So let's start with that- you grab someone's junk without permission, regardless of the nature or configuration of their junk or of yours, you're offside. If you tell them "You know you like it" and you do it again, it's difficult to suggest it was unintentional or a misread of a sexually charged but still somewhat ambiguous situation. Does it happen a lot in bars? Yes. And if someone comes to me with a credible allegation of that and there's a suspect, I can and will arrest and charge that person. In the strictly criminal law side of the house, there's no differnet, higher standard being applied here simply because it's the CAF and the eyes of society are on us. The conduct was in and of itself sufficient to justify charges,a dn charges were laid. A plea deal resulted, also common in civilian criminal court. Nobody got railroaded here.

The CAF, quite wisely, has decided that for valid institutional reasons, we impose a standard of conduct higher than 'don't get convicted of a criminal offense'. Any employer can and most do. The CAF is hardly unique for having certain situations in which someone will lose their job if it's reasonably believed they engaged in certain conduct. While the CAF is one of only a few employers with its own specific legislation, and its own conduct expectations that have the weight of law, that's not what it has to rely upon to determine that someone is best removed from employment. McDonalds doesn't need a National Fast Food Act passed by a legislature to have the power to fire someone who grabs someone else's dick, either during work hours or at an after hours work function. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the CAF has one of the most rigorously procedural employee administration systems, with some of the strongest oversight mechanisms to be found anywhere. You grope a coworker at TD Bank, watch how fast you're fired. You probably won't be seeing an NOI, there's probably not going to be a grievance procedure. Brief meeting with HR, and here's the banker's box with your personal effects... The CAF has a lot in place to make sure that administrative measures are enacted fairly.

I acknowledge that the role of the CAF justice system is in part rehabilitation. Absolutely, and yes it should be. But that does not obviate the requirement for CAF leadership to identify systemic problems int he institution, and to use the measures they have available to target unacceptable behaviours that fall short of outright criminality. Being fired from a job does not carry the weight of a criminal conviction. It sucks, but when you choose the behaviour you choose the consequences, and there has been nothing unclear about the consequences of not keeping your damned hands to yourself for a fair bit of time now.

An individual who engages in such behaviours against / among CAF members does more than just grab someone's dick. They're wilfully engaging in conduct that perpetuate a type of behaviour that is rightly or wrongly seen as endemic within our ranks, and that has been deemed (rightly) to constitute a threat to the institution. They are wilfully engaging in behaviour that makes some other members uncomfortable at or afraid to come to work, and that has caused some significant psychological distress. In the case of a leader, they are damaging ocnfidence in the integrity of the chain of command and they are damaging the trust that should implicitly be vested both upwards and downwards through the chain of command. I recognize also that institutionally the CAF sees such things from an officer as more egregious. Frankly I tire of that nonsense and I think that as we're all adults (or damned close to it) and professionals, and as our junior ranks are no longer Wellington's 'scum of the earth', we should be able to view misconduct equitably regardless of a degree or a commission. But I digress- that was just the (not quite released yet) NCO in me taking umbrage at the residual classism we still have. In any case, there is no person so lowly in rank or junior in experience who is not aware of where these particular lines are drawn, and whose conduct can be mitigated by being junior.

This is not something 'everyone is guilty of'. Most of us are perfectly capable of keeping our hands to ourselves. Those who can't give me pause- I question their ability to exercise sound judgment, and I question their self control. I won't leave those concerns in the frictionless vacuum of an after work party, because character is character.

Maybe I'm pretty die hard on this, but I don't think we need every single person who enters our organization to stay, and I don't think the recruitng process perfectly weeds in who should and who should not be here. I believe that over time, people will revert to their nature even when they 'wear a mask' in a professional environment. I believe that a small portion of our members, by virtue of their choices and their conduct, eventually show themselves to not be worth the cost of keeping. It might be a one off, it might not. But in an institution where discipline is so key, I fully support the CDS on down in keeping a very tight grip on the consequences of poor choices.
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 302,331
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,115
Re: Operation HONOUR discussion
« Reply #98 on: August 31, 2019, 09:48:27 »
All countries sending staff and military observers on UN missions are expected to send 15% female personnel.

Thanks Ralph. I'd believe it. Is there a source for that though that I can use in the future?


There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 517,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,679
    • The job.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2019, 10:11:33 by mariomike »