Former CO, RSM of Alert charged

[Furniture]

There is some hearsay available on the CAF REDDIT that says that potentially permission was sought, denied by the decision makers, and action taken anyway. There are also rumors that perhaps decisions taken on what to do with the remains is what really has gotten the two individuals in trouble.

I'm guessing that very few people know the truth, but lots of people want to speculate.

All that I will say is this; the SWO up there took the job of protecting the wildlife and staff in Alert very seriously, and is unlikely to have done anything without permission from higher.

 

[dimsum]

I'm guessing that very few people know the truth, but lots of people want to speculate.

People spouting off randomly on CAF Reddit? Say it isn’t so.

 

[lenaitch]

Whatever happened it would seem it was deemed serious enough to haul in MoE enforcement officers from wherever their nearest office is - I'm guessing far, far away.

One lesson for me is Caribou being that far north.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

One lesson for me is Caribou being that far north.

When it comes to the North, you will see the effects of climate change more starkly and more pronounced than anywhere else on earth.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

When it comes to the North, you will see the effects of climate change more starkly and more pronounced than anywhere else on earth.

You mean with the ice melting we can see the old trees from the last 'climate change"?

 

[lenaitch]

You mean with the ice melting we can see the old trees from the last 'climate change"?

Already can.

Protection delayed for ancient Arctic forest

Millions of years ago, the Arctic was covered in fairly dense vegetation and forest. There was also a wide variety of animals at various times, from ancient turtles, alligators, camels, and more. Ancient forest- massive climate change Arctic As the climate changed in the Arctic from the wet

www.rcinet.ca

 

[rmc_wannabe]

You mean with the ice melting we can see the old trees from the last 'climate change"?

Sort of, but moreso....

Previously inhospitable areas are suddenly more hospitable with the changes in temperature, humidity, and acceas. You see it down south with the arrival of other flora and fauna that wouldn't be in the area 40 - 50 years ago. It's not a shock to me that lichen and Caribou are tracking north if it's warming, especially with quick it's happening.

 

[btrudy]

I'm guessing that very few people know the truth, but lots of people want to speculate.

All that I will say is this; the SWO up there took the job of protecting the wildlife and staff in Alert very seriously, and is unlikely to have done anything without permission from higher.

Well, I mean, charges are being laid. It's reasonable to speculate about what circumstances led to the incident in question, because there was an incident in question. The notion that it's "unlikely" for anything to have happened without permission isn't really all that compatible with what's being reported.

I suppose that it's possible that "permission" might have been sought from someone who didn't have the authority to grant such permission anyways, but then we're back to the notion that you're still not supposed to follow illegal orders.

 

[Ostrozac]

we're back to the notion that you're still not supposed to follow illegal orders.

You‘re not supposed to follow manifestly unlawful orders. QR&O 19.015 has a definition — “A manifestly unlawful command or order is one that would appear to a person of ordinary sense and understanding to be clearly illegal” That leaves a lot of grey area for laws requiring deep technical understanding, such as certain pollution, natural resources and wildlife laws — or indeed if a published CAF or unit policy is not 100% consistent with other legislation. It is indeed interesting that DND itself as an institution is on the charge sheet.

 

[Booter]

Whatever happened it would seem it was deemed serious enough to haul in MoE enforcement officers from wherever their nearest office is - I'm guessing far, far away.

One lesson for me is Caribou being that far north.

Arctic bay. 1000kms.

The Canadian Forces are named because in the SARA the fine goes from 50 thousand to an individual to 300000 to a “corporation” if convicted on summary conviction. Which it will be if at all.

I imagine come the 23rd when it’s scheduled for Justice of the Peace court someone will argue that the species isn’t listed anymore. The benefit of the act changing going to the accused. We ll see.

I haven’t seen anything saying that conservation actually attended. A SARA complaint can be lodged by anyone through the Minister and they order and investigation. It doesn’t really need attendance at all- they take the statements of people however and where ever they are- take the antlers or the animal remains which seems to form part of the issue here and then they issue the ticket/summons.

It’s possible that most of it was done with cooperation of the staff of the base and didn’t need the COs there at all. My experience with military command is they are very forthcoming when I make requests as usually it’s a question of where authority existed/ or mistaken belief rather than some criminal intent. In things like this- “regulatory” offences with wildlife.

Not when Air Force officers are smuggling guns and fishing with guns etc.

 

[Furniture]

Well, I mean, charges are being laid. It's reasonable to speculate about what circumstances led to the incident in question, because there was an incident in question. The notion that it's "unlikely" for anything to have happened without permission isn't really all that compatible with what's being reported.

Sure, so speculate away. I'm curious to see what you imagine happened.

I suppose that it's possible that "permission" might have been sought from someone who didn't have the authority to grant such permission anyways, but then we're back to the notion that you're still not supposed to follow illegal orders.

Because there has never been a situation where someone made a decision that they thought was legal, only to find out that they had misunderstood or misinterpreted the law... It must be nice going through life so self-assured that you are right at all times.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Environmental law can be a real mess and can take years to go through court and often fail on technicalities. Of course you can also get a situation where a Judge that should no longer be a Judge orders a company to mitigate it's damage by altering the adjacent property without informing the property holder, who was not actually named/involved in the court case......

 

[RangerRay]

With a lot of environmental law, the Crown does not have to prove intent, but has to prove the accused committed the offence and did not take reasonable precautions to prevent the offence from occurring.

If the accused can show they did their due diligence to prevent the offence from occurring, then they could be acquitted. I believe the federal species at risk legislation to be no different.

 

[Navy_Pete]

With a lot of environmental law, the Crown does not have to prove intent, but has to prove the accused committed the offence and did not take reasonable precautions to prevent the offence from occurring.

If the accused can show they did their due diligence to prevent the offence from occurring, then they could be acquitted. I believe the federal species at risk legislation to be no different.

That's my experience on the water pollution and halocarbon side of things, so having things like paper records really helped, and even if its some kind of systematic equipment issue, meant it was the department held liable, not the individuals.

 

[lenaitch]

Environmental law can be a real mess and can take years to go through court and often fail on technicalities. Of course you can also get a situation where a Judge that should no longer be a Judge orders a company to mitigate it's damage by altering the adjacent property without informing the property holder, who was not actually named/involved in the court case......

Huh?

 

[btrudy]

Sure, so speculate away. I'm curious to see what you imagine happened.


Because there has never been a situation where someone made a decision that they thought was legal, only to find out that they had misunderstood or misinterpreted the law... It must be nice going through life so self-assured that you are right at all times.

Well, the relevant comments on the reddit thread were based upon rumours that the pair wanted to put an injured caribou out of its misery, and either A) didn't ask the relevant authorities, or B) asked, were told no, and did it anyways.

In either case, I'll refer back to your previous comment about how "the SWO up there took the job of protecting the wildlife and staff in Alert very seriously". I think based upon that statement you'll surely agree that they at least ought to have known about the environmental regulations, and very likely did know? And thus, if either of the proposed scenarios are true, then this was indeed a deliberate choice to violate the law.

Then there's the whole keeping trophies aspect. Obviously unless that one was just completely made up with no basis in fact and no trophy was harvested or kept at all, then there's no justification whatsoever for that.

You‘re not supposed to follow manifestly unlawful orders. QR&O 19.015 has a definition — “A manifestly unlawful command or order is one that would appear to a person of ordinary sense and understanding to be clearly illegal” That leaves a lot of grey area for laws requiring deep technical understanding, such as certain pollution, natural resources and wildlife laws — or indeed if a published CAF or unit policy is not 100% consistent with other legislation. It is indeed interesting that DND itself as an institution is on the charge sheet.

Ordering someone to break the law, when both the person being ordered and the person doing the ordering knows it's against the is by definition manifestly unlawful. It is clearly illegal to order someone to knowingly break the law.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Well, the relevant comments on the reddit thread were based upon rumours that the pair wanted to put an injured caribou out of its misery, and either A) didn't ask the relevant authorities, or B) asked, were told no, and did it anyways.

In either case, I'll refer back to your previous comment about how "the SWO up there took the job of protecting the wildlife and staff in Alert very seriously". I think based upon that statement you'll surely agree that they at least ought to have known about the environmental regulations, and very likely did know? And thus, if either of the proposed scenarios are true, then this was indeed a deliberate choice to violate the law.

Then there's the whole keeping trophies aspect. Obviously unless that one was just completely made up with no basis in fact and no trophy was harvested or kept at all, then there's no justification whatsoever for that.



Ordering someone to break the law, when both the person being ordered and the person doing the ordering knows it's against the is by definition manifestly unlawful. It is clearly illegal to order someone to knowingly break the law.

Because someone thinks it is against the law doesn’t always mean it is against the law. As soon as there is an element of doubt, I would argue it is not manifestly unlawful anymore.

Ordering someone to kill another member: manifestly unlawful.
Ordering someone to kill a wounded animal: I can definitely see grey and would not consider this manifestly unlawful.

 

[Fabius]

Many people commonly mistake the fact that something is legal or illegal according to legislation and regulation for equaling that something is fundamentally right or wrong irrespective of morality and / or circumstance.

The ethical dilemma that a member of the CAF May face is that an action may be legal yet manifestly wrong or immoral (according to various understandings) or conversely illegal yet fundamentally right and morally correct.

The institution does not and likely should not, cannot concern itself with anything other than what the legislation and regulation says, fundamental concepts of right or wrong and morality according to personal beliefs are not supported outside of what the legislation and regulations say.

If a leader decides that the legislation and regulations are wrong in a particular case and decides to act or not act in contravention of the legislation and regulations then they must own the consequences despite them perhaps being fundamentally right and acting in line with moral principles.

The world is not black and white unfortunately (perhaps) legislation and regulations often are.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Ordering someone to break the law, when both the person being ordered and the person doing the ordering knows it's against the is by definition manifestly unlawful. It is clearly illegal to order someone to knowingly break the law.

Didn't realize you were a legal scholar as well as being omnipotent and infallible. Even legality of laws is open to interpretation, and why there are court challenges for that.

Big difference as well between criminal code, legislation and regulation, and environmental rules are constantly being updates and adjusted so it's complicated even for people that work in that field professionally full time, and still plenty of scenarios where you can't simultaneously comply with conflicting regulations in a military context.

Maybe wait to see if any details come out before engaging in speculative fiction? Alternately, try handstands, as that should make it easier to talk out your ass.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

There's a moral and ethical component that needs to be considered.

Do you let the animal suffer? Freeze to death? Or let it stay immobilized while being attacked and eaten alive by carnivores? Or do you do the proper and moral thing and put it out of it's misery. Yes, all those things also happen in nature, but that is part of the cycle of life and are acceptable. When it happens as a result of human intervention and infrastructure, then it becomes our problem to remedy and we should do the right thing for the animal.