Author Topic: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks  (Read 17578 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Target Up

    ........pull, patch, and score.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 260,965
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,269
  • that's how we roll in redneck land
No, it was removed because it was tangential and is better suited to the reddit page it came from.

In what way? It points out the hypocrisy of vowing to hunt down racism while embracing a policy that is clearly based on race. Either it’s bad or it isn’t, and I didn’t get it from Reddit, so there’s that. But I get it.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2020, 22:47:36 by Target Up »
Apparently, a "USUAL SUSPECT"

“In peace there's nothing so becomes a man as modest stillness and humility; but when the blast of war blows in our ears, then imitate the action of the tiger; stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood, disguise fair nature with hard-favor'd rage.”

 Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and start slitting throats

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 60,130
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,183
  • Red shirted sea nerd reporting for the away team!
I haven't read the order but admin measures by their nature don't have the same burden of proof as disciplinary/courts, it is the balance of probability of whether it likely happened or not. There is no innocent until found guilty, it is the reason for example that often if a soldier gets a DUI hey are given a corresponding admin measure long before they go to trial.

I totally understand that, but if someone gets a DUI there is usually a certain level of proof required to get to that point.

The admin order includes online activities and microaggressions, along with straight up racist acts, so it's a pretty broad brush. No issue kicking someone out for say, running a neo nazi chat board, but it could also apply to a lot of things that are much less blatant. Which in and of itself isn't a bad thing, but there is always the risk it could go too far. Having said that, haven't seen anything like that with Op Honour, so optimistic that common sense will apply and we won't be doing stupid things like slapping an RW on someone for liking a FB post years ago just because the group is now banned*, but sometimes that is weirdly absent.

*for clarification, seems to be a common tactic to have pretty benign statements for those stupid shareable posts as gateways to some of the hate groups. i.e. Do you disagree with illegal immagration? (or whatever fairly non-controversial statement they can find).

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 374,786
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,575
Quote
CoC will facilitate focused awareness and bystander training, ensuring that our members recognize their responsibilities when incidentsarise, including the repercussions for not addressing situations in a timely manner. Although this training and associated resources are still being developed, I expect the CoC to be proactive in developing vignettes and educating their members;

I hope this is a legitimate thing and not just fluff. I especially hope it's not just another tired DLN course that people speed-click through to challenge the test and report to higher that it's good to go so someone in brigade can populate a spread sheet and everyone call it mission accomplished.
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline ballz

    ...

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 133,476
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,534
I especially hope it's not just another tired DLN course that people speed-click through to challenge the test and report to higher that it's good to go so someone in brigade can populate a spread sheet and everyone call it mission accomplished.

It's almost like, after years of seeing the same thing over and over again, you know the CAF's playbook...
Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?

Offline Haggis

  • "There ain't no hat badge on a helmet!"
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 87,395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,163
  • "Oh, what a glorious sight, Warm-reekin, rich!"
Except where you are limited to 37 man peoplekind days per year, of course.
FTFY.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2020, 11:25:30 by Haggis »
Train like your life depends on it.  Some day, it may.

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 329,105
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,583
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
"Now listen to me you benighted muckers. We're going to teach you soldiering. The world's noblest profession. When we're done with you, you'll be able to slaughter your enemies like civilized men." Daniel Dravot

Online MJP

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 199,600
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,862
I totally understand that, but if someone gets a DUI there is usually a certain level of proof required to get to that point.

The admin order includes online activities and microaggressions, along with straight up racist acts, so it's a pretty broad brush. No issue kicking someone out for say, running a neo nazi chat board, but it could also apply to a lot of things that are much less blatant. Which in and of itself isn't a bad thing, but there is always the risk it could go too far. Having said that, haven't seen anything like that with Op Honour, so optimistic that common sense will apply and we won't be doing stupid things like slapping an RW on someone for liking a FB post years ago just because the group is now banned*, but sometimes that is weirdly absent.

I see where you are coming from and apologies if I came across as overly simplistic, have run across too many senior military folks who are fairly clueless on how admin measures work so I try not to make assumptions.

The real problem with racist or sexist or sexualized behaviour is not the big overt acts, we can all easily identify, it is those micro-aggression (believe me I scoffed when I first heard the term) and their effect on people, the org and the culture over time. The key to stamping it out much like Op HONOUR is a strong show by the leadership that these behaviours are unacceptable, hence orders like this one or Op HONOUR. 

I hope this is a legitimate thing and not just fluff. I especially hope it's not just another tired DLN course that people speed-click through to challenge the test and report to higher that it's good to go so someone in brigade can populate a spread sheet and everyone call it mission accomplished.

I hope so too, bystander intervention and Respect in the CAF were great training products and I feel the latter can easily be adapt for racist conduct. Regardless of how the content is delivered there is always resistance to directed training on behavioural matters for a variety of reasons:

1.   Loss of status quo - They see change as a net loss for them
2.   Intergroup anxiety - The fear of saying or being accused of doing something wrong and being labelled for it
3.   Denial of need for change - They associate the issue with overt action and don't  associate  micro-transgressions to being a problem
4.   Identity Threat - Fear of loss of identity or assimilation from both all sides
5.   Non-Supportive Corporate/organizational culture  - Change not linked to strategic goals, lack of leadership ownership.

If it is to be effective it needs:

1.   To almost be voluntary (very hard in the CAF for that condition admittedly) at least in the start. RitCAF IIRC work was/is voluntary ATT for example;

2.   When you do the trg, the beginning should be about dispelling myths of what is or isn’t an issue (misinformed, false, or incorrect beliefs concerning motives, behavior, and victims that form a social lens);

3.   Ensure that the organization is aligned properly to have a culture that wants to reduce misconduct. This makes intuitive sense because if an org is just paying lip service to the issue then there is no effect on the motivation of a person taking the training; and

4.   Initial efforts in training should be done cautiously and should be done in concert with other initiatives within the org like removal of leadership that tolerate such behaviour, introduction or revamping of key policy and bringing in external consultants to deliver the trg or other initiatives. 


Hope is not a valid COA

Offline ballz

    ...

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 133,476
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,534
I'm enjoying a Facebook thread now between a friend and an acquaintance where my friend shared the Canadian Army's post on this, sans comment. He is now being accosted, not by CAF members but by a socially progressive / anti-racism type. Essentially, his support for this is some sign of his white privilege, and that he's naive enough to think this is enough, blah blah blah.

What I've learned is, this person doesn't like hateful conduct, and also doesn't like that the Canadian Army is trying to combat hateful conduct.  :facepalm:

Outrage culture at it's finest.
Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?

Offline shawn5o

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 6,520
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 270
  • "We have met the enemy and he is us!" Pogo
Some thoughts


A main criticism of “soldiers suspected of hateful conduct and extremism” seem to be based on terms such as hate speech and disinformation, with the exemption of neo-Nazis (why would anyone subscribe to that ideology???), anti-Semitism, etc. My worry is that those enforcing the rules (CoC) can censor anything they disagree with or don’t want to address by simply labelling it as hateful conduct and extremism.

Another question is about whether CoCs possess the objectivity that need to be brought to mind when deciding the line between prohibited hate speech and uneducated, horrible, objectionable speech (no group identified).

Does the CoC (and/or higher) allow the presumption of innocence and the requirement that the charge be proved beyond a reasonable doubt?

Do the CoC (and/or higher) decisions meet the threshold of hate and contempt as determined by the Supreme Court?


Just curious
“We can't all be heroes because somebody has to sit on the curb and clap as they go by.” ― Will Rogers

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 148,874
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,731
I'm enjoying a Facebook thread now between a friend and an acquaintance where my friend shared the Canadian Army's post on this, sans comment. He is now being accosted, not by CAF members but by a socially progressive / anti-racism type. Essentially, his support for this is some sign of his white privilege, and that he's naive enough to think this is enough, blah blah blah.

What I've learned is, this person doesn't like hateful conduct, and also doesn't like that the Canadian Army is trying to combat hateful conduct.  :facepalm:

Outrage culture at it's finest.

I've stopped posting entirely on Social Media other than pictures of vacations I take, events I attend, etc.

I am strongly considering deleting Facebook and just keeping instagram as it's the only platform I really follow.  I just need to rid myself of some SM duties I have with work which should happen soon.

Offline Donald H

  • Banned
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 1,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 329
Some thoughts


A main criticism of “soldiers suspected of hateful conduct and extremism” seem to be based on terms such as hate speech and disinformation, with the exemption of neo-Nazis (why would anyone subscribe to that ideology???), anti-Semitism, etc. My worry is that those enforcing the rules (CoC) can censor anything they disagree with or don’t want to address by simply labelling it as hateful conduct and extremism.

Another question is about whether CoCs possess the objectivity that need to be brought to mind when deciding the line between prohibited hate speech and uneducated, horrible, objectionable speech (no group identified).

Does the CoC (and/or higher) allow the presumption of innocence and the requirement that the charge be proved beyond a reasonable doubt?

Do the CoC (and/or higher) decisions meet the threshold of hate and contempt as determined by the Supreme Court?


Just curious

I think it calls for defining neo-Nazi ideology Shawn. Does this photo define it adequately enough? I think it does and dog forbid that ever comes to Canada. And just wait until both sides get the guns out, as is predicted by Colin's friend. This is really, really bad my friend.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/2020/9/23/21452846/facebook-negligence-kenosha-shootings-lawsuit-kyle-rittenhouse

There's just no way of playing down that kind of behaviour in my opinion!

 :worms:
It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said.
~Mark Twain.

Offline shawn5o

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 6,520
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 270
  • "We have met the enemy and he is us!" Pogo
I think it calls for defining neo-Nazi ideology Shawn. Does this photo define it adequately enough? I think it does and dog forbid that ever comes to Canada. And just wait until both sides get the guns out, as is predicted by Colin's friend. This is really, really bad my friend.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/2020/9/23/21452846/facebook-negligence-kenosha-shootings-lawsuit-kyle-rittenhouse

There's just no way of playing down that kind of behaviour in my opinion!

 :worms:

I don't get what you're saying Don

This thread is about the army comd orders to stop hateful conduct and extremism. You brought up Kyle and FB. Frankly, I once suscribed to FB and quickly opted out; never did like it and never went back.
“We can't all be heroes because somebody has to sit on the curb and clap as they go by.” ― Will Rogers

Online MJP

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 199,600
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,862
Some thoughts


A main criticism of “soldiers suspected of hateful conduct and extremism” seem to be based on terms such as hate speech and disinformation, with the exemption of neo-Nazis (why would anyone subscribe to that ideology???), anti-Semitism, etc. My worry is that those enforcing the rules (CoC) can censor anything they disagree with or don’t want to address by simply labelling it as hateful conduct and extremism.

Another question is about whether CoCs possess the objectivity that need to be brought to mind when deciding the line between prohibited hate speech and uneducated, horrible, objectionable speech (no group identified).

Does the CoC (and/or higher) allow the presumption of innocence and the requirement that the charge be proved beyond a reasonable doubt?

Do the CoC (and/or higher) decisions meet the threshold of hate and contempt as determined by the Supreme Court?


Just curious

No they don't, nor do they have too.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2020, 16:26:03 by MJP »
Hope is not a valid COA

Offline Donald H

  • Banned
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 1,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 329
I don't get what you're saying Don

This thread is about the army comd orders to stop hateful conduct and extremism. You brought up Kyle and FB. Frankly, I once suscribed to FB and quickly opted out; never did like it and never went back.

I was responding to your reference to neo-Nazi behaviour Shawn and how it was left open to interpretation.
It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said.
~Mark Twain.

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 314,375
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,796
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
I've stopped posting entirely on Social Media other than pictures of vacations I take, events I attend, etc.

I am strongly considering deleting Facebook and just keeping instagram as it's the only platform I really follow.  I just need to rid myself of some SM duties I have with work which should happen soon.

I'm still on Facebook but I've been using the "unfollow" function a lot more lately.

 :clubinhand:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 183,750
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,691
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
It's almost like, after years of seeing the same thing over and over again, you know the CAF's playbook...

Yes his insight is deep and wise. I suspect that the deciding factor is whether NDHQ is feeling political/social heat for anything that might said or posted by a member and the real message is that: "we will throw you under the bus" regardless of how questionable the original statement/action is.

Offline shawn5o

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 6,520
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 270
  • "We have met the enemy and he is us!" Pogo
No they don't, nor do they have too.

Hi MJP

I don't get it. Doesn't CF or the NDA have to be consistent with the Charter? And if I understand you, the CF doesn't have to allow the presumption of innocence and the requirement that the charge be proved beyond a reasonable doubt? Okay military is different but it begs the question why not? And if a service member faces a charge of say "hateful conduct", he/she has the onus placed on them and not the other way around?

Forgive me - I'm confused.
“We can't all be heroes because somebody has to sit on the curb and clap as they go by.” ― Will Rogers

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 148,874
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,731
I'm still on Facebook but I've been using the "unfollow" function a lot more lately.

 :clubinhand:

Oh heck yes, I don't want to look at anything political on there.  It's never what the platform was originally about but it's slowly descended in to complete garbage.

Offline dapaterson

    Halfway to being an idiot-savant.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 552,805
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,635
Admin actions are not disciplinary.  Don't confuse DAOD 5019 with QR&O volume II.
Putting the *** in acerbic.

Offline shawn5o

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 6,520
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 270
  • "We have met the enemy and he is us!" Pogo
Admin actions are not disciplinary.  Don't confuse DAOD 5019 with QR&O volume II.

Thanks DA

Still over my head but I'm used to that ;)

 :cheers:
“We can't all be heroes because somebody has to sit on the curb and clap as they go by.” ― Will Rogers

Offline Target Up

    ........pull, patch, and score.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 260,965
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,269
  • that's how we roll in redneck land
Admin actions are not disciplinary.  Don't confuse DAOD 5019 with QR&O volume II.

Perhaps not by design. I've know several, as in more than a couple, of members who were given 6 months C&P, got their crap wired tight and checked every box on the supervising officers score card. After the 6 months? Punted, two of them off base within 72 hours. Once the all seeing eye of Mordor is on you and up your ***, that's punitive. Make a guy squirm for six months, see the finish line ahead and get to just to have it turn out to be a garrote. I'd call that more than punitive.
Apparently, a "USUAL SUSPECT"

“In peace there's nothing so becomes a man as modest stillness and humility; but when the blast of war blows in our ears, then imitate the action of the tiger; stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood, disguise fair nature with hard-favor'd rage.”

 Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and start slitting throats

Offline PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 953,025
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,797
I hope this is a legitimate thing and not just fluff. I especially hope it's not just another tired DLN course that people speed-click through to challenge the test and report to higher that it's good to go so someone in brigade can populate a spread sheet and everyone call it mission accomplished.

After reading the Commander's Intent, I think you're probably right that this will just be a lip service order. It is naive to think we can eliminate hateful conduct within the CA. As pointed out earlier, we're a microcosm of Canadian society and we will have extremists slip through into the ranks. When your intent is unachievable, it greatly reduces the value of the the rest of the order.

What CCA should have said (IMO) was that he wants create a culture within the CA that makes hateful conduct unacceptable meaning those individuals harbouring extremist views can either get with the program or leave and also where everyone in uniform feels impowered to call out hateful conduct at any rank or experience level. We will be dealing with racists in the CAF until the end of time, no matter how many CCA's intend on removing all racists and it never be a problem again. It makes it easier to identify those extremists when we create that proper culture, not perpetually running witch hunts for racists.

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 60,130
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,183
  • Red shirted sea nerd reporting for the away team!
I see where you are coming from and apologies if I came across as overly simplistic, have run across too many senior military folks who are fairly clueless on how admin measures work so I try not to make assumptions.

The real problem with racist or sexist or sexualized behaviour is not the big overt acts, we can all easily identify, it is those micro-aggression (believe me I scoffed when I first heard the term) and their effect on people, the org and the culture over time. The key to stamping it out much like Op HONOUR is a strong show by the leadership that these behaviours are unacceptable, hence orders like this one or Op HONOUR. 

Yeah, agree with you there; similarly scoffed about microaggressions until I had a discussion with a friend and he explained what it was like, and realized it was similar to some of the bullying I had as a kid (just with grownups). No reason anyone should have to put up with that as work.

Think microaggressions can be like 'tone' in emails; a lot of times it's intentional, but sometimes it's not. The question 'Where are you from' in the CAF context is totally different the on normal civie street, as very few of us are actually posted in our home town (and I joined the Navy specifically to see somewhere other then my home town). Anyway, not really too worried about it, as it's not a bad thing if people think for a second before saying/posting something.


Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 183,750
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,691
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Guess they might deem me a racist, as I love asking people where they/their family are from, as it gives me a chance to hear interesting stories and learn new things. Also a way to humanize people, personally I think we should spend more time learning about people's backgrounds as we will realize we all have commonalities.

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 148,874
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,731
Admin actions are not disciplinary.  Don't confuse DAOD 5019 with QR&O volume II.

They have 100% become punitive in nature.  Admin Action is honestly worse than the CSD.