Sexual Assault & Sexual Misconduct in the CF

[The Bread Guy]

... there are unfortunately plenty of male plantiffs who could come forward and lend credibility ...

Good point - wonder what the lawyers would say about it?

 

[FJAG]

Good point - wonder what the lawyers would say about it?

I looked at the law firms web site and they are of average make-up; 52 lawyers with 17 women and 35 men that specialize in the areas of litigation, labour, pensions and benefits and class actions. In a way it's a boutique firm in that it doesn't have  other key areas of law such as corporate & commercial, criminal, real estate or family law. They don't strike me as being what one would call "feminist" oriented.

I think concentrating solely on CAF women in this gender-based case is probably a strategic one based on the fact that it simplifies the issues and addresses the largest fraction of potential claimants. The statement of claim is here: https://kmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/2016-12-07-Statement-of-Claim-issued-Dec-7-2016.pdf

Warning! Warning! Warning! Reading these claims is guaranteed to raise your blood pressure to dangerously high levels  ullhair:

Note that the firm has a separate and distinct class action lawsuit based on sexual orientation discrimination for the period 1950s to 1990s respecting  CF members in the Maritimes. The statement of claim is here: https://kmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Statement_of_Claim_2016_12_06_Dec_re_Military_Class_Action.pdf No. Don't ask. I don't know why this claim is restricted to the Maritimes.

:subbies:

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I looked at the law firms web site and they are of average make-up; 52 lawyers with 17 women and 35 men that specialize in the areas of litigation, labour, pensions and benefits and class actions. In a way it's a boutique firm in that it doesn't have  other key areas of law such as corporate & commercial, criminal, real estate or family law. They don't strike me as being what one would call "feminist" oriented.

I think concentrating solely on CAF women in this gender-based case is probably a strategic one based on the fact that it simplifies the issues and addresses the largest fraction of potential claimants. The statement of claim is here: https://kmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/2016-12-07-Statement-of-Claim-issued-Dec-7-2016.pdf

Warning! Warning! Warning! Reading these claims is guaranteed to raise your blood pressure to dangerously high levels  ullhair:

Note that the firm has a separate and distinct class action lawsuit based on sexual orientation discrimination for the period 1950s to 1990s respecting  CF members in the Maritimes. The statement of claim is here: https://kmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Statement_of_Claim_2016_12_06_Dec_re_Military_Class_Action.pdf No. Don't ask. I don't know why this claim is restricted to the Maritimes.

:subbies:

Just as a guess as to why the sexual orientation class action is restricted to the Maritimes, was there not a huge purge of suspected Lesbians from CFS Shelburne in the 1980s? Maybe they had to work it that way to get it certified?

 

[FJAG]

And then there's this case in BC: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/former-canadian-sailor-launches-harassment-suit-against-military-1.3882660

And this one in Ontario: https://ravenlaw.com/2016/11/28/class-action-launched-canadian-armed-forces-sexual-assault-harassment/

:subbies:

 

[Lightguns]

Who cares, I wish them nothing but luck and I hope everyone who signed on finds what they are looking for in terms of redress.  And for two young ladies I hope they find peace again. 

 

[Halifax Tar]

Who cares, I wish them nothing but luck and I hope everyone who signed on finds what they are looking for in terms of redress.  And for two young ladies I hope they find peace again.

I hope justice is correctly administered and handed out. 

 

[captloadie]

The CDS and the CAFCWO continue to brief that there is a zero tolerance policy in the CAF, and cases will be dealt with severely. However, I believe there is one element in our system that is being overlooked after reviewing some recent court martial outcomes. One of the goals of sentencing in our justice system is to act as a deterrent to others. With the recent majority of the sexual assault charges having either been downgraded to assault, or were stayed as an alternate charge, the sentencing guidelines have seen penalties being severe, but no one has been dismissed. In one case, the member was found not guilty, although the judge did say in his decision that it wasn't he didn't believe the victims, just that the was reasonable doubt. To me, this doesn't appear to be providing either the deterrent, or showing the public we are serious about getting rid of those who assault their brothers and sisters in arms.

Now, many will say "but I'm sure the administrative system is working in the background and these members will be released anyway". Sure, that may be true, but that isn't being seen to be done. All that information is protected and done behind closed doors. Maybe, while Sexual Assault and Sexual Misconduct in the CF, is on the front burner, the CAF should be releasing quarterly reports about how many administrative releases have occurred with a nexus to unacceptable sexual behaviour. This, in my mind, would be both a deterrent to others, and a means to demonstrate to the public we are serious about purging guys and gals who aren't getting the message.

 

[kratz]

This site often mentions the CAF is a reflection of Canadian society.

Today's court decision"Jack Kramer acquitted of raping Calgary woman in front of husband in 1995. Calgary man convicted on lesser charges of break and enter and possession of a weapon" Shows even civil courts reflect sentencing decisions similar to what the CAF has been handing out.

 

[PuckChaser]

In one case, the member was found not guilty, although the judge did say in his decision that it wasn't he didn't believe the victims, just that the was reasonable doubt. To me, this doesn't appear to be providing either the deterrent, or showing the public we are serious about getting rid of those who assault their brothers and sisters in arms.

I sincerely hope you're not suggesting we abandon due process for anyone accused of sexual misconduct... Guilty until proven innocent will do more damage to our credibility than a few folks who may or may not be guilty, but there isn't enough proof.

The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, not the other way around. Despite our misgivings about someone walking free, we live in a society governed by the rule of law, not trials by courts of public opinion.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I sincerely hope you're not suggesting we abandon due process for anyone accused of sexual misconduct... Guilty until proven innocent will do more damage to our credibility than a few folks who may or may not be guilty, but there isn't enough proof.

The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, not the other way around. Despite our misgivings about someone walking free, we live in a society governed by the rule of law, not trials by courts of public opinion.

Or political whims...

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=PuckChaser]  live in a society governed by the rule of law, not trials by courts of public opinion.
[/quote]

Unless it's a human rights  tribunal.

 

[The Bread Guy]

... Guilty until proven innocent will do more damage to our credibility than a few folks who may or may not be guilty, but there isn't enough proof ...

Any learned counsel online, please correct me if I'm wrong, but even in civil litigation (x sues y), the standard for "winning" is lower than "reasonable doubt", meaning that there are cases where there wasn't enough to criminally convict someone but enough to say they were still liable.

Even with due process, my understanding is that other processes may have a lower bar to get over to meet the "gotcha" standard.

On the bit in yellow, we have more than one class-action lawsuit in play that'll show what happens when the pendulum swings too far one way or another.

To do another version of what's been said elsewhere on forums, one has a right to a fair trial and due process, but one doesn't have a right to a job in the CAF.

 

[FJAG]

Any learned counsel online, please correct me if I'm wrong, but even in civil litigation (x sues y), the standard for "winning" is lower than "reasonable doubt", meaning that there are cases where there wasn't enough to criminally convict someone but enough to say they were still liable.

Even with due process, my understanding is that other processes may have a lower bar to get over to meet the "gotcha" standard.

On the bit in yellow, we have more than one class-action lawsuit in play that'll show what happens when the pendulum swings too far one way or another.

To do another version of what's been said elsewhere on forums, one has a right to a fair trial and due process, but one doesn't have a right to a job in the CAF.

The burden of proof of "beyond a reasonable doubt" is only the standard in criminal cases.

The burden of proof in civil cases is "On a balance of probabilities" (aka "preponderance of the evidence"). Effectively this means that the party whose position is more likely than the other's wins. (saying that its 51% more likely, or better, than not is a good analogy) In a civil case where the judge thinks its evenly likely (50/50) then the case goes in favour of the defendant because the plaintiff needs to prove his case to more than 50/50.

This is a simplification because there are other standards as well. For a basic overview of burden of proof issues, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law) (Note that it's a bit US oriented)

:subbies:

 

[Good2Golf]

Like how O.J. was found criminally not guilty of murder, but civilly liable for Nicole and Ron's death?

 

[FJAG]

Like how O.J. was found criminally not guilty of murder, but civilly liable for Nicole and Ron's death?

Exactly!!

:subbies:

 

[Journeyman]

Like how O.J. was found criminally not guilty of murder, but civilly liable for Nicole and Ron's death?

OJ's greatest  crime.... was bringing lawyer Robert Kardashian to prominence;  we're all suffering the knock-on effects of that.  :'(

 

[daftandbarmy]

OJ's greatest  crime.... was bringing lawyer Robert Kardashian to prominence;  we're all suffering the knock-on effects of that.  :'(

OTOH, he did wonders for Ford Bronco sales...

 

[FJAG]

OJ's greatest  crime.... was bringing lawyer Robert Kardashian to prominence;  we're all suffering the knock-on effects of that.  :'(

:rofl:

 

[brihard]

The burden of proof of "beyond a reasonable doubt" is only the standard in criminal cases.

Just for the sake of being pedantic and showing up a lawyer D), beyond a reasonable doubt applies to provincial/territorial offences too in all instances I've seen.

 

[Stoker]

Some people were asking what the various elements are doing for OPERATION Honour. For the RCN during WUP's there is scenario based training given to the ships company and Command teams by Sea Training based on a "incident" that happened on board. This is to prepare the ships Company and Command team's to handle the situation in a respectful manner and strategies to prevent such behavior.