Constitutional rights in the Canadian Forces

[blackbird]

There is a report on the CBC news today about a leader of the Canadian Forces advising people that members of the CAF do not have the right to belong to extremist groups.   I just wondered how an extremist group is defined.  The other question I had was when people join the Canadian Forces they are required to sign a paper which surrenders certain individual rights.  I was just curious as to whether such an agreement, if it surrenders freedom of association, freedom of speech, and freedom of belief, is constitutional.  I am not saying I agree or disagree with the group that 75 members of the CAF are alleged to have joined.  The CBC refers to it as a far right group.  Would anyone or group who questions immigration policy or a certain religion/ideology be considered as far right?   Is it against the Canadian Constitution and Charter of Rights to question immigration policy or certain religions and ideologies?   I am just wondering if one can sign away their Charter of Rights to join the CAF and who decides what is an acceptable or unacceptable organization to be associated with and what is the basis on which high ranking officers determine this?  The reason I raise this question is simple.  Is the Canadian government moving toward a kind of totalitarian system where all thought, speech, and association will be controlled by government?  Is M103 a symptom or example of this?  Is there a trend developing?

Edited October 4, 2017 by blackbird

[Queenmandy85]

It is traditional that the military does not become involved in politics. They must follow the example of the Queen and remain above politics. After they are out of the CAF, then they are free to participate in political life.

Former soldiers have not historically done well in politics.

[Michael Hardner]

6 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

It is traditional that the military does not become involved in politics.

In the new public sphere that is emerging, we are discovering limits on free speech that we have to deal with.  

I read a piece that draws a parallel with freedom of religious expression.  Although with political views, there are more real implications than, say, whether you disagree that transubstantiation is real or Jesus is Lord.  New technology is pushing people closer together in public and professional life, so we have to adjust.  

The choices are: live and let live, or ostracize/expel the outlier.

[PIK]

The military does what it is ordered to do and nothing more. They are not paid to have opinions.

[blackbird]

7 hours ago, PIK said:

The military does what it is ordered to do and nothing more. They are not paid to have opinions.

Every person in the military in their off time, in their civilian clothes, should have the same rights as every other Canadian in terms of fundamental freedoms. 

[Guest]

51 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Every person in the military in their off time, in their civilian clothes, should have the same rights as every other Canadian in terms of fundamental freedoms. 

No, they don't have to sign up. When one takes the Queens shilling, one agrees to certain conditions. Rightly or wrongly. 

Of course, maybe it's different in Canada. 

[OftenWrong]

5 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

No, they don't have to sign up. When one takes the Queens shilling, one agrees to certain conditions. Rightly or wrongly. 

Of course, maybe it's different in Canada. 

It's no different. And civilians are equally held accountable by employers if they do something extremely stupid that gets attention.

 

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

It's no different. And civilians are equally held accountable by employers if they do something extremely stupid that gets attention.

 

 I don't know what you mean by stupid.  Is going to a peaceful political protest stupid?  I doubt an employer can hold it against an employee.  We still live in a democracy supposedly with freedom of association and freedom of expression.  That means the right to go to a peaceful political protest, even if you disagree with the cause.

Edited October 6, 2017 by blackbird

[OftenWrong]

20 minutes ago, blackbird said:

 I don't know what you mean by stupid.  Is going to a peaceful political protest stupid?  I doubt an employer can hold it against an employee.  We still live in a democracy supposedly with freedom of association and freedom of expression.  That means the right to go to a peaceful political protest, even if you disagree with the cause.

Well for example people lost jobs for saying things. The guy who yelled "F her right in the ..." into the female news reporters microphone on a live feed outside the baseball stadium. He lost his job the next day, even though he was not representing his company in any way. Thing is word quickly gets out who you are, and businesses don't want to see their corporate image tarnished because of an employee's irresponsible behaviour. I'm not totally comfortable with this idea but I understand why it happens, it if things get too out of hand.

[Michael Hardner]

8 hours ago, bcsapper said:

No, they don't have to sign up. When one takes the Queens shilling, one agrees to certain conditions. Rightly or wrongly. 

With many jobs, you can be fired for expressing unpalatable opinions.  I guarantee you that if I openly spouted anti-immigrant propaganda my employment options would be severely limited.  Worse if I posted anti-woman disinfo.

[Army Guy]

On 10/4/2017 at 8:02 PM, blackbird said:

There is a report on the CBC news today about a leader of the Canadian Forces advising people that members of the CAF do not have the right to belong to extremist groups.   I just wondered how an extremist group is defined.  The other question I had was when people join the Canadian Forces they are required to sign a paper which surrenders certain individual rights.  I was just curious as to whether such an agreement, if it surrenders freedom of association, freedom of speech, and freedom of belief, is constitutional.  I am not saying I agree or disagree with the group that 75 members of the CAF are alleged to have joined.  The CBC refers to it as a far right group.  Would anyone or group who questions immigration policy or a certain religion/ideology be considered as far right?   Is it against the Canadian Constitution and Charter of Rights to question immigration policy or certain religions and ideologies?   I am just wondering if one can sign away their Charter of Rights to join the CAF and who decides what is an acceptable or unacceptable organization to be associated with and what is the basis on which high ranking officers determine this?  The reason I raise this question is simple.  Is the Canadian government moving toward a kind of totalitarian system where all thought, speech, and association will be controlled by government?  Is M103 a symptom or example of this?  Is there a trend developing?

It is not that they do not have the right, All Canadians have the right to join what ever group they want, but as with all our rights there are consequences for exercising them or for not making good choices.  I believe the DND spoke person said that joining these groups went again'st the CF ethics...DND has always struggle with their image, Canadians do not stand behind anything that is military, as most problems around the globe are attached to some form of military action or conflict, they also attribute or forget that DND is control by our elected government and there fore pionts blame for Conflicts at DND, when it is our government that pulls the strings...To counter this DND has many programs to correct this image problem one of them is the entire ethical program, which preaches what is good and bad ethical behavior, also women's rights, sexual harassment, and many more, plus on top of all that there are some basic rules that differ from the rest of the civilian population. All DND members actions also reflect on the governing party...and they don't want to look bad...

Serving DND members are not allowed to take part in any political rally or Campaign, they are not allowed to run for any political office, provincial or federal, they are held to a higher standard the the rest of the population via a second set of laws or military code of conduct....Remember some of these rules are only enforced in times of crises, such as combat, for example at one time a officer could order the death of a soldier for not compiling to an order, such as charge that machine gun nest, the soldier knowing that if he carried out that action would result in his death.....nor compiling to that order would mean his death.....So to keep good order and discipline they have many laws and rules that may seem strange to you, but are necessary.

Once you join the Military, or RCMP, CSIS, Coast Guard, Border services, they all take an oath of serve and protect this nation, from the nations enemies domestically or abroad ....to the point they may be asked to give their lives for it. to accomplish that some rights are given up. Remember all these rules are not thought up by DND they are imposed by Government... Today the rules and restrictions are not as bad as yester year, at one time 30 to 40 years ago, DND rules were severely restrictive, governing things like marriage, where you lived, to whom you lived with, where you traveled, what you did on your spare time, where you could work as a second source of income, what political party you supported, what race could join or what religion you could be.....many many more..., 

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

It is not that they do not have the right, All Canadians have the right to join what ever group they want, but as with all our rights there are consequences for exercising them or for not making good choices.  I believe the DND spoke person said that joining these groups went again'st the CF ethics...DND has always struggle with their image, Canadians do not stand behind anything that is military, as most problems around the globe are attached to some form of military action or conflict, they also attribute or forget that DND is control by our elected government and there fore pionts blame for Conflicts at DND, when it is our government that pulls the strings...To counter this DND has many programs to correct this image problem one of them is the entire ethical program, which preaches what is good and bad ethical behavior, also women's rights, sexual harassment, and many more, plus on top of all that there are some basic rules that differ from the rest of the civilian population. All DND members actions also reflect on the governing party...and they don't want to look bad...

Serving DND members are not allowed to take part in any political rally or Campaign, they are not allowed to run for any political office, provincial or federal, they are held to a higher standard the the rest of the population via a second set of laws or military code of conduct....Remember some of these rules are only enforced in times of crises, such as combat, for example at one time a officer could order the death of a soldier for not compiling to an order, such as charge that machine gun nest, the soldier knowing that if he carried out that action would result in his death.....nor compiling to that order would mean his death.....So to keep good order and discipline they have many laws and rules that may seem strange to you, but are necessary.

Once you join the Military, or RCMP, CSIS, Coast Guard, Border services, they all take an oath of serve and protect this nation, from the nations enemies domestically or abroad ....to the point they may be asked to give their lives for it. to accomplish that some rights are given up. Remember all these rules are not thought up by DND they are imposed by Government... Today the rules and restrictions are not as bad as yester year, at one time 30 to 40 years ago, DND rules were severely restrictive, governing things like marriage, where you lived, to whom you lived with, where you traveled, what you did on your spare time, where you could work as a second source of income, what political party you supported, what race could join or what religion you could be.....many many more..., 

Yes,  I am not disagreeing with what you are saying.  Some of the things that happened with the military in WW1 for example were very tragic.  In WW1 in Europe I think thousands, maybe tens of thousands of Canadian soldiers were given the order to move out of their trenches and over land that was raked by machine gun fire and they were mowed down like grass.  A lot of controversy later about how they were ordered to their slaughter followed.  The British high officer(s) may also have issued these kind of orders which resulted in thousands of deaths of Canadians.  Not everything the government does makes sense.  As the opposition member said yesterday, everything Trudeau touches is a disaster.   I am not sure military, RCMP, CSIS, Coast Guard, etc. should have their off-duty lives controlled to such as extent.  The idea of controlling them may be an old idea which existed before we moved into the era of individual democratic and fundamental freedoms and rights.  Maybe they haven't kept up with the times and some of those restrictions should be re-examined to see if they are over-bearing.

[Queenmandy85]

A good illustration of why it is important to maintain a military devoid of political bias is the Winnipeg general strike. The Canadian Army was asked to give aid to the Civil Power and the officers were concerned that the OR's might go over to the side of the rioters.

Members of the Canadian Forces swear their oath to the Queen of Canada, not to any politician. The CAF is not a democratic institution. It could not function if it was.

[blackbird]

14 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Well for example people lost jobs for saying things. The guy who yelled "F her right in the ..." into the female news reporters microphone on a live feed outside the baseball stadium. He lost his job the next day, even though he was not representing his company in any way. Thing is word quickly gets out who you are, and businesses don't want to see their corporate image tarnished because of an employee's irresponsible behaviour. I'm not totally comfortable with this idea but I understand why it happens, it if things get too out of hand.

I wasn't talking or referring to abusive behavior.  I was referring to people having the right on their own time to express political views on internet forums, FB, social media or attend peaceful demonstrations.  This has nothing to do with somebody yelling abusive comments into a microphone.

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

A good illustration of why it is important to maintain a military devoid of political bias is the Winnipeg general strike. The Canadian Army was asked to give aid to the Civil Power and the officers were concerned that the OR's might go over to the side of the rioters.

Members of the Canadian Forces swear their oath to the Queen of Canada, not to any politician. The CAF is not a democratic institution. It could not function if it was.

You make a good point worth consideration.  But I am not sure in what circumstances or how far that should be carried.  Should a member of the military making a comment on social media that might be of a political nature result in discipline or ejection from the military in all circumstances?  I'm not sure every CAF member should be required to check his brain at the door and become just a robot in every aspect of his personal life.

[hot enough]

On 10/4/2017 at 5:02 PM, blackbird said:

There is a report on the CBC news today about a leader of the Canadian Forces advising people that members of the CAF do not have the right to belong to extremist groups.

Major Dumb leader. Many joined in the illegal invasion of Afghanistan, they have joined war criminal US/UK forces in Iraq, not to mention Syria, Libya. Right there are tons of extremist terrorist actions!

[Queenmandy85]

The most senior member in the Canadian Forces does not express her political views. We run the theoretical possibility of having a Coup or having members refusing to act if the military is influenced by their own political views. The Queen or her designates determine the mission and the officers and other ranks use their brains to accomplish the mission. If you want soldiers to be political, look at Burma or Red China.

[blackbird]

2 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The most senior member in the Canadian Forces does not express her political views. We run the theoretical possibility of having a Coup or having members refusing to act if the military is influenced by their own political views. The Queen or her designates determine the mission and the officers and other ranks use their brains to accomplish the mission. If you want soldiers to be political, look at Burma or Red China.

Good point.  I hadn't thought of it from that angle, but I agree.  Good that you are here to shed some light on this subject.

Edited October 6, 2017 by blackbird

[hot enough]

16 hours ago, bcsapper said:

No, they don't have to sign up. When one takes the Queens shilling, one agrees to certain conditions. Rightly or wrongly. 

Of course, maybe it's different in Canada. 

Anyone who takes shillings the old cow has garnered from the UK's long evil history of stealing them from others is not much more than a little soldato.

[Army Guy]

On 10/6/2017 at 2:13 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

A good illustration of why it is important to maintain a military devoid of political bias is the Winnipeg general strike. The Canadian Army was asked to give aid to the Civil Power and the officers were concerned that the OR's might go over to the side of the rioters.

Members of the Canadian Forces swear their oath to the Queen of Canada, not to any politician. The CAF is not a democratic institution. It could not function if it was.

While very true on paper DND does serve the Queen, that being said our commander and chief is a figure head at best, more like a safety switch per say , So the government can not order the military into action again'st it's own people  or any outside nation without just cause, or a check in the box by the GG...That being said the government does have direct control over it's military, it's budget, it's orders, it's personal....as it does control the Governor General as well,

[Army Guy]

On 10/6/2017 at 1:36 PM, blackbird said:

Yes,  I am not disagreeing with what you are saying.  Some of the things that happened with the military in WW1 for example were very tragic.  In WW1 in Europe I think thousands, maybe tens of thousands of Canadian soldiers were given the order to move out of their trenches and over land that was raked by machine gun fire and they were mowed down like grass.  A lot of controversy later about how they were ordered to their slaughter followed.  The British high officer(s) may also have issued these kind of orders which resulted in thousands of deaths of Canadians.  Not everything the government does makes sense.  As the opposition member said yesterday, everything Trudeau touches is a disaster.   I am not sure military, RCMP, CSIS, Coast Guard, etc. should have their off-duty lives controlled to such as extent.  The idea of controlling them may be an old idea which existed before we moved into the era of individual democratic and fundamental freedoms and rights.  Maybe they haven't kept up with the times and some of those restrictions should be re-examined to see if they are over-bearing.

Although Combat has changed alot since WWI, even WWII, the concept is still the same, one must have good order and discipline to tell a man to perform his duties in combat even though there is a good chance those soldiers may not live through it....One of those ways is to Have a good solid base of morals and values that form our nations civil laws.....then have Military laws which provide a basic guide for soldiers through the chaos of combat. while some of these laws may sound strange or foreign to most, lets not forget the death penalty was just removed from DND not all that long ago for capitol offenses , and a few others such as desertion during combat, refusing orders in combat etc etc.........That being said it's a law that can be changed at the whim of our politicians. Lets also just add that during WAR, not all of our Nations soldiers are there on their own will, some will be forced to serve by our government....

There is already enough distractions for a soldier in life as there is, DND is an organization that when you boil it all down has one major concern. That is the man to your left and right...you can't do that when your thinking is he a racist  etc etc , ie member of the KKK or Black power movement, Taliban etc.....Does he or she have my back when the time comes.... hence the need to be neutral, or at least when it counts....not saying DND members are pure, there are racists, and other assholes we are after all a  slice from our nation citizens.....

The Military once had a recruitment add which said there is no life like it.....and there is not....for the most part Canada has always had a volunteer military force, people that wanted to be a part of something different , and to be part of that , includes having some of your basic rights taken away or toned down...

[Army Guy]

On 10/6/2017 at 3:55 PM, hot enough said:

Major Dumb leader. Many joined in the illegal invasion of Afghanistan, they have joined war criminal US/UK forces in Iraq, not to mention Syria, Libya. Right there are tons of extremist terrorist actions!

I'm sure once hot wind decides to leave moms basement, he'll find out that our world is not all sunshine and unicorns.....how many US or UK forces have been brought up to the Hague so far.... 

[Queenmandy85]

On 10/6/2017 at 1:00 PM, hot enough said:

Anyone who takes shillings the old cow has garnered from the UK's long evil history of stealing them from others is not much more than a little soldato.

Bear with me Hotsie. I don't have much faith in profiling so don't take this personally. Just for fun, am I right in thinking you are a second year Arts student taking either Poli. Sci. or history, or perhaps a grade eleven student (less likely.) Please tell me I am wrong. It won't be the first time.