- Reaction score
- 4,265
- Points
- 1,260
"Canadian Forces warns members affiliated with radical groups"
- Thread starter gryphonv
- Start date
milnews.ca said:
Wait...so, people feeling alienated from society get barred from a program to help with various mental health issues...Huh. Okay. Can't see that going wrong, ever.
But I wish the CF would just come out with it and stop pretending it's about right and wrong; troops you are required to be openly and officially politically correct any time you are where the public or media can hear you and spot you as a CF member.
Anything more is unenforceable, anything less is patently dishonest. Let's not give any orders we know won't be followed, eh?
If only Canada could grow up and mature as fast as it's population ages.
- Reaction score
- 2,849
- Points
- 940
I don't understand what this means; can you explain.Shrek1985 said:
Journeyman said:
A fundamental truth of military service; we, all of us in uniform "Fight" for things we do not believe in as part of a pact which serves to also defend that which we *do* believe in.
"My country, right or wrong"
The Gay Soldier defends those who want to see gays murdered in the streets.
The Religious Soldier fights for the atheists
The Patriotic Soldier defends the person who burns the flag.
Just a few, small examples. We are, each of us soldiers; but we are also people, with our own beliefs no regulation or act of parliament could ever change that. Let us not pretend or wish to be the kind of military which stamps us into an Orwellian mould of fanaticism for the party line.
But the above is not an idea that Canadian citizens are able or willing to internalize and digest. It is, in fact anathema to their own ideology, as much as it is endemic to values of duty, honour and loyalty to something bigger and better than oneself. These are mature, adult concepts, which do not fit in Canadian society. Thus why we produce few willing and fewer still good career soldiers, despite our large population.
Soldiers, it is known tend to lean farther right of centre than their parent population. This seems to be a near-universal gift of military service. There is something about the elements of pragmatism and the unforgiving nature of our reality that forces this on soldiers across the world. Yet, Canada is a distinctly left-leaning country.
In an world where "Nazism" is increasingly defined as not just "That which must be opposed in order to be a good person" and simultaneously "Those who disagree with leftist/progressive ideology", this will increasingly bring our soldiers into conflict with a population and media that cannot comprehend why someone who thought differently from them would ever put their lives on the line for them. Especially, when they; in the same position could not resist the urge to use any power given them to bring their own ideology ever greater power and control.
- Reaction score
- 2,849
- Points
- 940
Sorry, but I still missed the meaning of how Canada should "grow up and mature as fast as its population ages."
(Although I think I got "it's OK to be a racist because it's a personally-held belief common to soldiers because 'it is known' we're right-wing; any regulation to the contrary will just be disobeyed")
(Although I think I got "it's OK to be a racist because it's a personally-held belief common to soldiers because 'it is known' we're right-wing; any regulation to the contrary will just be disobeyed")
Journeyman said:
Thanks for being part of the problem, Journeyman; couldn't have illustrated it better without you!
Okay; C-A-T spells CAT;
Canada's population is aging, you know this right?
Generally, as a person grows; their base of knowledge and experience comes together in a sort of mature wisdom, which while it may bear similarities to being too tired also carries with it added doses of common sense, perspective and breadth of experience.
That isn't happening in Canada; we're stuck with the kind of immaturity and appetite for group-think and conformity you normally need university students to find, right up through the entire culture, irrespective of age. It's this kind of puritan, disgust-based thinking that I'm talking about. Diversity of all but thought.
Have you ever heard the saying; "Anyone who is not a liberal at 20 has no heart and anyone who is still a liberal at 40 has no brain"? A very accurate summation, overall.
There is a lot to unpack in your second statement. I'll start with the easy parts first.
I'll assume you're totally unfamiliar with the axiom of "Never give an order you know will not be obeyed"?
Okay; so you first have to accept that such a thing is possible and maybe you don't; sometimes orders are issued which are so asinine, so patently useless, so onerous and also so unenforceable that they will not be obeyed.
It is my assertion that anything more that what I proposed out above, that soldiers should be painstakingly politically correct anytime the media or public can hear or see them and relate their lives to military service is unenforceable. You can argue ways in which you could enforce such regulations, going after what amounts to thought crimes, but I'd like to see you do so in such a way as not to destroy the morale of the forces and fleece us of many very good men and women.
What I propose is enforceable and better still; practicable. A Canadian population which would be at peace with the values of soldiers is outside the reach of the military to bring about. A military founded on what passes for Canadian values today would be non-functional on the face of it. Of course, a reasonable person might ask; "Why should we care what values our soldiers possess, if we do not care what values new Canadian immigrants possess? After all; get in enough of them and *our* values will soon be changing, no?" One might also question; "What does it matter what values the military of the first post-national state possess?"
I would in fact propose, in a brief aside; that in order to preserve the beautiful snowflake nation that we have, that an army as different from the average Canadian as possible would be ideal.
Good leaders never give orders they know will not be obeyed; because disobedience, whatever it's source is corrosive to effective leadership and the CoC. It takes moral courage to say to someone farther up the chain; "Sir, that's nonsense." You may get ordered to pass it along anyways, but in writing and under protest is how it should go. That way, you can be vindicated later when the charges have to be laid (another failure of leadership).
Moving along; again it's a well-known fact that soldiering tends to produce a right-leaning bent in those who come in contact with it. This is known across most of the world, in diverse cultures. Now; you may come to the army a radical leftist, maybe you only come out a little less-left, but what I find and what others experience supports, especially among combat arms is that most soldiers are noticeably very right-leaning. This in a country where we have these depressing European-style politics of competing socialists, with one party marking out the centre on a good day and calling themselves conservative. That's not a recipe for harmony. An army that trends right and a populace that trends left is going to cause us trouble and we, as leaders must be prepared to deal with it and protect our soldiers however we can.
Now, finally; when you equate racism and right-wing politics; you are wrong and you are ignorant. Sadly and relevant to my other points; you are also speaking in harmony with our schools and our state media. That isn't the truth though; not only is racism not a possession of the right, it is something commonly felt by many of us who espouse right-wing beliefs. If for no-other reason, in our society of feelings; that should matter for the purposes of fairness; "A Canadian Value", if for no other reason. If that is, we truly wish to represent Canadian values in the CF.
That kind of language silences people; it drives them to more extreme and more anti-social groups; like real neo-nazis and it is not consistent with effective leadership. Remember always, as we move ever faster towards our Orwellian destiny that the alternative to free speech is violence. In this context, things like the recent riots between pro and anti-immigration groups take on a much deeper, darker meaning. Hatred cannot grow in the light of day without truly massive, broad-based support. It is nurtured in dark corners with quiet whispers. What we're doing here forces people into those dark corners.
So what do we do? Well, any COA I might suggest has to be coloured by my status as a leader and I, as a leader have a great deal of responsibility to know my people and support their welfare and air their grievances in an appropriate matter with higher authority on their behalf. I have exactly zero responsibility to counsel or punish them for their own privately held beliefs. Although I know there are those in the CF who feel that is exactly their duty. I suggest to those individuals that there yet remain militaries in this world who count political commissars amongst their number. Perhaps they might find greater satisfaction in their lives in such a position, elsewhere.
So my responsibilities are coloured by the strict letter of the CanForGens which severely limit political action by Canadian Forces members. I couldn't write to my member of parliament as a forces member and be like; "A number of my soldiers are concerned with the direction our country is taking in regards to feminist indoctrination at all levels, the increasingly cult-like nature of our schools, and failure to attract and assimilate people from compatible cultures, could you do something about that?"
However, perhaps a senior or THE SENIOR member of the CF or one of his or her direct civilian superiors would be well advised, simply from a perspective of interest and responsibility in the manning and morale of the forces to raise a similar message with our enlightened Civilian Masters. A few examples of statements which could usefully be made;
"our schools are contaminating Canadian youth with values and beliefs which are inimical to their potential usefulness as soldiers."
"I am concerned for the safety and morale of homosexual members of the Canadian Forces, due to the increasing numbers of violently homophobic immigrants being permitted to reside in the country."
"I fear for the morale of certain religious members of the Canadian Forces, so long as their faith remains to be held up to mockery and derision by the state media and school system, while other faiths enjoy unusual protection under the law and policies of the current government."
"I am deeply concerned for the fate of current and former Canadian Forces members who, out of a sense of alienation or as a response to their trauma may be denied certain services due to their misguided membership in various unfavourable organizations. I feel such exclusion will only deepen their trauma and sense of rejection and possibly lead to actions which may harm themselves, others or the reputation of the CF."
"Many Canadian Forces members are concerned for the safety of their families and the nation as a whole, if better screening of current and potential immigrants for violent, radical beliefs is not initiated."
This would be much more useful than; your opinions are an embarrassment; get out. Naturally of course, if we're already hip-deep in subjectivism with terms like "Extreme-Right", then whose to say who and what fits in that category? You could be in any group, out of official favour and find yourself in hot water on a whim.
Soldiers are human; humans have limits and interests. it pays to remember that when fighting or leading them. It's one thing to end up fighting for people who think differently than you; so long as they're part of the bigger population. It's another when those interests seem to control the government, schools, the media, culture, ect.
I think we've all been in that place; coming back from the field and catching a bit of news and feeling like we're the Legion, guarding the walls of the Empire, while the barbarians batter at the gates and the wind shifts and you can just *Smell* Rome burning behind you. We need to help each other get through that and deal with it, not shun anyone who smells smoke and wonders aloud where it's coming from.
It's not ideal that my COA involves kicking it upstairs and letting the CDS Or MND handle it, but unfortunately, with the CanForGens how they are, I'm just not going to do myself or anyone else any good at all bringing it up myself. Hell, in this atmosphere of "Get with the program or get out" I'm not sure even a nice memo up the CoC would get me more than career death. But I'm a leader and I wasn't trained to reject my soldiers for anything. Even if they're useless someone else will come take them away, *IF* I fail to remediate their performance. It would be a sin to lose a good soldier to the PC police, we don't have any to spare.
- Reaction score
- 2,849
- Points
- 940
Wow. I'll refrain from seeking any further clarification.Shrek1985 said:
Thank you for your brilliance and apparently awesome leadership.
I don't have the time, or inclination, to pick through all of that in detail, but:
"Far Right" and "Right-Leaning" are not the same thing (and I have no idea why racism (and other forms of bigotry) is even considered to be "far right" at all, as it is not).
Nobody can, and few would even try, to control somebody's thoughts. Decisions can, however, be made about what expressions are or are not suitable for serving members to publicly make, and the resulting policies can indeed be enforced, practically and legally.
How we look and act in public is important, as is how we sound, or type on the interweb. We have reasonably well-defined values that have stood the test of time and have also been somewhat refined, and those values are necessary. Those who willfully ignore them, or otherwise fail to live up to them, are incompatible with the organization as a whole. There is a Charter-guaranteed freedom of opinion and expression, yes, but there is no corresponding right to freedom from sanction, including cessation of membership, by an organization after saying or doing dumb things.
Perhaps the current limitations are a little too tight, or perhaps not, but society has its expectations and true leaders have little choice but to consider those expectations and guide/command their subordinates with them in mind.
Failure to do so puts both subordinate and leader in career (and possibly legal) jeopardy when lines are crossed and public, media, and politicians respond.
A wise leader, then, counsels/guides/orders, as appropriate, his or her subordinates about acceptable behavioral limits prior to those limits being explored in public view as that protects both.
And this comes from someone who has, I am reasonably confident, done a little more "aging" than you (and definitely more than those being cautioned), grown, expanded his base of knowledge and experience (through his own mistakes and the oft-worse mistakes of others), and may have developed at least a molecule or two of "a sort of mature wisdom".
The latter does not mean that I am now immune to error myself, but I have acquired a pretty good ability to see the impending error of others. If I can save them from themselves, I generally try, as futile as that often is.
I was never a Liberal, although I am liberal in many ways. And conservative. And libertarian.
I do not care what somebody's religion is or isn't, or with whom they prefer to mate, or what colour their outermost layer is, etcetera. I only care how they perform in Society - whether they contribute or detract, whether they help others or hurt. And I am generous in my application of benefit-of-the-doubt, until either is confirmed. I would never fight "for" or "despite" gays, or "for" or "despite" atheists, or "for" or "despite" flag-burners, but for fellow Citizens and decent people anywhere.
I am in agreement with some of your words, but far from all.
"Far Right" and "Right-Leaning" are not the same thing (and I have no idea why racism (and other forms of bigotry) is even considered to be "far right" at all, as it is not).
Nobody can, and few would even try, to control somebody's thoughts. Decisions can, however, be made about what expressions are or are not suitable for serving members to publicly make, and the resulting policies can indeed be enforced, practically and legally.
How we look and act in public is important, as is how we sound, or type on the interweb. We have reasonably well-defined values that have stood the test of time and have also been somewhat refined, and those values are necessary. Those who willfully ignore them, or otherwise fail to live up to them, are incompatible with the organization as a whole. There is a Charter-guaranteed freedom of opinion and expression, yes, but there is no corresponding right to freedom from sanction, including cessation of membership, by an organization after saying or doing dumb things.
Perhaps the current limitations are a little too tight, or perhaps not, but society has its expectations and true leaders have little choice but to consider those expectations and guide/command their subordinates with them in mind.
Failure to do so puts both subordinate and leader in career (and possibly legal) jeopardy when lines are crossed and public, media, and politicians respond.
A wise leader, then, counsels/guides/orders, as appropriate, his or her subordinates about acceptable behavioral limits prior to those limits being explored in public view as that protects both.
And this comes from someone who has, I am reasonably confident, done a little more "aging" than you (and definitely more than those being cautioned), grown, expanded his base of knowledge and experience (through his own mistakes and the oft-worse mistakes of others), and may have developed at least a molecule or two of "a sort of mature wisdom".
The latter does not mean that I am now immune to error myself, but I have acquired a pretty good ability to see the impending error of others. If I can save them from themselves, I generally try, as futile as that often is.
I was never a Liberal, although I am liberal in many ways. And conservative. And libertarian.
I do not care what somebody's religion is or isn't, or with whom they prefer to mate, or what colour their outermost layer is, etcetera. I only care how they perform in Society - whether they contribute or detract, whether they help others or hurt. And I am generous in my application of benefit-of-the-doubt, until either is confirmed. I would never fight "for" or "despite" gays, or "for" or "despite" atheists, or "for" or "despite" flag-burners, but for fellow Citizens and decent people anywhere.
I am in agreement with some of your words, but far from all.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
Shrek1985 said:
You are right- people will have political beliefs and the army tends to be right leaning. However, as a leader, it is our responsibility to form and build effective teams to accomplish a goal. Part of the "art" of leadership is being able to meld people from different backgrounds, beliefs, cultures, and languages into a single team. Having subordinates in racist groups such as "la meute" goes against not only the CF Code of conduct, values and ethics, and a number of QR&Os/DAODs, it goes against the entire concept of team building and leadership. These people have no role in the military, full stop. Much like the 2Lt in the US who is being kicked out/punished for writing about communism in his hat and having a che guevara shirt on in photos, these people should be shown the door because they, again, have no role or business being in the military. FULL STOP. The pers in "le Meutre", far left-wing, or other far right-wing groups are not "good soldiers".
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
mariomike said:
Social media only allows people to "out" themselves, though some of the younger people coming through seem to think the internet is a punishment free zone. We need to look no further than the airborne Regiment to know that racism has existed in the CAF in some capacity longer than social media. Whereas in the old days the cretins could keep to themselves in the shacks and largely just annoy those close to them now they're able to let the world know their beliefs.
Leaders in the CAF are expected to uphold the values of the CAF. If they dont, than they are free to leave, and the CAF (aside from possibly a short blip) will be better off for it.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
Shrek1985 said:
Actually, if you go into the political spectrum theories, right-wing pers tend to be more nationalistic, which explains why more people in the military are right wing vs left wing. Members largely join the military with their belief systems already established, so the "near-universal gift of military service" isn't based in anything to do with the military nor is it an inherent trait of the right.
The Soviet military in the Bolshevik revolution, Russian civil war, and largely in WW2 was left wing and they did ok at dealing with the unforgiving nature of combat.
- Reaction score
- 1,512
- Points
- 1,260
Bird_Gunner45 said:
That may be more common than it once was. I did not have much of a "belief system" when I joined the PRes at age 16.
Other than a paper route, it was my first job. Everyone on my BMQ were high school students ( SSEP ), so we may have been more moldable than some recruits today. They may have more "life experience" than we did.
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,267
- Points
- 1,010
The problem with "political spectrum" theory is that, I personally don't believe that it applies much in Canada, or most Parliamentarian system countries.
In Canada, in my view, almost all politics is centrist, and then either a little left or little right. If your positions are in that small portion of the spectrum, you can achieve power after an election, if you don't and don't move there, you can't. It's the old Liberal trick, BTW. Promise on the left end of spectrum but, in office, govern from the centre. The "die-hard" Liberals know that they will govern from the centre so are not worried, while there are usually enough left leaning fools every time to vote for them thinking they will actually deliver. The recipe cannot work for the Conservatives because (1) there are not enough "hard" right people in Canada to try and fool into voting Conservatives and (2) the more centrist people are actually afraid that the Conservatives will deliver extreme right policies even when they don't promise them, or at least enough centrist that are convinced by the Liberals that it will be so, even though just about every Conservative government since WWII has been just as centrist as the Liberals.
Now, to input some facts into the CAF members view discussion: On the larger bases, with on base accommodation for members and families, the polls are usually found on the base. As a result it is possible to get an overall picture of how CAF members vote by reviewing the section by section vote on those bases. The sample is proportionally so large as to deliver an extremely high reliability figure of how CAF members vote.
As far as I know, only one such study has ever been made. It was done by historian Jack Granastein in the late 70's/early 80's, and it reviews data for Post WWII elections to 1968 (inclusive)*. The findings: The members of the CAF consistently voted for the Liberals throughout. No research has been done on this since. However, I consider the following to be anecdotal data supporting the view that this is still the case: When you look at CAF retired members standing for office since 1968, and in particular our more senior officers from Fred Mifflin to Andrew Leslie, and including people such as Mark Garneau and our DefMin Sajan, they for the most part stand under the Liberal banner.
So, personally, I am not at all convinced that overall, the political views of the members of the CAF are much different than the Canadian population's views at large. I rather think that they closely mirror one another.
I think that it would be dangerous to equate the CAF members generally more conservative (small c) personal outlook on life with their actually voting Conservative (capital C).
*: In one of his essays published in 2013, Prof. Granastein refers to this research of his and to the fact that no other has been made since. I am pretty sure none has been done since 2013.
In Canada, in my view, almost all politics is centrist, and then either a little left or little right. If your positions are in that small portion of the spectrum, you can achieve power after an election, if you don't and don't move there, you can't. It's the old Liberal trick, BTW. Promise on the left end of spectrum but, in office, govern from the centre. The "die-hard" Liberals know that they will govern from the centre so are not worried, while there are usually enough left leaning fools every time to vote for them thinking they will actually deliver. The recipe cannot work for the Conservatives because (1) there are not enough "hard" right people in Canada to try and fool into voting Conservatives and (2) the more centrist people are actually afraid that the Conservatives will deliver extreme right policies even when they don't promise them, or at least enough centrist that are convinced by the Liberals that it will be so, even though just about every Conservative government since WWII has been just as centrist as the Liberals.
Now, to input some facts into the CAF members view discussion: On the larger bases, with on base accommodation for members and families, the polls are usually found on the base. As a result it is possible to get an overall picture of how CAF members vote by reviewing the section by section vote on those bases. The sample is proportionally so large as to deliver an extremely high reliability figure of how CAF members vote.
As far as I know, only one such study has ever been made. It was done by historian Jack Granastein in the late 70's/early 80's, and it reviews data for Post WWII elections to 1968 (inclusive)*. The findings: The members of the CAF consistently voted for the Liberals throughout. No research has been done on this since. However, I consider the following to be anecdotal data supporting the view that this is still the case: When you look at CAF retired members standing for office since 1968, and in particular our more senior officers from Fred Mifflin to Andrew Leslie, and including people such as Mark Garneau and our DefMin Sajan, they for the most part stand under the Liberal banner.
So, personally, I am not at all convinced that overall, the political views of the members of the CAF are much different than the Canadian population's views at large. I rather think that they closely mirror one another.
I think that it would be dangerous to equate the CAF members generally more conservative (small c) personal outlook on life with their actually voting Conservative (capital C).
*: In one of his essays published in 2013, Prof. Granastein refers to this research of his and to the fact that no other has been made since. I am pretty sure none has been done since 2013.
- Reaction score
- 27,510
- Points
- 1,090
Don't forget, CAF electors are supposed to vote in the location identified in their Statement of Ordinary Residence, not where they are domiciled. Thus, if you enrol in Moose Jaw, unless you change your SOR, you will vote in Moose Jaw, regardless of where you live in Canada or abroad.
So any review of "CAF voting patterns" is going to be incorrect; you can infer that families of CAF (Reg F) members vote Liberal; CAF members themselves, not so much.
(Or, in other words, Granatstein's research was lacking.)
So any review of "CAF voting patterns" is going to be incorrect; you can infer that families of CAF (Reg F) members vote Liberal; CAF members themselves, not so much.
(Or, in other words, Granatstein's research was lacking.)
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,267
- Points
- 1,010
Dapaterson, since neither you nor I have reviewed the methodology of Prof. Granastein, nor know the exact form that the data he collected and used takes, which may permit to account for members voting preference even with the S.O.R. situation, I suggest it is a little arrogant to claim here that his research was lacking. "Lacking" is after all not a qualification I would assign to research by Prof Granastein without strong evidence it was so. 
irate:
While I have not worked as an Election Canada returning officer on any of the CAF bases, I have done so on more than one occasion at ordinary polling stations. I know for a fact that Elections Canada has forms for everything. Therefore, I very strongly suspect that the CAF members votes cast on base are tabulated in a report for onward transmission to the Chief Electoral Officer, probably in the form of a table listing for a given CFB's all the ridings in Canada for which members have indicated their SOR followed by the vote breakdown by party for each such riding. This would permit the results of the election to be "certified" before the actual ballots cast by CAF members can make their way to the ridings returning officers.
irate: While I have not worked as an Election Canada returning officer on any of the CAF bases, I have done so on more than one occasion at ordinary polling stations. I know for a fact that Elections Canada has forms for everything. Therefore, I very strongly suspect that the CAF members votes cast on base are tabulated in a report for onward transmission to the Chief Electoral Officer, probably in the form of a table listing for a given CFB's all the ridings in Canada for which members have indicated their SOR followed by the vote breakdown by party for each such riding. This would permit the results of the election to be "certified" before the actual ballots cast by CAF members can make their way to the ridings returning officers.
Blackadder1916
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 2,761
- Points
- 1,160
Oldgateboatdriver said:
dapaterson said:
While I'm not a great fan of Granatstein, at the minimum we should not be opining about the rigourousness of his research without, at least, looking at the results of that research. In the same light, statements about the conclusions of his research should be taken as only anecdotal (or faint remembrance) unless it can be referenced.
However, it did interest me, but was only able to find one mention in a bibliography. Wasn't yet able to find an online copy of that particular journal article.
- Reaction score
- 27,510
- Points
- 1,090
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Such information would not be releaseable to researchers, as it would be trivial to associate individuals with their ballot.
My supposition is that Dr G merely extrapolated results from ridings with large military facilities; both he & Dr Morton are typical of Canadian "all star" academics: big fish in a small pond, with reputations that they have started to believe in themselves...
Similar threads
