‘White nationalism’ a threat the Canadian Armed Forces aren’t equipped for: watchdog

[Jarnhamar]

Neat, thanks.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I'm a Sikh, former Officer in the CAF, and would like to engage respectfully to share a few ideas, and take on a few more.

Thanks,

ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕਾਖਾਲਸਾਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕੀਫਤਿਹ

If I may, can you tell us what rank and unit? Were you released or did you quit. I just wonder what unit was so much in contravention of our rules on racism. Was your rank not sufficient to address it with authority? Lastly, did you release on your own or did they put you out for trying to address it. I just want a little more background to get a clearer picture of your perspective and what brought you to it.

 

[Jarnhamar]

If I may, can you tell us what rank and unit? Were you released or did you quit. I just wonder what unit was so much in contravention of our rules on racism. Was your rank not sufficient to address it with authority? Lastly, did you release on your own or did they put you out for trying to address it. I just want a little more background to get a clearer picture of your perspective and what brought you to it.

Good questions. I'm always surprised when I hear this stuff exists out in the open. With all the training and talks people receive yearly it makes me wonder why or how anyone risks not taking action when they hear inappropriate comments (beyond the ethical reasons to do so).

I think the tenets of some religions call for it's members to promote their religion and talk about it. Nothing nefarious. Atheists might take offense at that and that could translate into them making inappropriate comments. Athiest chains of command might try and run a devout religious person out of their unit too.

 

[Furniture]

Good questions. I'm always surprised when I hear this stuff exists out in the open. With all the training and talks people receive yearly it makes me wonder why or how anyone risks not taking action when they hear inappropriate comments (beyond the ethical reasons to do so).

I think the tenets of some religions call for it's members to promote their religion and talk about it. Nothing nefarious. Atheists might take offense at that and that could translate into them making inappropriate comments. Athiest chains of command might try and run a devout religious person out of their unit too.

I had a subordinate who believed, based on his personal religious beliefs, that homosexuality is a mental illness. The member decided to engage in a debate with a Pte(R) my section was accommodating.... it was a fun time.

There are some hard and fast rules about what people are allowed to say/do based on their personal beliefs.

It is my opinion that there are some religions, and belief systems that are incompatible with being in the CAF.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I had a subordinate who believed, based on his personal religious beliefs, that homosexuality is a mental illness. The member decided to engage in a debate with a Pte(R) my section was accommodating.... it was a fun time.

There are some hard and fast rules about what people are allowed to say/do based on their personal beliefs.

It is my opinion that there are some religions, and belief systems that are incompatible with being in the CAF.

One can believe whatever they want, in the privacy of their brain.

What tumbles out of their mouth, on the other hand, has limits.

 

[Kirkhill]

If I may, can you tell us what rank and unit? Were you released or did you quit. I just wonder what unit was so much in contravention of our rules on racism. Was your rank not sufficient to address it with authority? Lastly, did you release on your own or did they put you out for trying to address it. I just want a little more background to get a clearer picture of your perspective and what brought you to it.

This is a white man's army centered on white values in a white country. All these are natural; we're violently opposed to intermarriage.
--

How this conflicts with a minority raised in a large city on multiculturalism is a separate issue.
As a religious person, a lot of the differences blend away for me:

Both left & right use tobacco, eat beef, etc. (cut their hair, walk about unarmed etc.)
Both the left & right generally expect you to follow Canadian laws arising out of a European culture.

In other words, they want or have first place among equals in a system based on their values.
--

So to me it's like w/e. You're in their country, and you can't expect every person to be a diplomat laying out the welcome mat.
Now, I think this means I've given up on integrating with the majority, and a lot of others have as well.

My sense of Singh 1947's post is not that there were necessarily a lot of racist incidents. On the other hand there was a lot of background noise that made his way of life, resulting from his beliefs, more difficult.

Both left & right use tobacco, eat beef, etc. (cut their hair, walk about unarmed etc.)
Both the left & right generally expect you to follow Canadian laws arising out of a European culture.

To most Canadians those are unremarkable statements. They don't recognize themselves in those statements because they are unremarkable. But to an observant Sikh they are emotive issues that require a decision on whether to tolerate them, fight to change them or return to a more familiar environment. Similar sentiments could be expressed by Muslimn and Jews about pork, or the availability of smoke meat, bagels and flatbread. Or by Scots on the supply of good meat pies and black pudding.

Most folks learn to accommodate - to tolerate.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Thx for the input. That could very well be true, but I would like to hear it in his words, so there is no confusion.

 

[Eaglelord17]

I had a subordinate who believed, based on his personal religious beliefs, that homosexuality is a mental illness. The member decided to engage in a debate with a Pte(R) my section was accommodating.... it was a fun time.

There are some hard and fast rules about what people are allowed to say/do based on their personal beliefs.

It is my opinion that there are some religions, and belief systems that are incompatible with being in the CAF.

See this is the issue with the CAF. We shouldn’t be playing the exclusionary game. If a Canadian citizen wishes to join and wishes to serve they should be allowed. I don’t care what their personal view points are.

All that needs to be said is well you are in uniform or directly repersenting the CAF this is how you will act. Anything beyond that and you start creating a tiered society where some are more important to others. It is also a direct violation of their rights as one of the most important rights in our society is the right to freedom of thought, opinion and expression.

A recruit who would have served honourably in WWII wouldn’t be accepted today. Let that sink in.

 

[lenaitch]

See this is the issue with the CAF. We shouldn’t be playing the exclusionary game. If a Canadian citizen wishes to join and wishes to serve they should be allowed. I don’t care what their personal view points are.

All that needs to be said is well you are in uniform or directly repersenting the CAF this is how you will act. Anything beyond that and you start creating a tiered society where some are more important to others. It is also a direct violation of their rights as one of the most important rights in our society is the right to freedom of thought, opinion and expression.

A recruit who would have served honourably in WWII wouldn’t be accepted today. Let that sink in.

It's more than "act"; it's express, which includes a manifestation of belief. I suppose that if person with abhorrent or anti-social beliefs held then all in, even before joining, and otherwise acted in a manner that is completely in alignment with CAF and Canadian society then, sure, why not. Then again, how would we know?

The CAF needs to do its due diligence. No chrystal ball will tell them if or when 'belief' will turn into something else.

I suspect members serving during WWII largely reflected Canadian society of the period Many aspects of said society would be be considered unacceptable today.

 

[dimsum]

See this is the issue with the CAF. We shouldn’t be playing the exclusionary game. If a Canadian citizen wishes to join and wishes to serve they should be allowed. I don’t care what their personal view points are.

All that needs to be said is well you are in uniform or directly repersenting the CAF this is how you will act. Anything beyond that and you start creating a tiered society where some are more important to others. It is also a direct violation of their rights as one of the most important rights in our society is the right to freedom of thought, opinion and expression.

A recruit who would have served honourably in WWII wouldn’t be accepted today. Let that sink in.

However, what is considered "allowed" also changes with the times. In the early years of WWII, Asians weren't allowed to join the Canadian military.

And sure, you're allowed freedom of thought, opinion, and expression. But, if someone has espoused, say, white supremacist views prior to joining the CAF, what are the chances that they have completely changed? Should the CAF risk allowing them in to further radicalize others, or get training, etc for those groups when they leave?

 

[Kirkhill]

However, what is considered "allowed" also changes with the times. In the early years of WWII, Asians weren't allowed to join the Canadian military.

And sure, you're allowed freedom of thought, opinion, and expression. But, if someone has espoused, say, white supremacist views prior to joining the CAF, what are the chances that they have completely changed? Should the CAF risk allowing them in to further radicalize others, or get training, etc for those groups when they leave?

And now you are into risk management.

You can't foretell actions. You can't foretell a person's future words or thoughts or expressions. You can't foretell if a person will change their mind.

You can only react to what a person does. That is the only sound basis for policing, in the broadest sense.

Everybody has to be given benefit of the doubt, the presumption of innocence and the opportunity to screw up.

Let the deed show.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

It's more than "act"; it's express, which includes a manifestation of belief. I suppose that if person with abhorrent or anti-social beliefs held then all in, even before joining, and otherwise acted in a manner that is completely in alignment with CAF and Canadian society then, sure, why not. Then again, how would we know?

The CAF needs to do its due diligence. No chrystal ball will tell them if or when 'belief' will turn into something else.

I suspect members serving during WWII largely reflected Canadian society of the period Many aspects of said society would be be considered unacceptable today.

Like this guy. A major and a psychologist.

2009 Fort Hood shooting - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Eaglelord17]

It's more than "act"; it's express, which includes a manifestation of belief. I suppose that if person with abhorrent or anti-social beliefs held then all in, even before joining, and otherwise acted in a manner that is completely in alignment with CAF and Canadian society then, sure, why not. Then again, how would we know?

The CAF needs to do its due diligence. No chrystal ball will tell them if or when 'belief' will turn into something else.

I suspect members serving during WWII largely reflected Canadian society of the period Many aspects of said society would be be considered unacceptable today.

Why does someones personal beliefs have to be in alignment with ‘Canadian societies’ beliefs? What is the beliefs of Canadian society?

I have met racists, communists, neo-nazis, feminists, misogynists, misandrists, monarchists, libertarians, gays, homophobes, Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. what did they all have in common? They are all Canadians.

They have the right to act provided they aren’t breaking any laws. Your definition of abhorrent will vary too. To me it abhorrent to deny citizens the chance to serve their country because of their personal beliefs.

However, what is considered "allowed" also changes with the times. In the early years of WWII, Asians weren't allowed to join the Canadian military.

And sure, you're allowed freedom of thought, opinion, and expression. But, if someone has espoused, say, white supremacist views prior to joining the CAF, what are the chances that they have completely changed? Should the CAF risk allowing them in to further radicalize others, or get training, etc for those groups when they leave?

Is the groups they are part of illegal or not? Have they committed crimes or not? Those should be determining factors. Considering once they put on a uniform the moment they suggest using violence against the government they have committed a crime, maybe that might be the best for all involved.

This holier than thou attitude the CAF is adopting is morally disgusting to me.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I have met racists, communists, neo-nazis, feminists, misogynists, misandrists, monarchists, libertarians, gays, homophobes, Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.

Been hanging on Parliament Hill?

 

[brihard]

And now you are into risk management.

You can't foretell actions. You can't foretell a person's future words or thoughts or expressions. You can't foretell if a person will change their mind.

You can only react to what a person does. That is the only sound basis for policing, in the broadest sense.

Everybody has to be given benefit of the doubt, the presumption of innocence and the opportunity to screw up.

Let the deed show.

Be careful not to conflate being accused of and punished for offences with being deemed reliable and having a security clearance. You can and must get ahead of threats and err on the side of caution with security clearance screening. The risk of screwing it up is way too high.

Though I recognize the thread has very much moved on, the NSIRA report originally reported on is a study into the CF National Counterintelligence Unit. The report isn’t looking squarely at the ability to discipline or prosecute troops who may simply be shitty people. Rather it’s looking at security threats from extremist organizations, and the ability of CFNCIU to address these is hampered in some ways by tools it doesn’t have access to. Reading through some of the report, and being able to make inferences about what’s ‘under the black’ in some case, clearly they don’t have such ready access to some investigative tools like wiretaps or other private communication intercepts (there are very tight legal constraints on these). The report highlights some issues with prioritization, their case management model, and some other aspects of how they dig in and get info on possible security threats that may not necessarily yet be provably criminal.

So no, in counterintelligence and the world of trusting people with access to sensitive information, you don’t and can’t err on the side of trust and waiting to let them screw up.

 

[Kat Stevens]

sidebar- The word counterintelligence always brings a smile to my face - sidebar

 

[Jarnhamar]

We will kick Tommy out of the CAF for belonging to a group who has anti-gay, anti-Semitic, anti-woman etc.. beliefs.

We won't kick Thomas out for belonging to a religion with the same beliefs.

 

[brihard]

We will kick Tommy out of the CAF for belonging to a group who has anti-gay, anti-Semitic, anti-woman etc.. beliefs.

We won't kick Thomas out for belonging to a religion with the same beliefs.

Which religion do you have in mind?

 

[dimsum]

Which religion do you have in mind?

I was gonna say - there is a short list of religions that don't have at least one of those things.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I guess the debate's whether White Nationalism is exceptional or an extension.
Also, is it qualitatively different to exclude them from the army vs the country at large?
Is violent exclusion separate from or an extension of the peaceable kind?

I saw a lot of n-bombs, harassment of non-white colleagues, and other behaviors which made one thing obvious:
This is a white man's army centered on white values in a white country. All these are natural; we're violently opposed to intermarriage.
--

How this conflicts with a minority raised in a large city on multiculturalism is a separate issue.
As a religious person, a lot of the differences blend away for me:

Both left & right use tobacco, eat beef, etc. (cut their hair, walk about unarmed etc.)
Both the left & right generally expect you to follow Canadian laws arising out of a European culture.

In other words, they want or have first place among equals in a system based on their values.
--

So to me it's like w/e. You're in their country, and you can't expect every person to be a diplomat laying out the welcome mat.
Now, I think this means I've given up on integrating with the majority, and a lot of others have as well.

That's a bigger issue for the government than some small # in hate groups, and I'm not sure whether they understand that or conflate the two.
--

Also, not sure where to put introductions (tried the search) so:

I'm a Sikh, former Officer in the CAF, and would like to engage respectfully to share a few ideas, and take on a few more.

Thanks,

ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕਾਖਾਲਸਾਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕੀਫਤਿਹ

When I married my wife who is mixed Malay and Indian and she looks very South Indian, the most overt racism we got was from the older Indians who would literally spit at us, because they disapproved of mixed couples. To be fair the below 30 Indians didn't seem to care much. Most of the racism we got from the Whites was mostly clumsy and kind of stupid patronising, but not as visceral as what we got from those Indians. Growing up here, it would have likley cost me my life or a limb to date a Indian girl. The Indian community here has also come a long way as well and mixed couples are very common, but not so much 20 years ago and very rare in the 1980's. My wife growing up mixed blood suffered a lot of racism in her own country, not good enough for either group and then there is the friction between South and Northern Indians.