New Dress Regs 🤣

[Colin Parkinson]

That's it. It's all a plan by the WEF and Bilderberg Group.

So Logistik Group = Power Corp?

 

[dangerboy]

So the new changes to the dress manual are now online. Dress instructions | Section 2 Appearance - Canada.ca. While I can understand some of the changes I don’t understand others. For example

Old

1. Behaviour. Personnel in uniform shall comport themselves in a manner which projects a positive military appearance. Behaviour such as chewing gum, slouching, placing hands in pockets, smoking or eating on the street and walking hand in hand, is forbidden. This instruction’s objective is to project an image of a disciplined and self-controlled force.

1. Military Presence. Personnel in uniform shall be well groomed, with footwear cleaned and shone, and uniform cleaned and properly pressed. In particular, buttons, fasteners and zippers shall be kept closed; pockets shall not be bulged; items such as glasses, glass cases, sunglasses, pens, pencils, key rings or paper shall not be visibly extended nor protrude from pockets or be suspended from waist belts or pockets; personal cell phones that are conservative in appearance may be worn; headphones shall not be worn; ear buds may be worn when travelling on public transit only. CAF personnel wearing civilian clothes on military installations and in military groups or settings shall dress and comport themselves at all times as befits members of a disciplined, cohesive force.

New

1. Conduct. Personnel in uniform shall comport themselves in a manner which projects a positive military appearance.

1. Military Presence. CAF personnel wearing military uniform and civilian clothes on military installations and in military groups or settings shall dress and comport themselves at all times as befits members of a professional, respectful, disciplined, cohesive force.

I don’t know why they got rid of statements such as slouching, hands in pockets, headphones should not be worn. Now people can do that and say it still projects a positive military appearance. I am old fashion I like examples and clear statements vice really vague statements

Grumblings from a dinosaur. I still need to read past just this initial intro

 

[Furniture]

So the new changes to the dress manual are now online. Dress instructions | Section 2 Appearance - Canada.ca. While I can understand some of the changes I don’t understand others. For example

Old

1. Behaviour. Personnel in uniform shall comport themselves in a manner which projects a positive military appearance. Behaviour such as chewing gum, slouching, placing hands in pockets, smoking or eating on the street and walking hand in hand, is forbidden. This instruction’s objective is to project an image of a disciplined and self-controlled force.
2. Military Presence. Personnel in uniform shall be well groomed, with footwear cleaned and shone, and uniform cleaned and properly pressed. In particular, buttons, fasteners and zippers shall be kept closed; pockets shall not be bulged; items such as glasses, glass cases, sunglasses, pens, pencils, key rings or paper shall not be visibly extended nor protrude from pockets or be suspended from waist belts or pockets; personal cell phones that are conservative in appearance may be worn; headphones shall not be worn; ear buds may be worn when travelling on public transit only. CAF personnel wearing civilian clothes on military installations and in military groups or settings shall dress and comport themselves at all times as befits members of a disciplined, cohesive force.

New

1. Conduct. Personnel in uniform shall comport themselves in a manner which projects a positive military appearance.
2. Military Presence. CAF personnel wearing military uniform and civilian clothes on military installations and in military groups or settings shall dress and comport themselves at all times as befits members of a professional, respectful, disciplined, cohesive force.

I don’t know why they got rid of statements such as slouching, hands in pockets, headphones should not be worn. Now people can do that and say it still projects a positive military appearance. I am old fashion I like examples and clear statements vice really vague statements

Grumblings from a dinosaur. I still need to read past just this initial intro

I like that they are going to a more common sense based approach, and getting rid of rules that were routinely ignored. I think there is still plenty of room for telling a S3/Pte to zip their jacket up, or stop dancing around to their K-Pop while wearing earbuds.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Honestly, its about on par with most civilian dress codes.

The main thing I'm seeing is that its non-gendered, kind of open ended, and specifically stresses safety/operational effectiveness over appearance.

It also seems to be more of a "we're not stopping you, but, the decision to alter your appearance will be on you to maintain and on you to ensure you're functional."

Like I said earlier up post, this is a "Yes, you can if you want to. Doesn't necessarily mean you should."

 

[Jarnhamar]

I don’t know why they got rid of statements such as slouching, hands in pockets, headphones should not be worn.

Seems to me they made it very ambiguous instead.

A unit CO can decide that putting your hands in your pocket doesn't project a positive military appearance.

comport themselves at all times as befits members of a professional, respectful, disciplined, cohesive force.

What does a member of a professional, respectful, disciplined, cohesive force look like? The UK? US?

Like you I'm an examples guy.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Seems to me they made it very ambiguous instead.

A unit CO can decide that putting your hands in your pocket doesn't project a positive military appearance.



What does a member of a professional, respectful, disciplined, cohesive force look like? The UK? US?

Like you I'm an examples guy.

This?

 

[Jarnhamar]

View attachment 72400View attachment 72401This?

Great example.

Interestingly I dug up what I think appears to be their dress regs and they seem strict.

The Military Rules of Appearance and Dress Code

Welcome! Soon you will officially join the IDF, and will receive a Military Identification Card as well as a Dog tags - (“diskit”), and even getting your own uniform. The question is, will you be able to do it right? Keep calm and don't panic, because we have gathered especially for you all of...

www.mitgaisim.idf.il

Hair

1. Male soldiers must have short and even length hair, without layering.

2. Female soldiers are allowed to dye (colour) their hair in only two natural tones, which integrate together. (for example, a single blonde stripe on the side of the hair, is not permitted).

3. Female soldiers (with hair that descends past the collar of the uniform shirt) must have their hair in a ponytail, with black or brown rubber bands only.

4. Hair clippers are not permitted and it is forbidden to wear them. A 'banana pin' that collects the entire hair is permitted as an exception.

5. It is forbiden to have dreadlocks during the military service.

Beard

Soldiers are required to shave their facial hair daily, before the morning lineup or before reaching the base where they serve. Soldier’s may not grow beards or mustaches, unless they have received an exception waiver permitting so.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Great example.

Interestingly I dug up what I think appears to be their dress regs and they seem strict.

The Military Rules of Appearance and Dress Code

Welcome! Soon you will officially join the IDF, and will receive a Military Identification Card as well as a Dog tags - (“diskit”), and even getting your own uniform. The question is, will you be able to do it right? Keep calm and don't panic, because we have gathered especially for you all of...

www.mitgaisim.idf.il

Meanwhile, in Norway:

Norway’s male soldiers allowed ponytails​

Norway's male soldiers will be permitted to sport ponytails and braids under new gender-neutral regulations, Dagbladet has reported.

The new rules follow complaints from a male officer that while female soldiers were allowed to keep their hair in a loose braid or ponytail, man with longer hair had to gather it into a knot or hair net.

Norway’s male soldiers allowed ponytails

Norway's male soldiers will be permitted to sport ponytails and braids under new gender-neutral regulations, Dagbladet has reported.

www.thelocal.no

 

[Navy_Pete]

Allowing ponytails for everyone makes sense to me; if there are no safety issues that prohibit it in one gender doesn't make any sense to restrict it for anyone else.

Beards, and facial piercings can have genuine safety issues though so pretty frustrating that these guidelines didn't come with very clear direction on what exactly is specifically excluded (ie beard with FF mask/C4) so now we have to argue with every armchair expert who saw something on youtube, or has a buddy who knows a guy. Now it's left up to the unit level where they don't have the expertise, or are even aware in a lot of cases what the actual CAF policies/safety related requirements are.

 

[Furniture]

Allowing ponytails for everyone makes sense to me; if there are no safety issues that prohibit it in one gender doesn't make any sense to restrict it for anyone else.

Beards, and facial piercings can have genuine safety issues though so pretty frustrating that these guidelines didn't come with very clear direction on what exactly is specifically excluded (ie beard with FF mask/C4) so now we have to argue with every armchair expert who saw something on youtube, or has a buddy who knows a guy. Now it's left up to the unit level where they don't have the expertise, or are even aware in a lot of cases what the actual CAF policies/safety related requirements are.

Those sorts of restrictions belong in the safety orders for each unit, not in a national dress regulation. In much the same way that the dress of the day for the NCR isn't listed in the dress regs.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Now it's left up to the unit level where they don't have the expertise

This is probably the biggest Crux for me.

I'm very much against micromanaging in all things. However when it comes to dress regs I think "lower level interpretation" isn't the best solution because units will do what they want (think beardforgen) and young troops and officers will hold the shitty end of that stick.

We can't trust the CAF to treat sexually harassed and assaulted members fairly, I don't have a lot of faith dress regs will be different. Ambiguous rules won't help at all IMO.

 

[daftandbarmy]

This is probably the biggest Crux for me.

I'm very much against micromanaging in all things. However when it comes to dress regs I think "lower level interpretation" isn't the best solution because units will do what they want (think beardforgen) and young troops and officers will hold the shitty end of that stick.

We can't trust the CAF to treat sexually harassed and assaulted members fairly, I don't have a lot of faith dress regs will be different. Ambiguous rules won't help at all IMO.

We all know what's going to happen in many units, don't we?

 

[SupersonicMax]

We all know what's going to happen in many units, don't we?

Meanwhile, in the RCAF:

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Meanwhile, in the RCAF:

 

[Navy_Pete]

Those sorts of restrictions belong in the safety orders for each unit, not in a national dress regulation. In much the same way that the dress of the day for the NCR isn't listed in the dress regs.

I disagree that it should be left up to unit safety orders; there are safety organizations for each element that should issue clarifying directives.

For example, the RCN safety folks should be reminding the RCN that people wearing SCBAs need to be clean shaven on the sealing area IAW the Respiratory Protection Program (RPP), which is a CAF wide one.

With no fire fighters on board, and with disbandment of HTs, very few people on ships have any idea the RPP exists (and even the NAVORD on religious accomodations missed it).

Unit safety level direction is only appropriate when the knowledge is at unit level. Some things require SMEs.

 

[Kilted]

After that its all sold at CANEX at your expense, no more freebees. Operational equipment being the exception. When people have to pay cash to replace kit watch how fast they start to take care of it and keep in shape to make it fit.

I don't know where you draw the line between uniforms or operational equipment. I'd hate to see how much they would sell CADPAT for, and the way that the C-of-C would abuse the process by forcing troops to replace uniforms that are the slightest bit faded, worn out, or ripped (to the extent that it can be sewed up) because it would actually be doing able without having someone at stores to tell them that the uniform is faded/worn out/ripped enough.

 

[OldSolduer]

I don't know where you draw the line between uniforms or operational equipment. I'd hate to see how much they would sell CADPAT for, and the way that the C-of-C would abuse the process by forcing troops to replace uniforms that are the slightest bit faded, worn out, or ripped (to the extent that it can be sewed up) because it would actually be doing able without having someone at stores to tell them that the uniform is faded/worn out/ripped enough.

CADPAT is an operational uniform.

 

[Furniture]

I disagree that it should be left up to unit safety orders; there are safety organizations for each element that should issue clarifying directives.

For example, the RCN safety folks should be reminding the RCN that people wearing SCBAs need to be clean shaven on the sealing area IAW the Respiratory Protection Program (RPP), which is a CAF wide one.

With no fire fighters on board, and with disbandment of HTs, very few people on ships have any idea the RPP exists (and even the NAVORD on religious accomodations missed it).

Unit safety level direction is only appropriate when the knowledge is at unit level. Some things require SMEs.

Sounds great, still not something that needs to be, or should be part of dress regulations.

If there are deficiencies in the CAFs safely rules, or safety training/awareness those should be addressed in the safety rules/training.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Sounds great, still not something that needs to be, or should be part of dress regulations.

If there are deficiencies in the CAFs safely rules, or safety training/awareness those should be addressed in the safety rules/training.

I agree?

The amplifying info should come from the respective safety orgs to remind people what the regs are. They haven't done it (with the RCN actually pushing for beards in SCBA pretty much every year for the last decade, with the same answer).

It's pretty obvious though if there is a massive update to dress regs, and you have caveats that there are safety/operational restrictions, the folks responsible for those caveats should maybe do something. A recommendation went their way to that effect about a year ago.

 

[btrudy]

I agree?

The amplifying info should come from the respective safety orgs to remind people what the regs are. They haven't done it (with the RCN actually pushing for beards in SCBA pretty much every year for the last decade, with the same answer).

It's pretty obvious though if there is a massive update to dress regs, and you have caveats that there are safety/operational restrictions, the folks responsible for those caveats should maybe do something. A recommendation went their way to that effect about a year ago.

I mean, I suppose it might be helpful from a messaging perspective, but the orders in place for safety reasons are still perfectly valid. The update to the dress instructions was, after all, quite clear on the point that safety trumps all. Heck, if specifically mentioned the respiratory protection policy as an example of such restrictions above and beyond dress regulations.

Not to mention that I think you're being a bit premature about the whole "Why isn't anyone saying anything", given that the new dress instructions still don't come into force for almost another month.