No more uniforms in court

[Fishbone Jones]

Exactly how is this different from your standard Mark 1 No 1 * civilian druggie showing up in a suit?

The intent is to make a positive impression with the court.

I really have no issue with the right of the CoC to make the order that they did. They do.

My problem comes with what appears to be a knee-jerk reaction to random pressure groups using the media to influence policies. The CAF has just offloaded what are militarily connected offences to civilian courts. Again, the government has the right to do so. It just feels like individual soldiers are being thrown under the bus because of "appearances". Remember that whole presumed innocence thing?

That doesn't leave one with a warm and fuzzy feeling.

Since 2015.

 

[lenaitch]

Reg Force members are subjected to CSD 24/7/365 so saying it's because Court is "during working hours" is kind of irrelevant no?

I actually don't really think the Military has any say what someone can and can't do in a civilian court. re: wearing of medals and its an overstep on the CAFs part.

The CAF abdicated that right when they sent these cases to the civilian courts.

The first two paragraphs strike me as in conflict.

Being an outsider, the whole concept of being 'on duty' in military is a bit of a head scratcher. Sure, most working things happen during what would be 'the dayshift', but certainly not all. Can they dictate dress and deportment when you are cutting the grass at home? Shopping? At the rink with the kids? It is much less clear than it is for, say, a police officer. I would think attending court on what is essentially a personal matter should be like a 'pause button' to on-duty time, but recognize there is probably a whole host of reasons why that is either a bad idea or otherwise can't work.

I get why someone would want to do it. Anybody who has ever haunted the courts has seen their fair share of miscreants buffed up like choir boys, often at their lawyers expense. I also understand why the owners of the suit want to stop it. I'm actually kind of surprised a presiding judge hasn't weighed in, in response to arguments from one side or the other. It's their courtroom.

 

[markppcli]

Exactly how is this different from your standard Mark 1 No 1 * civilian druggie showing up in a suit?

Does that suit represent an employer directly?

Cpl Bloggins gives not fuck one about the CF optics when he's looking at 1000s of dollars out of his pocket, potentially kicked out, and loss of his license... and neither does a pervert general. they do what their lawyer(s) tell them.

They don’t I agree. The army sure does, hence this policy.

 

[FJAG]

What do you consider " military connected offences"? To me that's AWOL, disobeying a lawful command, etc.

If someone is touching things they shouldn't touch, stealing things, etc then those aren't "military related" ....they're Criminal Code related.

Military connection used to be a legal principle for jurisdiction. It has fluctuated over the ages.

To me the sexual assault of a fellow soldier is a military connected matter. Stealing from a fellow soldier is military connected. To me committing an offence against a fellow soldier or against the service has a direct impact on military discipline, morale and trust and IMHO should be punished more severely than the same offence in a civilian context.

Other opinions may vary.

 

[brihard]

It just feels like individual soldiers are being thrown under the bus because of "appearances". Remember that whole presumed innocence thing?

I’m a bit surprised at you saying this. How does this impugn the presumption of innocence? Are you contending that a CAF member not appearing in uniform somehow works contrary to their right to be presumed innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? That frankly seems like quite the stretch, and I’m surprised that you’re making that one. Am I missing something?

 

[Kat Stevens]

Does that suit represent an employer directly?



They don’t I agree. The army sure does, hence this policy.

I really don't have a dog in this fight, not my circus, not my clowns any more. My DEU has gotten smaller every year for the last 20 years since I last hung them up, so they wouldn't do me any good anyway. I'm just playing around a bit.

 

[FJAG]

I’m a bit surprised at you saying this. How does this impugn the presumption of innocence? Are you contending that a CAF member not appearing in uniform somehow works contrary to their right to be presumed innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? That frankly seems like quite the stretch, and I’m surprised that you’re making that one. Am I missing something?

Not missing anything. We just see it differently.

Any accused has the right to put his best foot forward. In the case of Fortin, he was charged as a soldier committing an offence against a fellow soldier in a military environment. Victims' advocates then bleated that "the use of military dress was a form of intimidation and bullying." That's pure horseshit and is an interpretation of the wearing of a uniform that ought to be offensive to any serving member.

IMHO, the CoC regretfully bought into that argument. I expect that they also bought into the idea that an accused wearing a uniform in a public court is "bad advertisement for the brand". That's where the presumption of innocence comes in. If one really believes in the presumption of innocence then the uniform in court has zero consequence and should be treated as a routine. Suppressing the wearing of the uniform in these circumstances is taking sides.

Let me make it clear. In my humble opinion if a soldier is charged with selling drugs downtown then he goes dressed as a civvy. No question in my mind. But where its really something which, like this, is at its heart a military matter directly impacting service discipline then people should appear "on duty" and "in uniform".

 

[brihard]

Not missing anything. We just see it differently.

Any accused has the right to put his best foot forward. In the case of Fortin, he was charged as a soldier committing an offence against a fellow soldier in a military environment. Victims' advocates then bleated that "the use of military dress was a form of intimidation and bullying." That's pure horseshit and is an interpretation of the wearing of a uniform that ought to be offensive to any serving member.

IMHO, the CoC regretfully bought into that argument. I expect that they also bought into the idea that an accused wearing a uniform in a public court is "bad advertisement for the brand". That's where the presumption of innocence comes in. If one really believes in the presumption of innocence then the uniform in court has zero consequence and should be treated as a routine. Suppressing the wearing of the uniform in these circumstances is taking sides.

Let me make it clear. In my humble opinion if a soldier is charged with selling drugs downtown then he goes dressed as a civvy. No question in my mind. But where its really something which, like this, is at its heart a military matter directly impacting service discipline then people should appear "on duty" and "in uniform".

Hm, ok, I don’t agree with your conclusion, but I see where you’re coming from and I respect your view on it.

 

[Jarnhamar]

And not a great optic for the CAF when Cpl Bloggins is arguing a DUI in DEUs at 2 pm on a Tuesday in a packed court room.

This is exactly why CAF members should be in uniform when they goto court.

Where there is smoke there is fire and the people who finally get caught very often have a laundry list of times they got away with shit.

Let the public see CAF members being held accountable. And if it's a senior ncm or officer with a history of this behavior let people start asking how they got to this point. Call out leaders that let subordinates get away with stuff time and time again. Ask why they were covered for for so long.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Let me make it clear. In my humble opinion if a soldier is charged with selling drugs downtown then he goes dressed as a civvy.

But if his clients are military he/she wears a uniform? ??

 

[FJAG]

Hm, ok, I don’t agree with your conclusion, but I see where you’re coming from and I respect your view on it.

Yup. And I see your side and respect it as well.

It's one of those situations where I can clearly see both sides.

But if his clients are military he/she wears a uniform? ??

Tougher. If on military property no question. But I tend to go soldier to soldier sale, if done with knowledge its a soldier client, then yes - it breaches military discipline as well as the law.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I would say the uniforms in court things comes from a time when soldiers probably didn't have and couldn't afford a proper suit to wear to court. Anyone who doesn't have a civilian suit now is suspect in my eyes. Also, suspenders over belts, all day and twice on Sunday.

Reg Force members are subjected to CSD 24/7/365 so saying it's because Court is "during working hours" is kind of irrelevant no?

I actually don't really think the Military has any say what someone can and can't do in a civilian court. re: wearing of medals and its an overstep on the CAFs part.

The CAF abdicated that right when they sent these cases to the civilian courts.

I think of this man when I think of this order:

I love that man. He was a strict, hard compromising CO that demanded the best from his crew, but a man dedicated to the institution and its people and I have huge appreciation for that.

That and that he didn't wear his name tag. So Navy it hurts.

I first learned that name tags are not traditionally a Navy thing at my wedding. I wore my DEU and was promptly pulled aside and had my name tag removed by a CPO who was in attendance. Its another Army-ism that has be inflicted upon and infected us.

 

[KevinB]

The fact remains they are a member of the military.
Personally I feel the Public should expect (and be able to expect) more from their military, and wearing a uniform probably won’t get a sympathy vote for sentencing etc.

Kind of the same deal if a LEO is charged, I’d want to see them in uniform, so everyone can hold them accountable if they are guilty, and if they aren’t (presumption of innocence would say why can’t they wear it) they walk out head held high in their uniform — that’s my rationale for support of wearing uniforms.

 

[McG]

I first learned that name tags are not traditionally a Navy thing at my wedding. I wore my DEU and was promptly pulled aside and had my name tag removed by a CPO who was in attendance. It’s another Army-ism that has be inflicted upon and infected us.

It I look back at photos of Canadian uniforms, I don’t think I see many signs of name tags on anybody’s uniforms before the 1960s. If you want to make something toxic, it’s far better to suggest that something is a tradition inflicted from another service tribe than to suggest it is imported from another country.

 

[Halifax Tar]

It I look back at photos of Canadian uniforms, I don’t think I see many signs of name tags on anybody’s uniforms before the 1960s. If you want to make something toxic, it’s far better to suggest that something is a tradition inflicted from another service tribe than to suggest it is imported from another country.

I'm sowwey

 

[Remius]

This is exactly why CAF members should be in uniform when they goto court.

Where there is smoke there is fire and the people who finally get caught very often have a laundry list of times they got away with shit.

Let the public see CAF members being held accountable. And if it's a senior ncm or officer with a history of this behavior let people start asking how they got to this point. Call out leaders that let subordinates get away with stuff time and time again. Ask why they were covered for for so long.

This is actually a really good point. I was more on one side of the fence until you brought this up.

I agree that the CAF can dictate how, when and where we can wear our uniforms. There are times when some of the orders of dress for certain things make me shake my head but I get why they would come down with a decision like this.

Ultimately I have no issues with the rule. But I see some points being made and those things were likely weighed against the costs of allowing uniforms at civy trials and a decision was made.

 

[mariomike]

How is it enforceable to ban medals?

The King feels so strongly that, no matter the crime committed by anyone on whom the VC has been conferred, the decoration should not be forfeited. Even were a VC to be sentenced to be hanged for murder, he should be allowed to wear his VC on the scaffold.

I would say the uniforms in court things comes from a time when soldiers probably didn't have and couldn't afford a proper suit to wear to court.

Personally I feel the Public should expect (and be able to expect) more from their military, and wearing a uniform probably won’t get a sympathy vote for sentencing etc.

I also understand why the owners of the suit want to stop it.

 

[RangerRay]

It I look back at photos of Canadian uniforms, I don’t think I see many signs of name tags on anybody’s uniforms before the 1960s. If you want to make something toxic, it’s far better to suggest that something is a tradition inflicted from another service tribe than to suggest it is imported from another country.

In fairness, it probably did come from the Army because someone saw name tags in the US Army and the Good Idea Fairy paid him a visit. Then it spread to the other two services because reasons.

 

[KevinB]

In fairness, it probably did come from the Army because someone saw name tags in the US Army and the Good Idea Fairy paid him a visit. Then it spread to the other two services because reasons.

The US Army wasn’t the only entity with Name tapes/tags.

 

[QV]

Cpl Bloggins gives not fuck one about the CF optics when he's looking at 1000s of dollars out of his pocket, potentially kicked out, and loss of his license... and neither does a pervert general. they do what their lawyer(s) tell them.

It's amusing watching some argue that an accused ought to throw away any personal advantage in a matter of personal liability because of some institution's emotional reaction.