• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks

Navy_Pete said:
Maybe a dumb question, but noticed this near the end on 'Note 7'

If I read this correctly, someone could be found not guilty and still have admin measures taken against them. I could see a few scenarios where you could do something but maybe not meet the threshold for a hate crime, but not really clear how they balance out the intent of stamping out racism with 'innocent until proven guilty', and could easily see over reactions causing permanent career implications as the definition of hateful conduct is pretty broad (and could conceivably include following a facebook group or something fairly benign).

I haven't read the order but admin measures by their nature don't have the same burden of proof as disciplinary/courts, it is the balance of probability of whether it likely happened or not. There is no innocent until found guilty, it is the reason for example that often if a soldier gets a DUI hey are given a corresponding admin measure long before they go to trial.
 
MJP said:
it is the balance of probability of whether it likely happened or not.

Not quite, or at least not as the jeopardy to the member increases; my quotes from the CAF Admin Law Manual.

https://army.ca/forums/threads/132996/post-1629044.html#msg1629044

53. There is an intermediate standard of proof, falling between the criminal standard and the civil standard, that applies to decisions that are administrative in nature but, nevertheless, have serious implications for the individual:

The standard of proof required in cases such as this is high. It is not the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But it is something more than a bare balance of probabilities. The authorities establish that the case against a professional person on a disciplinary hearing must be proved by a fair and reasonable preponderance of credible evidence. The evidence must be sufficiently cogent to make it safe to uphold the findings, with all of the consequences for the professional person’s career and status in the community [having been taken into account].

60. Certain types of CF administrative decisions with serious adverse consequences to a CF member, such as release for involvement with drugs, must be based on clear and convincing evidence.
 
Eye In The Sky said:
Not quite, or at least not as the jeopardy to the member increases; my quotes from the CAF Admin Law Manual.

https://army.ca/forums/threads/132996/post-1629044.html#msg1629044

53. There is an intermediate standard of proof, falling between the criminal standard and the civil standard, that applies to decisions that are administrative in nature but, nevertheless, have serious implications for the individual:

The standard of proof required in cases such as this is high. It is not the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But it is something more than a bare balance of probabilities. The authorities establish that the case against a professional person on a disciplinary hearing must be proved by a fair and reasonable preponderance of credible evidence. The evidence must be sufficiently cogent to make it safe to uphold the findings, with all of the consequences for the professional person’s career and status in the community [having been taken into account].

60. Certain types of CF administrative decisions with serious adverse consequences to a CF member, such as release for involvement with drugs, must be based on clear and convincing evidence.

Yes but that is the standard applied during the Admin Review process done by DMCA. It is a much more in-depth review and application as listed in the admin manual. A unit putting someone on a remedial measure has only to consider the balance of probabilities.

DAOD 5019-4 Remedial Measures

Requirement for a Remedial Measure
4.1 A remedial measure may be initiated if there is reliable evidence that establishes on a balance of probabilities that a CAF member has demonstrated:

a conduct deficiency based on an applicable standard of conduct; or
a performance deficiency whereby, over a reasonable period of time, the CAF member has not met the applicable standard of performance.

DAD 5019-2 Admin Review

Standard of Proof and Evidence
5.6 The standard of proof in an AR is a balance of probabilities as set out in the following table:  Table attached as picture due to copy paste issues 

 

Attachments

  • Capture.JPG
    Capture.JPG
    82.9 KB · Views: 40
Target Up said:
Why was my post removed, too accurate?

No, it was removed because it was tangential and is better suited to the reddit page it came from.
 
Infanteer said:
No, it was removed because it was tangential and is better suited to the reddit page it came from.

In what way? It points out the hypocrisy of vowing to hunt down racism while embracing a policy that is clearly based on race. Either it’s bad or it isn’t, and I didn’t get it from Reddit, so there’s that. But I get it.
 
MJP said:
I haven't read the order but admin measures by their nature don't have the same burden of proof as disciplinary/courts, it is the balance of probability of whether it likely happened or not. There is no innocent until found guilty, it is the reason for example that often if a soldier gets a DUI hey are given a corresponding admin measure long before they go to trial.

I totally understand that, but if someone gets a DUI there is usually a certain level of proof required to get to that point.

The admin order includes online activities and microaggressions, along with straight up racist acts, so it's a pretty broad brush. No issue kicking someone out for say, running a neo nazi chat board, but it could also apply to a lot of things that are much less blatant. Which in and of itself isn't a bad thing, but there is always the risk it could go too far. Having said that, haven't seen anything like that with Op Honour, so optimistic that common sense will apply and we won't be doing stupid things like slapping an RW on someone for liking a FB post years ago just because the group is now banned*, but sometimes that is weirdly absent.

*for clarification, seems to be a common tactic to have pretty benign statements for those stupid shareable posts as gateways to some of the hate groups. i.e. Do you disagree with illegal immagration? (or whatever fairly non-controversial statement they can find).
 
CoC will facilitate focused awareness and bystander training, ensuring that our members recognize their responsibilities when incidentsarise, including the repercussions for not addressing situations in a timely manner. Although this training and associated resources are still being developed, I expect the CoC to be proactive in developing vignettes and educating their members;

I hope this is a legitimate thing and not just fluff. I especially hope it's not just another tired DLN course that people speed-click through to challenge the test and report to higher that it's good to go so someone in brigade can populate a spread sheet and everyone call it mission accomplished.
 
Jarnhamar said:
I especially hope it's not just another tired DLN course that people speed-click through to challenge the test and report to higher that it's good to go so someone in brigade can populate a spread sheet and everyone call it mission accomplished.

It's almost like, after years of seeing the same thing over and over again, you know the CAF's playbook...
 
Navy_Pete said:
I totally understand that, but if someone gets a DUI there is usually a certain level of proof required to get to that point.

The admin order includes online activities and microaggressions, along with straight up racist acts, so it's a pretty broad brush. No issue kicking someone out for say, running a neo nazi chat board, but it could also apply to a lot of things that are much less blatant. Which in and of itself isn't a bad thing, but there is always the risk it could go too far. Having said that, haven't seen anything like that with Op Honour, so optimistic that common sense will apply and we won't be doing stupid things like slapping an RW on someone for liking a FB post years ago just because the group is now banned*, but sometimes that is weirdly absent.

I see where you are coming from and apologies if I came across as overly simplistic, have run across too many senior military folks who are fairly clueless on how admin measures work so I try not to make assumptions.

The real problem with racist or sexist or sexualized behaviour is not the big overt acts, we can all easily identify, it is those micro-aggression (believe me I scoffed when I first heard the term) and their effect on people, the org and the culture over time. The key to stamping it out much like Op HONOUR is a strong show by the leadership that these behaviours are unacceptable, hence orders like this one or Op HONOUR. 

Jarnhamar said:
I hope this is a legitimate thing and not just fluff. I especially hope it's not just another tired DLN course that people speed-click through to challenge the test and report to higher that it's good to go so someone in brigade can populate a spread sheet and everyone call it mission accomplished.

I hope so too, bystander intervention and Respect in the CAF were great training products and I feel the latter can easily be adapt for racist conduct. Regardless of how the content is delivered there is always resistance to directed training on behavioural matters for a variety of reasons:

1. Loss of status quo - They see change as a net loss for them
2. Intergroup anxiety - The fear of saying or being accused of doing something wrong and being labelled for it
3. Denial of need for change - They associate the issue with overt action and don't  associate  micro-transgressions to being a problem
4. Identity Threat - Fear of loss of identity or assimilation from both all sides
5. Non-Supportive Corporate/organizational culture  - Change not linked to strategic goals, lack of leadership ownership.

If it is to be effective it needs:

1. To almost be voluntary (very hard in the CAF for that condition admittedly) at least in the start. RitCAF IIRC work was/is voluntary ATT for example;

2. When you do the trg, the beginning should be about dispelling myths of what is or isn’t an issue (misinformed, false, or incorrect beliefs concerning motives, behavior, and victims that form a social lens);

3. Ensure that the organization is aligned properly to have a culture that wants to reduce misconduct. This makes intuitive sense because if an org is just paying lip service to the issue then there is no effect on the motivation of a person taking the training; and

4. Initial efforts in training should be done cautiously and should be done in concert with other initiatives within the org like removal of leadership that tolerate such behaviour, introduction or revamping of key policy and bringing in external consultants to deliver the trg or other initiatives. 


 
I'm enjoying a Facebook thread now between a friend and an acquaintance where my friend shared the Canadian Army's post on this, sans comment. He is now being accosted, not by CAF members but by a socially progressive / anti-racism type. Essentially, his support for this is some sign of his white privilege, and that he's naive enough to think this is enough, blah blah blah.

What I've learned is, this person doesn't like hateful conduct, and also doesn't like that the Canadian Army is trying to combat hateful conduct.  :facepalm:

Outrage culture at it's finest.
 
Some thoughts


A main criticism of “soldiers suspected of hateful conduct and extremism” seem to be based on terms such as hate speech and disinformation, with the exemption of neo-Nazis (why would anyone subscribe to that ideology???), anti-Semitism, etc. My worry is that those enforcing the rules (CoC) can censor anything they disagree with or don’t want to address by simply labelling it as hateful conduct and extremism.

Another question is about whether CoCs possess the objectivity that need to be brought to mind when deciding the line between prohibited hate speech and uneducated, horrible, objectionable speech (no group identified).

Does the CoC (and/or higher) allow the presumption of innocence and the requirement that the charge be proved beyond a reasonable doubt?

Do the CoC (and/or higher) decisions meet the threshold of hate and contempt as determined by the Supreme Court?


Just curious
 
ballz said:
I'm enjoying a Facebook thread now between a friend and an acquaintance where my friend shared the Canadian Army's post on this, sans comment. He is now being accosted, not by CAF members but by a socially progressive / anti-racism type. Essentially, his support for this is some sign of his white privilege, and that he's naive enough to think this is enough, blah blah blah.

What I've learned is, this person doesn't like hateful conduct, and also doesn't like that the Canadian Army is trying to combat hateful conduct.  :facepalm:

Outrage culture at it's finest.

I've stopped posting entirely on Social Media other than pictures of vacations I take, events I attend, etc.

I am strongly considering deleting Facebook and just keeping instagram as it's the only platform I really follow.  I just need to rid myself of some SM duties I have with work which should happen soon.
 
shawn5o said:
Some thoughts


A main criticism of “soldiers suspected of hateful conduct and extremism” seem to be based on terms such as hate speech and disinformation, with the exemption of neo-Nazis (why would anyone subscribe to that ideology???), anti-Semitism, etc. My worry is that those enforcing the rules (CoC) can censor anything they disagree with or don’t want to address by simply labelling it as hateful conduct and extremism.

Another question is about whether CoCs possess the objectivity that need to be brought to mind when deciding the line between prohibited hate speech and uneducated, horrible, objectionable speech (no group identified).

Does the CoC (and/or higher) allow the presumption of innocence and the requirement that the charge be proved beyond a reasonable doubt?

Do the CoC (and/or higher) decisions meet the threshold of hate and contempt as determined by the Supreme Court?


Just curious

I think it calls for defining neo-Nazi ideology Shawn. Does this photo define it adequately enough? I think it does and dog forbid that ever comes to Canada. And just wait until both sides get the guns out, as is predicted by Colin's friend. This is really, really bad my friend.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/2020/9/23/21452846/facebook-negligence-kenosha-shootings-lawsuit-kyle-rittenhouse

There's just no way of playing down that kind of behaviour in my opinion!

:worms:
 
Donald H said:
I think it calls for defining neo-Nazi ideology Shawn. Does this photo define it adequately enough? I think it does and dog forbid that ever comes to Canada. And just wait until both sides get the guns out, as is predicted by Colin's friend. This is really, really bad my friend.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/2020/9/23/21452846/facebook-negligence-kenosha-shootings-lawsuit-kyle-rittenhouse

There's just no way of playing down that kind of behaviour in my opinion!

:worms:

I don't get what you're saying Don

This thread is about the army comd orders to stop hateful conduct and extremism. You brought up Kyle and FB. Frankly, I once suscribed to FB and quickly opted out; never did like it and never went back.
 
shawn5o said:
Some thoughts


A main criticism of “soldiers suspected of hateful conduct and extremism” seem to be based on terms such as hate speech and disinformation, with the exemption of neo-Nazis (why would anyone subscribe to that ideology???), anti-Semitism, etc. My worry is that those enforcing the rules (CoC) can censor anything they disagree with or don’t want to address by simply labelling it as hateful conduct and extremism.

Another question is about whether CoCs possess the objectivity that need to be brought to mind when deciding the line between prohibited hate speech and uneducated, horrible, objectionable speech (no group identified).

Does the CoC (and/or higher) allow the presumption of innocence and the requirement that the charge be proved beyond a reasonable doubt?

Do the CoC (and/or higher) decisions meet the threshold of hate and contempt as determined by the Supreme Court?


Just curious

No they don't, nor do they have too.
 
shawn5o said:
I don't get what you're saying Don

This thread is about the army comd orders to stop hateful conduct and extremism. You brought up Kyle and FB. Frankly, I once suscribed to FB and quickly opted out; never did like it and never went back.

I was responding to your reference to neo-Nazi behaviour Shawn and how it was left open to interpretation.
 
Humphrey Bogart said:
I've stopped posting entirely on Social Media other than pictures of vacations I take, events I attend, etc.

I am strongly considering deleting Facebook and just keeping instagram as it's the only platform I really follow.  I just need to rid myself of some SM duties I have with work which should happen soon.

I'm still on Facebook but I've been using the "unfollow" function a lot more lately.

:clubinhand:
 
Back
Top