Author Topic: Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks  (Read 17575 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline dapaterson

    Halfway to being an idiot-savant.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 552,805
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,635
Well, only one is in uniform, and if you scan that hastag, you'll see see @CAFInUS is just joining a large group that's flooding social media.
Putting the *** in acerbic.

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 374,766
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,575
What's the larger group flooding social media about? Some kind of hostile take over of the hashtag or something else?
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 209,245
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,752
  • Honey Badger FTW!
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline ballz

    ...

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 133,476
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,534
The gay community is basically trolling the Proud Boys group, it's a pretty funny troll actually.

That said I'm not a huge fan of people making out in public and yes, that extends to all varieties of people, although sometimes the occasion calls for it (like coming home after winning WW2!)... if this was done just to troll I'm on board.
Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?

Offline dapaterson

    Halfway to being an idiot-savant.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 552,805
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,635
What's the larger group flooding social media about? Some kind of hostile take over of the hashtag or something else?

Click through the hashtag and you'll see a wide array of gay men in a wide array of circumstances.

Putting the *** in acerbic.

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 374,766
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,575
:rofl:

http://100photos.time.com/photos/kiss-v-j-day-times-square-alfred-eisenstaedt

I think that falls under sexual assault these days.

The gay community is basically trolling the Proud Boys group, it's a pretty funny troll actually.

That said I'm not a huge fan of people making out in public and yes, that extends to all varieties of people, although sometimes the occasion calls for it (like coming home after winning WW2!)... if this was done just to troll I'm on board.

Interesting troll for sure. I know even less of the US proud boys than the Canadian group. From what I understand neither mentions gay men not being welcomed in their group.

I'll wear a rain jacket in the winter with a toque and no gloves, I've lost my moral authority to be upset over disobeying rules  ;D
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Dimsum

    West coast best coast.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 230,995
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,471
  • Living the staff life
I'd guess some people don't like the sight of two guys in uniform kissing. Some will argue it violates DAOD 5901. Some probably just don't think PDA while in uniform is acceptable.
Then again maybe no one will care one bit.

I thought the #ProudBoys hashtag was hilarious.

That picture was taken when HMCS Winnipeg returned from deployment in 2016.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/historic-kiss-same-sex-canadian-navy-1.3461219
“If you run into an a-hole in the morning, you ran into an a-hole. If you run into a-holes all day, you're the a-hole.”

- Raylan Givens, Justified (cleaned up for content)

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 374,766
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,575
Thanks for the explication. I liked the picture more when it looked spontaneous and didn't have Combat camera up in their face. Unless they photograph every first kiss ashore.


Speaking of the Proud Boys and the army commanders new special order, what happens if someone joins the Proud Boys (or stormguard or whoever) and the CoC is made aware now?

Are they looking at a 5f release?
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline reveng

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 75,500
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,792
Would it be a release under item 5, or more likely under items(s) 1 or 2?

I wonder if the CAF will release people for wearing aloha shirts?  ;D

Online MJP

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 199,580
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,862
Would it be a release under item 5, or more likely under items(s) 1 or 2?

I wonder if the CAF will release people for wearing aloha shirts?  ;D

Well items 1&2 are generally the result of court martial/service tribunal while item 5 is purely administrative and handled by DMCA 2. If someone fell afoul of the CCA order I would expect that the mostly like COA is Admin Review by DMCA 2 for likely 5F release.

Hope is not a valid COA

Offline reveng

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 75,500
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,792
Well items 1&2 are generally the result of court martial/service tribunal while item 5 is purely administrative and handled by DMCA 2. If someone fell afoul of the CCA order I would expect that the mostly like COA is Admin Review by DMCA 2 for likely 5F release.

Seen, thanks.

Aren't members released under 5F still considered "honourably" released? Do they still get their pension/transfer value, access to VAC benefits etc? If so, a 5F doesn't really seem like it's sending a very strong message.

Online MJP

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 199,580
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,862
Seen, thanks.

Aren't members released under 5F still considered "honourably" released? Do they still get their pension/transfer value, access to VAC benefits etc? If so, a 5F doesn't really seem like it's sending a very strong message.

All other release are honourable less 1 which is dishonourable and 2 which is simply annotated service terminated.  Considering the process for 5 series is protected B, it is a strong message to the person being released only anyway.

Releasing someone doesn't deprived them of their entitlements due to them due to injury from service or their pension for any of the release items, nor should it IMHO.

(4) Where an officer or non-commissioned member is released, the notation on his record of service shall be as follows:

if he is released under Item 1(a), the notation "Dismissed with Disgrace for Misconduct" or "Dismissed for Misconduct", as applicable;
if he is released under Item 1 for any reason other than Item 1(a), the notation "Released for Misconduct";
where he is released under Item 2, the notation "Service Terminated"; or
where he is released under Item 3, 4 or 5, the notation "Honourably Released". 
Hope is not a valid COA

Offline Tcm621

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 16,840
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 823
Why would that picture ruffle some feathers? One reason is I don't think any official CAF account (which I think CAFinUS is) should be involving itself in Politics, especially American politics.

Second, it's stupid. This all stems from the US debate where Trump was asked to denounce white supremacy. He did twice and then they asked specifically about the proud boys, which is run by a brown dude. Worst. White supremacists. Ever. If some people what to troll the president on Twitter over something like that, that is their right but the CAF should stay out of it.


Offline BeyondTheNow

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 118,600
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,827
Why would that picture ruffle some feathers? One reason is I don't think any official CAF account (which I think CAFinUS is) should be involving itself in Politics, especially American politics.

Second, it's stupid. This all stems from the US debate where Trump was asked to denounce white supremacy. He did twice and then they asked specifically about the proud boys, which is run by a brown dude. Worst. White supremacists. Ever. If some people what to troll the president on Twitter over something like that, that is their right but the CAF should stay out of it.

No, you’re way off. CAFinUS was not trolling POTUS, nor was the post political. While the original intent, yes, was to hijack the hashtag to represent a LGBTQ+ spin—initiated by several thousand before CAFinUS jumped in—CAFinUS proudly took the opportunity to join the ‘new’ trending hashtag once its revised purpose had been well established by highlighting the points CAF is trying very hard to integrate—equality, inclusivity and tolerance.

Further, CAF seems to have no issues with the content CAFinUS tweets/posts, including the message of the tweet in discussion and/or the #ProudBoys ‘rebranding’, as evidenced by CAF bodies & accts who liked and/or retweeted the post/referenced the subject matter—individual and unit/cmd accounts alike.

-Royal Canadian Navy
-HMCS Winnipeg
-LCol Jennifer Stadnyk
-BGen Sean T Doyle ...just a couple to get started...

(For context, I’ve included the tweet in its entirety again, as that seems to be needed—unfortunately.)

What is truly sad is the hateful remarks trolls and other sad, angry and lonely people felt it necessary to make. ‘Still shows just how far we have to go.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2020, 03:30:36 by BeyondTheNow »
”You don’t have a right to the cards you believe you should have been dealt. You have an obligation to play the hell out of the ones you’re holding. ”
~Cheryl Strayed

“The aim of argument, or of discussion should not be victory, but progress.”~Joseph Joubert

Offline Bread Guy

  • Bread Baker & Info Curator (still learning @ both)
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 456,630
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 22,992
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
... CAF seems to have no issues with the content CAFinUS tweets/posts, including the message of the tweet in discussion and/or the #ProudBoys ‘rebranding’ ...
Which makes sense, given that the poster is, himself, a CF Public Affairs Officer, someone (one hopes) who's well aware of what can and can't make it through the information machine's filters. 
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Online Furniture

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 33,777
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 509
Thanks for the explication. I liked the picture more when it looked spontaneous and didn't have Combat camera up in their face. Unless they photograph every first kiss ashore.


They do after a deployment. There was a draw held for who would have the chance to cross the brow first, and have the first kiss. The MS won, and so he crossed the brow first.

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 374,766
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,575
Quote from: Tcm62
This all stems from the US debate where Trump was asked to denounce white supremacy. He did twice and then they asked specifically about the proud boys, which is run by a brown dude.



Curious pick for a chairman of a white supremicist group.

I wonder if this hashtag troll attempt will actually net the ProudBoys more interested members.

(not sure how to shrink the picture sorry)
« Last Edit: October 05, 2020, 10:25:23 by Jarnhamar »
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 194,895
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,403
Optio

Offline Eaglelord17

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 21,825
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 417
Seen, thanks.

Aren't members released under 5F still considered "honourably" released? Do they still get their pension/transfer value, access to VAC benefits etc? If so, a 5F doesn't really seem like it's sending a very strong message.

Yeah because someone who well serving, having committed NO CRIME (having a differing political opinion isn't a crime as much as many believe it is), possibly having a otherwise shining service record, should be kicked out dishonourably without trial and lose access to all the other benefits that come with being released  ::)

Should we start kicking out people who vote Conservative or Liberal because both those parties were complicit in genocide up until 1996?

From a legal standpoint I wonder if this could be seen as violating a members Charter Rights as every citizen has the right to Freedom of Thought, Opinion, and Expression.

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 374,766
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,575
Yeah because someone who well serving, having committed NO CRIME (having a differing political opinion isn't a crime as much as many believe it is), possibly having a otherwise shining service record, should be kicked out dishonourably without trial and lose access to all the other benefits that come with being released  ::)

What do you mean having a differing political opinion?
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline SupersonicMax

    is back home.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 98,930
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,004
Yeah because someone who well serving, having committed NO CRIME (having a differing political opinion isn't a crime as much as many believe it is), possibly having a otherwise shining service record, should be kicked out dishonourably without trial and lose access to all the other benefits that come with being released  ::)

Should we start kicking out people who vote Conservative or Liberal because both those parties were complicit in genocide up until 1996?

From a legal standpoint I wonder if this could be seen as violating a members Charter Rights as every citizen has the right to Freedom of Thought, Opinion, and Expression.

Hateful speech or promoting hatred is a crime in Canada.

Offline Tcm621

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 16,840
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 823
Hateful speech or promoting hatred is a crime in Canada.

If someone commits a crime under the CCC, and is convicted, that is one thing. Arbitrarily, deciding someone posting "all loves matter" on Facebook is hate speech and administratively releasing them dishonourably is completely another.

In the CAF today we can not even refuse someone further terms of service for performance or disciplinary reasons but we are ok with ruining someone's life because they don't agree with the current, popular, vision of racism, or that 15 dead unarmed people out of 42 million does not equal an epidemic, or that a genocide happened in Rwanda not Canada.

Let me be clear, if you advocate for violence against someone based on skin colour you deserve consequences as determined by the courts. If you harass members of your unit because of their rave, you deserve consequences. However, I have seen people do things that literally could get people killed with very little consequence (despite every effort). How can we allow that while ruining the career, and possibly life, of someone who has an unwanted opinion?


Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 346,160
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,931
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Hateful speech or promoting hatred is a crime in Canada.

'Hate speech is not a crime in Canada.

Wilful incitement of hatred is a crime, as is promoting genocide. 'Mere' hate speech is not a criminal offense.
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 SupersonicMax

    is back home.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 98,930
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,004
'Hate speech is not a crime in Canada.

Wilful incitement of hatred is a crime, as is promoting genocide. 'Mere' hate speech is not a criminal offense.

In a public place, hate speech is a criminal offense.

note:Wilful promotion of hatred

319(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Online MJP

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 199,580
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,862
If someone commits a crime under the CCC, and is convicted, that is one thing. Arbitrarily, deciding someone posting "all loves matter" on Facebook is hate speech and administratively releasing them dishonourably is completely another.

In the CAF today we can not even refuse someone further terms of service for performance or disciplinary reasons but we are ok with ruining someone's life because they don't agree with the current, popular, vision of racism, or that 15 dead unarmed people out of 42 million does not equal an epidemic, or that a genocide happened in Rwanda not Canada.


It takes quite a bit to get to the release stage and like the denial of TOS, it is removed from the CoC to adjudicate anyway.

They are quite allowed to hold whatever personal view they want. Quite simply though as a member inside an institution representing the Government of Canada, when their personal views become public and are not compatible with the Government and the CAF's policy then they may be removed.  That is no different than any organization.

At the end of the day a 5F/D which most of these would be are not dishonorable and is annotated as honourable. They can then carry on holding and expressing whatever viewpoint they want as a private citizen as long as it does not include wilful promotion of hatred.
Hope is not a valid COA