Sexual Misconduct In Canadian Military

[Big Guy]

About one year ago, General Lawson assured Canadians that there was no problem with the interaction between sexes in the military. The armed forces were forced into accepting a third party to investigate the atmosphere and nature of these relationships. Now, in an epiphany of enlightenment, Lawson has admitted that there is a problem:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/harassment-in-canada-s-military-tolerated-by-leadership-former-justice-finds-1.3055493

Even after Lawson admitted that he had been wrong and obviously did not understand what was going on during his watch he is refusing to accept all of the recommendations from the report.

I believe that the most important one is a third party organization to which a person can go with a complaint of sexual misconduct. Lawson still feels that the "good old boys" network is still capable of looking after the complaints.

[Derek 2.0]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/harassment-in-canada-s-military-tolerated-by-leadership-former-justice-finds-1.3055493

Even after Lawson admitted that he had been wrong and obviously did not understand what was going on during his watch he is refusing to accept all of the recommendations from the report.

From your link:

Deschamps made 10 recommendations in the report. Lawson accepted two outright and eight in principle.

[Big Guy]

To Derek 2.0 - As I pointed out in my OP, he accepted (will facilitate) 2 recommendations and eight in principle (OK idea but I'm not gonna do it). There is still that macho element in our forces where the straight rum drinking, cigar smoking, profanity riddled swagger is more the norm than the exception. Reservists are "amateurs" and women are "play soldiers".

That attitude may be required since courage and bravery must be overt characteristics and manhood exhibited as often as possible. Getting pie eyed drunk is expected and another masculine feature. Soldering is a "mans game" and not for women or "pansies".

The forces have been slow and reluctant to assimilating women and gays and the "old boys network" fights change at every opportunity. What I have stated is what I have seen and what I have heard in military circles as a member of our Legion and Armouries.

I am still one of those old folks who question the role of women in combat situations and the attitude towards gays. I do not see the military as a career for all and certainly not for the faint at heart - but it is still the most misogynistic government organization.

[Derek 2.0]

To Derek 2.0 - As I pointed out in my OP, he accepted (will facilitate) 2 recommendations and eight in principle (OK idea but I'm not gonna do it). There is still that macho element in our forces where the straight rum drinking, cigar smoking, profanity riddled swagger is more the norm than the exception. Reservists are "amateurs" and women are "play soldiers".

No, in the OP, he's accepted the majority on principle. For example, many of the recommendations won't only involve current CF policy regarding harassment, but also the Criminal Code and the National Defense Act, all roadblocks facing an outside agency. For example, someone going outside of the Chain of Command to a third party civilian group complaining about crude language could be brought up charges under the National Defence Act. Likewise the varying requirements to discharge a military member versus a civilian employee, with it currently being easier to discharge a Bde Commander versus a civilian clerk.

Also, there are valid concerns over allowing a third party process devoid of filing a formal compliant (with all the ensuing legal ramifications), ala Trudeau's recent booting of two Liberal MP sans the ability to mount a legal defense.

That attitude may be required since courage and bravery must be overt characteristics and manhood exhibited as often as possible. Getting pie eyed drunk is expected and another masculine feature. Soldering is a "mans game" and not for women or "pansies".

The forces have been slow and reluctant to assimilating women and gays and the "old boys network" fights change at every opportunity. What I have stated is what I have seen and what I have heard in military circles as a member of our Legion and Armouries.

Then what you've seen and heard is very limited, as it is not a valid characterization of the Canadian Forces as whole and is akin to painting the entire CBC with a wide brush over the alleged actions of Jian Ghomeshi and the inaction of several of his superiors........

You may find lingering attitudes akin to what you describe from within the Combat Arms in the Army, but Forces wide, not a chance...........

I am still one of those old folks who question the role of women in combat situations and the attitude towards gays. I do not see the military as a career for all and certainly not for the faint at heart - but it is still the most misogynistic government organization.

Jingoistic perhaps, but far from misogynistic.........I feel, and have said before when the topic has arisen, the lowering of some entry standards, both physical and mental, have resulted in a great disservice to the Forces as a whole. That is not to condone actual sexual assault or abuse (including verbal), of which such offenses are not tolerated (when reported), but I question how many instances of the reported "misconduct" are the use of foul language and off colour humor, no different then what is found in a locker room or construction site.......

In essence, how many of these cases of "misconduct" could have been prevented if the Canadian Forces returned standards to what discouraged the "faint of Heart" and skiddish.......Man or Women.

[On Guard for Thee]

Lawson got caught out BIG time. I doubt like hell the problem of the misogynistic attitudes in the CF have only arisen i the last 12 months. It just took an independent investigation to cast a light on it.

[H10]

The solution to this is obvious but political correctness will not the truth to be spoken.

1. Women should serve in women only parallel units. This will eliminate all sexual misconduct issues except the few homosexual ones

2. We give young men and women every weapon on the planet, often hop them up on drugs and alcohol before they go into battle, tell them to break all of societies taboos, don't kill, don't shoot, don't steal, don't murder, don't violate a host of constitutional rights like searching without warrants etc. Then we get surprised when they break the only taboo left on raping. Gimme a break.

If you are going to arm someone to the teeth, supply them with every drug known to man, hop them up on them and send them into battle to murder everything in sight, take whatever you want and kick down any door and blow people's brains out you can't be surprised when they rape a few women along the way. War and rape have gone hand in hand since the days of cave people.

[Derek 2.0]

1. Women should serve in women only parallel units. This will eliminate all sexual misconduct issues except the few homosexual ones

Segregation based on sex (or sexual orientation), race, religion or creed has not and is not the solution....Properly instilled cohesiveness from the onset, combined with clearly outlined guidelines and enforcement is the only way forward. There are already channels for victims of abuse (like any modern workplace) and misconduct which should be further advertised among joining members at CFLRS and enforced.

Clearly there is no place for such behavior in a modern military, likewise any of those in unit leadership roles that quite such misconduct up in house or ship trouble makers off to another unit (This was learned with the Canadian Airborne Regiment) in the hopes of others "sorting out" bad behavior types.......nowadays, grave misconduct of any kind is a sure fire way to have ones career given the Stop, Drop and Boot treatment......and criminal charges if need be.

Inversely to that though, problems can't be addressed if they're not reported through the chain of command. Likewise, as mentioned, some portion of said misconduct can also be frivolous.......foul language and dark humor are a job requirement and should not be treated as misconduct, fore if a person's tolerance level to such things is low to the point that they feel abused, a career choice in which one could get seriously hurt or killed isn't for them......

The Canadian Forces does not require bad apples nor delicate flowers......

We give young men and women every weapon on the planet, often hop them up on drugs and alcohol before they go into battle, tell them to break all of societies taboos, don't kill, don't shoot, don't steal, don't murder, don't violate a host of constitutional rights like searching without warrants etc. Then we get surprised when they break the only taboo left on raping. Gimme a break.

The picture you're painting is not apt in a modern military, one likely gleamed from the movies or tv, as any effective force requires discipline......without it, all you have is a well armed mob.

[Big Guy]

I think Derek 2.0 should review his figures. It appears he is defending Lawson and the history of our military ignoring problems within the corp.

Based on Statistics Canada estimates that only one-in-ten sexual assaults is reported, the numbers suggest that there are five sexual assaults per day in the Canadian Forces, or 1,760 sexual assaults per year. A 2012 survey showed that women, minorities, and First Nations suffered disproportionate levels of sexual and personal harassment in the Canadian Forces.

Derek 2.0 speaks for Derek 2.0. He/she has interesting attitudes towards our military but they appear to be faulty. The leadership of our forces continues to promise to make substantial changes in attitudes to sexual harassment but yet those changes never seem to happen.

I notice that there were no government officials at the last press conferences which was critical of Lawson's leadership in this area. It looks to me like the Harper administration is prepared for Lawson to try to tap dance himself out of this box since he is currently dancing off stage. He is expected to disappear by this summer and replacements are being vetted.

I suspect that our military and our current government would prefer that this issue disappear until after the next federal election. Lawson has not done his job in guaranteeing safety for women in our forces and should not be left to double talk until he retires.

Problems have been pointed out in the past but no one has been fired or forced into retirement.

Shame!

Edited May 3, 2015 by Big Guy

[cybercoma]

The solution to this is obvious but political correctness will not the truth to be spoken.

1. Women should serve in women only parallel units. This will eliminate all sexual misconduct issues except the few homosexual ones

2. We give young men and women every weapon on the planet, often hop them up on drugs and alcohol before they go into battle, tell them to break all of societies taboos, don't kill, don't shoot, don't steal, don't murder, don't violate a host of constitutional rights like searching without warrants etc. Then we get surprised when they break the only taboo left on raping. Gimme a break.

If you are going to arm someone to the teeth, supply them with every drug known to man, hop them up on them and send them into battle to murder everything in sight, take whatever you want and kick down any door and blow people's brains out you can't be surprised when they rape a few women along the way. War and rape have gone hand in hand since the days of cave people.

Nah. Canada should just make a law that requires women to be covered head to toe with nothing but their eyes showing and they should be accompanied by a male family member any time they're in public. That's only fair.

[Derek 2.0]

I think Derek 2.0 should review his figures. It appears he is defending Lawson and the history of our military ignoring problems within the corp.

Based on Statistics Canada estimates that only one-in-ten sexual assaults is reported, the numbers suggest that there are five sexual assaults per day in the Canadian Forces, or 1,760 sexual assaults per year. A 2012 survey showed that women, minorities, and First Nations suffered disproportionate levels of sexual and personal harassment in the Canadian Forces.

And perhaps you should cite the source of those figures........as they were first suggested by Macleans, but not exactly cited, and later not confirmed by the Deschamps investigation. Likewise, you refer to the incidents as "sexual assaults", when such figures also included "sexual misconduct", which is also defined by Military law as sexual relationships between differing ranks or relations with a married member and sexual "harassment" which is also inclusive of someone being called a nasty name, or someone hearing someone else called a nasty name.......

Derek 2.0 speaks for Derek 2.0. He/she has interesting attitudes towards our military but they appear to be faulty. The leadership of our forces continues to promise to make substantial changes in attitudes to sexual harassment but yet those changes never seem to happen.

Since you've decided to get personal, by all means explain how my attitudes are faulty, contrasted when you use unfounded figures and proclaim unfounded opinions as fact........you suggest changes never happen, prove it.....What were the figures associated to the Forces pre 1988, the year the Forces first introduced policies surrounding harassment, versus additional measures included and further defined in 1993, 1995 and 2000........

If you actually feel the corporate climate of the Canadian Forces was not changed after the Somalia inquiry, by all means prove it!

I notice that there were no government officials at the last press conferences which was critical of Lawson's leadership in this area. It looks to me like the Harper administration is prepared for Lawson to try to tap dance himself out of this box since he is currently dancing off stage. He is expected to disappear by this summer and replacements are being vetted.

Why would the Government be critical of Lawson? Lawson commissioned the inquiry into his Department.....

I suspect that our military and our current government would prefer that this issue disappear until after the next federal election. Lawson has not done his job in guaranteeing safety for women in our forces and should not be left to double talk until he retires.

Problems have been pointed out in the past but no one has been fired or forced into retirement.

Shame!

Again, Lawson commissioned the inquiry into his own department..........how is that not doing his job?

Edited May 3, 2015 by Derek 2.0

[On Guard for Thee]

Its not doing his job when he tried to hide, or was so stupid as to not be aware, of what was going on a year ago. And years before that. In fairness, the military overall. tends to attract those with lower IQs, and then equip them with pwers they are not suited to wield. Some bad outcomes are pretty predictable.

Edited May 3, 2015 by On Guard for Thee

[Big Guy]

To Derek 2.0 - What difference would it be to cite sources and statistics. You would dismiss the source as inaccurate or not dependable. We have the same information but see them through different eyes. You appear to have a high regard for the way our forces are organized while I do not share that view. You appear to be defensive of any criticism of the military. Good for you. I have nothing to try to prove to you.

I feel that the military leadership is still an old boys network, has been knowledgeable of sexual misconduct for many years and avoids dealing with it because of the systematic misogyny prevalent in the forces. Good for me. You disagree. Good for you.

As to the getting "personal" part, I apologize if you felt that it was insulting. I stated merely that I see some of your attitudes as "faulty". If I did not, then I would not disagree with you. I do not. It was not meant to insult or demean you. That was not my intention.

As to your questioning "The numbers suggest ... per year" the source is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_assault_in_the_Canadian_Forces

I believe that the leadership in the military is wanting in the area of treatment of women. These problems have been going on for years and little is being done:

"There were six rapes in the camp last week so we have to work out an escort at night" - Captain Nichole Goddard - K.I.A. Jan 2006

Now that was public 9 years ago.

I do not think that those whose job is to stop sexual misconduct in the military are doing their job.

[Derek 2.0]

To Derek 2.0 - What difference would it be to cite sources and statistics. You would dismiss the source as inaccurate or not dependable. We have the same information but see them through different eyes. You appear to have a high regard for the way our forces are organized while I do not share that view. You appear to be defensive of any criticism of the military. Good for you. I have nothing to try to prove to you.

You stated:

The leadership of our forces continues to promise to make substantial changes in attitudes to sexual harassment but yet those changes never seem to happen.

As I said, your statement is unfounded, and is akin to if I stated 17.8% of teachers abuse their First Nations students, likewise that instances of teacher abuse of FN students has not decreased for several generations........I wouldn't have to prove anything, but most would understand when I was asked to, and I refused, that I'd likely be talking out of my arse....

I feel that the military leadership is still an old boys network, has been knowledgeable of sexual misconduct for many years and avoids dealing with it because of the systematic misogyny prevalent in the forces. Good for me. You disagree. Good for you.

I believe 1/5th of male teachers continue to abuse First Nations students.......I can't prove it, nor do I have anything to base my claim on, other then what I've heard a few retired teachers say at a pub, but there you go.

As to the getting "personal" part, I apologize if you felt that it was insulting. I stated merely that I see some of your attitudes as "faulty". If I did not, then I would not disagree with you. I do not. It was not meant to insult or demean you. That was not my intention.

Fair enough

I believe that the leadership in the military is wanting in the area of treatment of women. These problems have been going on for years and little is being done:

"There were six rapes in the camp last week so we have to work out an escort at night" - Captain Nichole Goddard - K.I.A. Jan 2006

Now that was public 9 years ago.

I do not think that those whose job is to stop sexual misconduct in the military are doing their job.

I little fast and lose with the actual story there:

Capt. Nichola Goddard, who in 2006 became the first female Canadian combat death, wrote to her husband that women working at bases in Afghanistan were often victims of sexual harassment or assault, and that in one week there had been six rapes at her camp.

The letters don't indicate who was sexually assaulted, if anyone, or who the perpetrators were, Fortney said. "But she does refer quite a bit in the letters about Afghan soldiers and civilians on the base who leered at her constantly."

And while Goddard's words don't indicate that she ever felt physically threatened by her fellow soldiers, she did tell her husband that she suffered sexual harassment in the form of constant rumours that she was sleeping with men on the base.

I personally find it rather slimy to imply, using Goddard's quote out of context, that said alleged crimes happened among Canadians (which they didn't)........

Edited May 4, 2015 by Derek 2.0

[Big Guy]

As is the nature of anonymous opinion boards, Derek 2.0 only speaks for Derek 2.0 and Big Guy only speaks for Big Guy. The leadership of our Canadian military continues to ignore a major problem within their ranks.

It is time to create a third person civilian organization to investigate allegations of sexual misconduct. The leadership has been warned, has been given examples and has failed to act. They have had their chance.

I personally find it slimy that someone would stoop to defend such an obviously misogynous leadership.

[Derek 2.0]

It is time to create a third person civilian organization to investigate allegations of sexual misconduct. The leadership has been warned, has been given examples and has failed to act. They have had their chance.

I personally find it slimy that someone would stoop to defend such an obviously misogynous leadership.

Of course you'd create a third person civilian organization, that it would be powerless and have no jurisdiction over serving members, as already pointed out to you, doesn't appear to mater........just as long as something appears to happen, that nothing will result of it doesn't mater....

[Big Guy]

I disagree. It will set a precedent that the leadership of the Canadian military cannot be trusted to resolve internal matters. The RCMP has already gone through the same forced transparency and are better for it.

As to what the result will be, let us wait and see what the mandate of this third person organization will be if/when such a group is created.

The report has established that at this time, the leadership cannot be trusted by members of the military to deal with accusations of sexual misconduct. The old boys network is still in charge and many still resent being forced to accept women as soldiers. This will change in time but meanwhile, female soldiers require a third person organization that they could trust to process their allegations of sexual misconduct.

Most of the leadership enlisted before the 1992 ruling that allowed LGBT individuals to serve. That battle is still being waged behind closed doors.

[Derek 2.0]

I disagree. It will set a precedent that the leadership of the Canadian military cannot be trusted to resolve internal matters. The RCMP has already gone through the same forced transparency and are better for it.

You can disagree all you like, but the National Defense Act is what governs all serving members, enforced by JAG and the meatheads........an outside civilian agency would have as much authority to investigate allegations of sexual misconduct, outside already existing military channels, as you do.

The report has established that at this time, the leadership cannot be trusted by members of the military to deal with accusations of sexual misconduct. The old boys network is still in charge and many still resent being forced to accept women as soldiers. This will change in time but meanwhile, female soldiers require a third person organization that they could trust to process their allegations of sexual misconduct.

The report did no such thing......

[Big Guy]

I have nothing more to say. We look at the same thing and see different things. I have stated my opinion and have no more to add to this issue. I give you the last word.

[On Guard for Thee]

You can disagree all you like, but the National Defense Act is what governs all serving members, enforced by JAG and the meatheads........an outside civilian agency would have as much authority to investigate allegations of sexual misconduct, outside already existing military channels, as you do.

The report did no such thing......

The report says something pretty close to that. After all, as scathing as the report is, who but the brass should carry the blame for not knowing and or not doing anything about, such criminal activity occurring within the ranks. They have accepted in principal that part of the report suggesting an independent oversight body and I suspect this trip they are about to embark on to the US and Australia which already have that in place, is just a little stick handling prior to following along the same path.

[Derek 2.0]

I have nothing more to say. We look at the same thing and see different things. I have stated my opinion and have no more to add to this issue. I give you the last word.

The requirement for a separate military justice system, to address the unique needs of the Canadian Forces in retaining service wide discipline and combat effectiveness, was upheld nearly 25 years ago by the Supreme Court of Canada (R vs Genereux). Though the system is far from perfect, due to its military nature, its both swifter and harsher than the civilian legal system.........such a system though would prove ineffective to those members that feel they have been the victims of "sexual misconduct" if they themselves fail to report such crimes through the proper channels......

[Army Guy]

To be honest I was'nt going to respond to this post, I was disappointed in what some of the poster comments and opinions were. About an organization that I have dedicated over 34 years of my life to. And while I'd be the first to admit it is not perfect in any sense, however these opinions concern me deeply. Why is that I'm sure Derek agrees with me serving was not just a job, but a way of life, there was no 8 to 4 then go home to the family....it was 24 and 7, for 34 years. And my life depended on the men and women I served with.

Not saying that everyone is not entitled to express their opinions, because that is one of our basic freedoms, but those opinions should be based on facts. Not here say, or someone is going to call bull****. So I'm calling bull****...


I've taken the time to read all the source material, and it presents a pretty one sided story. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying that there is not a problem, because one case is to many. But Canadians as a whole are left to believe that their military is a lying sack of ****, an old boys club that eats those that do not tow the party line....that our military is full of sexual deviants.....and yet there is proof out there that this type of behaviour is not tolerated, but it is quickly swept under the carpet, there are not only very strict military regulations and QR&O which guide DND actions, but also federal laws. To top this off there are already in place many avenues to report any cases of this type, Chain of command which according to the sources is part of the problem, and yet they seem to forget that each soldier is entitled to address the next step in the chain of command if No Satisfying action is taken with the CDS being the last stop.....another would be civil police, be it RCMP or local or provincial, Military police or directly to the SIU or special investigation unit which believe or not is not tied to the chain of command. Another would be the ombudsman, which reports these actions to the minister and CDS, another is military church the Padres is not tied to the chain of command and can report their findings to any level. There is also military harassment advisors and investigators, of which although they are military you have the choice of any from across the forces, and elements.

So there is a lot of options, how many organizations can say that. Is it enough I guess not , but we as society are not going to get a zero solution. Despite what new measures are placed upon DND....why is that because that is how our Canadian society is wired, this is not a strictly DND problem, it is a Canadian problem .....And yet if we were to hang on the media's every word there has been a complete melt
down of our nations military and those that serve within it....

These problems are found in every industry across the country, in our schools, in our towns , and cities...And yet we as Acadians are finger pionters, we have to have to have someone to blame. First it was the RCMP , and if you think they are fixed now, and have no problems your wrong, next will be DND.

So while we may enjoy a few drinks, chew on cigars, and have some colourful language I wonder where we got that from.

Edited May 5, 2015 by Michael Hardner
profanity

[Army Guy]

Its not doing his job when he tried to hide, or was so stupid as to not be aware, of what was going on a year ago. And years before that. In fairness, the military overall. tends to attract those with lower IQs, and then equip them with pwers they are not suited to wield. Some bad outcomes are pretty predictable.

Just curious where did you get that tidbit of info from, and did'nt you claim to have served....so are you grouping yourself in that category.

[On Guard for Thee]

As in any environment, especially those where people earn their livings, when these things rear their ugly heads, steps have to be taken to right the ship so to speak. I cant see why an independent oversight body wouldnt be welcomed to shine a light into the dark corners and then fix it and move on. I expect a lot of women who may be considering joining up wil hold off to see a favorable outcome.

[On Guard for Thee]

Just curious where did you get that tidbit of info from, and did'nt you claim to have served....so are you grouping yourself in that category.

First of all my comment was mostly directed at Lawson. It would likely be pretty naive to think that all of those things pointed out in this current report only occurred in the last 12 months. Of course I am not tarring everyone with the same brush, but there is a problem needing to be fixed. Yes I have served.

[Derek 2.0]

I've taken the time to read all the source material, and it presents a pretty one sided story. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying that there is not a problem, because one case is to many. But Canadians as a whole are left to believe that their military is a lying sack of ****, an old boys club that eats those that do not tow the party line....that our military is full of sexual deviants.....and yet there is proof out there that this type of behaviour is not tolerated, but it is quickly swept under the carpet, there are not only very strict military regulations and QR&O which guide DND actions, but also federal laws. To top this off there are already in place many avenues to report any cases of this type, Chain of command which according to the sources is part of the problem, and yet they seem to forget that each soldier is entitled to address the next step in the chain of command if No Satisfying action is taken with the CDS being the last stop.....another would be civil police, be it RCMP or local or provincial, Military police or directly to the SIU or special investigation unit which believe or not is not tied to the chain of command. Another would be the ombudsman, which reports these actions to the minister and CDS, another is military church the Padres is not tied to the chain of command and can report their findings to any level. There is also military harassment advisors and investigators, of which although they are military you have the choice of any from across the forces, and elements.

Well said AG.......All I would add, if one must find fault for the ensuing witch-hunts, is a furtherance of ensuring all members, new and old, are savvy to the countless avenues of approach to properly addressing such issues, inside and out of the CoC, afforded by the NDA.........One can only address reported incidents of misconduct in the end.

Edited May 5, 2015 by Michael Hardner
profanity