Sexual Assault & Sexual Misconduct in the CF

[OldSolduer]

We have a presumption of innocence here in Canada….but not for high ranking people.

 

[btrudy]

The criminal justice system has a presumption of innocence.

Neither I, nor anyone else here, is the criminal justice system incarnate, and we're thus free to come to our own conclusions, without relying upon the results of a rather flawed process.

Even when it comes to more official matters, you don't need to wait on the criminal justice system. For example, administrative matters such as remedial measures don't rely upon the same "beyond a shadow of a doubt" threshold that a criminal trial would, nor is it obligated to follow the same rules of evidence, held to the same timelines, follow the same procedures, etc. You can totally have an admin review done leading to someone's release for something that occurred, for which no criminal prosecution happened. Different standards, different thresholds etc can lead to different results.

 

[ballz]

You can totally have an admin review done leading to someone's release for something that occurred, for which no criminal prosecution happened. Different standards, different thresholds etc can lead to different results.

Oh God, now you've done it. I can already hear the stampede of the folks on this website who can't separate criminal law from basic performance management in a workplace thundering in to tell you how immoral it is that Whalen might get an initial counselling out of all this.

 

[btrudy]

Civilian calls boss an idiot: gets fired immediately

Military member does same: "Why is she being put on remedial measures? She hasn't been convicted of insubordination! <insert sounds of misplaced indignation>"

Edit: Actually, now that I think about it, that does raise a point. The charges for Whalen got dropped because some evidence wasn't admitted because it wasn't considered relevant enough to the specific charges he was facing, but that they made him look so bad that it would have prejudiced him at trial.

But you know what that evidence is absolutely relevant to? A determination of the degree to which General Whalen acts professionally and in line with the CAF ethos, and thus whether or not he should continue to be employed as a General officer in our fine institution.

This entire thing is a good case study on why courts martial aren't and shouldn't be viewed as the only method of maintain discipline and order in the CAF. Admin measures are there for a reason. They should be used more often; especially when it comes to senior personnel. The fact that we almost never fire people who should be fired is hurting our institution.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Civilian calls boss an idiot: gets fired immediately

Military member does same: "Why is she being put on remedial measures? She hasn't been convicted of insubordination! <insert sounds of misplaced indignation>"

What are you even talking about? I've done both, and only got in any kind of actual trouble in the military, but neither were really a great idea (despite being right both occasions).

You are acting like there is some kind of monolithic standard in the military and every single civilian company has an identical standard that is 180 degree difference. I wish my world was as simple as the one in your mind. I saw a unionized guy in a steel mill almost kill a whole shift twice, cause 10s of millions in damages and shut down the entire plant on both occasions not get fired. That's objectively much worse then these allegations, if you want a totally random, non-sequitor example that, like yours, has nothing to do with the subject.

 

[btrudy]

What are you even talking about? I've done both, and only got in any kind of actual trouble in the military, but neither were really a great idea (despite being right both occasions).

You are acting like there is some kind of monolithic standard in the military and every single civilian company has an identical standard that is 180 degree difference. I wish my world was as simple as the one in your mind. I saw a unionized guy in a steel mill almost kill a whole shift twice, cause 10s of millions in damages and shut down the entire plant on both occasions not get fired. That's objectively much worse then these allegations, if you want a totally random, non-sequitor example that, like yours, has nothing to do with the subject.

I think there's a discussion to be had about conduct versus performance issues. I'm generally inclined to treat the latter more harshly, since deliberates choices are made to engage in wrongdoing, rather than someone simply screwing up, even if the consequences of any particular screw up might be higher.

But while the CAF isn't monolithic, the policies in place are uniform (pun intended), and they set the bar to get someone fired high enough that it really doesn't happen nearly enough. Far too many CoCs don't want to deal with it, and pass the buck along. Thus keeping people in positions of authority when they're doing more damage than good there.

Sure, some civilian employers also don't fire people who should be, and some fire people for entirely unjustified reasons. We don't want to be in either situation, but I strongly believe we've swung way too far in one direction, and should course-correct to somewhere in the middle.

Specifically when it comes to GOFOs, perhaps something like automatically triggered Admin Reviews bumped directly to the CDS; the people we've got at the top should have higher expectations for proper professional behaviour than anyone else, and thus the response when they fail to meet expectations should be stronger and swifter as well.

 

[lenaitch]

Neither I, nor anyone else here, is the criminal justice system incarnate, and we're thus free to come to our own conclusions, without relying upon the results of a rather flawed process.

And because our personal conclusions have no real value, they are worth just that. The criminal justice system and, to a different degree, the administrative 'justice system' has rules. How individuals come to their conclusions do not. When it comes down to impacting someone's freedom, finances, employment, etc., I'll go with the systems that have rules and leave the pitch fork mobs to their own illusions.

 

[ballz]

And because our personal conclusions have no real value, they are worth just that. The criminal justice system and, to a different degree, the administrative 'justice system' has rules. How individuals come to their conclusions do not. When it comes down to impacting someone's freedom, finances, employment, etc., I'll go with the systems that have rules and leave the pitch fork mobs to their own illusions.

Great strawman. I don't see anyone advocating for replacing the judiciary system with mob rule.

At the end of the day, all the moral outrage here is because some people have aligned themselves with the CAF's leadership and want to find any excuse to tell people who question it that they are wrong, immoral, etc. for having done so. It has nothing to do with the merits of any particular case and definitely nothing about there being anything immoral or reprehensible about Kevin's statement.

Stop kidding yourselves, who do you think you're all fooling exactly? I found a thread from 2006 where someone raped a 13 year old but was acquitted due to PTSD and no one was rushing to argue with Kevin when he suggested after the acquittal that the acquitted should be fixed with a "Black and decker cordless drill." Where was all the uppity self-righteousness then? Now we are talking about a GOFO who simply had the charges dropped because a technicality and suddenly there's so many people acting like his super vanilla comment is some kind of atrocity.

I can't even believe there is an argument occurring about whether or not you can judge a case for yourself and opine on the outcome of a court proceeding in an open justice system in a democratic country - this is peak "I'm in the CAF, I'm a fucking lemming" if I've ever seen it.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

And because our personal conclusions have no real value, they are worth just that. The criminal justice system and, to a different degree, the administrative 'justice system' has rules. How individuals come to their conclusions do not. When it comes down to impacting someone's freedom, finances, employment, etc., I'll go with the systems that have rules and leave the pitch fork mobs to their own illusions.

You mean like trudeau and the grit government?

 

[KevinB]

That's a bit of a strange view. If the evidence isn't admissible then he can't be guilty of anything. The last time I looked our justice system considered everyone innocent until proven guilty based on admissible evidence and not on rumours coming out by leakers. I'll be honest, even the drivel reported in the press left me unimpressed that there could have been a conviction.

I debated responding to this for a bit.

Being guilty and being proven guilty in court are two different things.

1) Being guilty simply requires an offense to have been committed.
2) Being found guilty in court requires more, and the whole beyond a reasonable doubt requirements from the Crown.

As you well know many accused who are actually guilty get off on technicalities, which doesn’t mean they are innocent, it just means the Crown or Law Enforcement didn’t do their job in accordance to the laws of the land.

It was very clear than LtGen Whelan used his position to have a subordinates rating inflated, the subordinate who he had had an inappropriate relationship with.

That action may not have been a sexual misconduct, in itself, but it was an abuse of authority, and linked to the inappropriate relationship.

One must occupy the moral high ground by deeds not just words, and in this case he failed.
Maybe he didn’t fail in a criminal manner (at least one that could be proven in court), but his conduct isn’t what the CAF, the GOC and the Canadian public should tolerate in a GOFO

As such he’s guilty of being a terrible GOFO and needs to be held responsible for that.

 

[FormerHorseGuard]

I served with the LGen back in the days he was 2nd LT and LT. He was a fun person.

But he was a tough JR Officer, and he was on TV at the Oka.

I think you will see a retirement and a golden handshake and he will move on. He was not going any where beyond the position he was in.

His past relationship caught up and ended his career, let other officers learn from this mistake.

 

[daftandbarmy]

It was very clear than LtGen Whelan used his position to have a subordinates rating inflated, the subordinate who he had had an inappropriate relationship with.

If you delete the part about the inappropriate relationship, maybe, you've just described how the traditional 'Brown Nosers' network operates in many organizations, I think

 

[FJAG]

I debated responding to this for a bit.

I completely understand your position. And its not that I disagree with the concept in a general sense at all. In criminal law "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is a very high standard. Below that is the standard of whether a given situation is more probable than not on a balance of probabilities. Between the two is the grey area where, while its more probable that someone did the thing accused of, the evidence falls short of the point of moral certainty, beyond a reasonable doubt, so that you can attach criminal liability to the act.

There is no doubt in my mind that within that grey zone, people can have differing ideas about which end of the standard a given set of facts belongs. This is why, even when they have heard all the same evidence, you can still have hung juries. People's opinions and conclusions can legitimately differ and they can argue their case in a reasonable manner.

I generally don't enter into this forum, but I did in this case because the discussion did not deal with general concepts but to a specific case. In my view there are two factors at play. The first is that none of us have seen the evidence, only some vague news reports about the case. In that respect it's nigh onto impossible to conclude upon a moral certainty that the facts are such as to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a criminal act occurred. Second is the fact that the discussion is about a specific individual and using the term "guilty" raises an allegation that a certain individual has committed a criminal act albeit that the proof of that has never been tested in a court of law.

I put out the term slander before. And I mean it. There is a point where a statement made in public about a specific individual which alleges an as yet unproven factual situation can be defamatory. And, in my view, some of the statements made in this forum are defamatory in light of which facts have or have not been proven. A defense to slander is whether the alleged facts, in this case guilt of a crime, are actually true. I'm not the one who wants to go to court and have to prove, on a balance of probabilities, as to whether or not I have a valid truth defence based on the skimpy facts available and their, at this point in time, unproven status and sources or how one should interpret the term "guilt". It's not merely the term but how it is used, that matters.

One can add to that the fact that some, but not all, of these comments are being made in a salacious manner and that some get a degree of Schadenfreude out of seeing people of high rank being knocked down a peg or two. (And I don't include you in that group - I think your viewpoint of the higher standard to be met, is a fair one.)

I'm as "guilty" of jumping to conclusions and being opinionated, as the next person - I think I'm more cynical than most here - but I try to curb expressing them out loud, and especially so when they target a specific individual.

This will be my last comment on the subject in this forum, but I'll be happy to discuss it further with you by pm if you wish.

 

[lenaitch]

I can't even believe there is an argument occurring about whether or not you can judge a case for yourself and opine on the outcome of a court proceeding in an open justice system in a democratic country - this is peak "I'm in the CAF, I'm a fucking lemming" if I've ever seen it.

Nope; not now, never was.

We can all have our opinions, yell at the news or at the clouds and beak off on social media. What I maintain is wrong, and get the sense that some advocate, is for a way for the state or an employer to still be able to punish or sanction someone because 'ya, he probably did it anyway'.

I don't know Whelan, the case or the evidence. If the matter, which apparently didn't rise to the criminal standard, can be dealt with at the HR/discipline level, then good; but if you can't catch fish using baits and lures, you don't get to throw dynamite in the water.

 

[Brad Sallows]

"Not proven" is chickensh!t not very far removed from "We think you did it, but can't prove it" and "Hey there, wear this accusation for the rest of your life! Sucks to be you!". People are free to hold opinions based on publicly available facts, but so much sanctimony gets tied to whatever courts say that it's best to have only "guilty" and "not guilty".

 

[OldSolduer]

"Not proven" is chickensh!t not very far removed from "We think you did it, but can't prove it" and "Hey there, wear this accusation for the rest of your life! Sucks to be you!". People are free to hold opinions based on publicly available facts, but so much sanctimony gets tied to whatever courts say that it's best to have only "guilty" and "not guilty".

There will always be those who think anyone found not guilty of an offence - whether they did it or not - are guilty but got away with it.

 

[Haggis]

"Not proven" is chickensh!t not very far removed from "We think you did it, but can't prove it" and "Hey there, wear this accusation for the rest of your life! Sucks to be you!". People are free to hold opinions based on publicly available facts, but so much sanctimony gets tied to whatever courts say that it's best to have only "guilty" and "not guilty".

I have had a few cases in my career that were exactly this. I "knew" or "felt" the subject was guilty but the evidence either didn't exist, was unobtainable or was not legally admissible for a variety of reasons. Was I unhappy? Yes. But that's the system we work within and I would hope that, in a similar case where I might be the accused, that I would be given the same consideration.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I have had a few cases in my career that were exactly this. I "knew" or "felt" the subject was guilty but the evidence either didn't exist, was unobtainable or was not legally admissible for a variety of reasons. Was I unhappy? Yes. But that's the system we work within and I would hope that, in a similar case where I might be the accused, that I would be given the same consideration.

I usually found that the subjects in such cases were dumb enough to think they could keep 'getting away with it' and were subsequently formally nailed later on....

 

[lenaitch]

There are all sorts of major crime files sitting in boxes where the investigator knows damned well who the offender is but, for whatever reason, can't put the puck in the net. You only get one shot. With the advancement of forensic science, sometimes it's just a matter of time and patience. Tough on the victims/families, though.

 

[OldSolduer]

I usually found that the subjects in such cases were dumb enough to think they could keep 'getting away with it' and were subsequently formally nailed later on....

I am not a cop but I do ensure that those who are incarcerated don't get out until they have been lawfully released. Yes there are those dumb enough to not only try to keep getting away with it but adding other offences on to it. Like riding a bicycle on a sidewalk, jaywalking etc