New Post Guidelines [Not Site Policy, But a Disagreement]

[Towards_the_gap]

Sorry to butt in here but surely I, and others on this site, DO have a right to discuss the why's and wherefore's of Afghanistan seeing as it is us who are likely to get killed over there?

As long as it does not cross the line into mutiny or open revolt, what is the problem? We are the professional army of a democratic country. This is not the wehrmacht.

 

[Jammer]

How in heavens name do you expect a young troop to know what is right/wrong to talk about?
Perhaps you could come up with an exhaustive list for the great unwashed to follow.

Sarcasm infused...only one pot of coffee downrange this morning.

 

[vonGarvin]

As long as it does not cross the line into mutiny or open revolt, what is the problem? We are the professional army of a democratic country. This is not the wehrmacht.

I agree.  We aren't a perfect army now, are we?


>

 

[SeanNewman]

How in heavens name do you expect a young troop to know what is right/wrong to talk about?

What answer do you think is more right?

1 - In order to inform them, I tell them that they can't just write opinions about whatever they want; or

2 - You tell them that since they can't possibly know all the rules of the CF, they should follow the website rules instead.

 

[Loachman]

View 2: Even though this website may allow opinions on everything, people in the CF still have to follow rules of their employer because this is a public media outlet.  You can still give opinions on things in your arcs (like what you think of the new C9 if you've used it, etc), just not on things that only the CDS should be talking to the media about (or in some cases troops are even giving opinions on things he wouldn't).

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/9.html#anchorsc:7

CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms
Rights and freedoms in Canada

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Fundamental Freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

PART VII

GENERAL

Primacy of Constitution of Canada

52. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.

And that includes the NDA, and any regulations made under it - like QR&Os.

 

[vonGarvin]

In accordance with the CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS, I believe and express my opinion that I will have a second cup of coffee this am.

 

[SeanNewman]

Well, if you want to play the "Reference Game", then let me bring to your attention the extra laws that apply to us:

CF administrative orders, particularly Volume 1, Chapter 19, Para 19.14:

No officer or non-commissioned member shall do or say anything that:
(a) if seen or heard by any member of the public, might reflect discredit on the Canadian Forces or on any of its members;

Or, DAOD 2008-2 if you prefer, that lays out that the MND is the only person who can speak for the activities of the CF as a whole.  Yes you can comment on things that you are damn sure of their factual acuracy, but you can NOT give opinions on things you don't have the facts on.

Not to the media, not on this board, not anywhere.

You are in the wrong on this one, and you are violating laws by suggesting it is okay for soldiers to give opinions on this board about whatever they want.

 

[Jammer]

What answer do you think is more right?

1 - In order to inform them, I tell them that they can't just write opinions about whatever they want; or

2 - You tell them that since they can't possibly know all the rules of the CF, they should follow the website rules instead.

...here we go again.
Don't turn around...oh oh oh oh...D, D, D, Da Commissar is in town...oh oh oh oh...

 

[SeanNewman]

Jammer,

It is unfortunate that we can not discuss this more maturely.  Quite poor form to result to name calling, etc.

At the end of the day, I am honestly quite stunned that you - wearing a rank of leadership in the CF - are being so adamant about not having to follow its rules.

And what is your reasoning to not have to follow them?  Because not all soldiers can know them all?  Well that's great advice; just tell them they don't have to follow rules they don't know yet instead of leading them down the right path.

 

[George Wallace]

Actually Petamocto, I think you are making quite an ass of yourself.  Discussing politics is well within the realm of all Canadians.  The fact that we can speculate about what decissions the Canadian Government may make is a sign of our freedoms.  If you, for some warped reason, feel that the Code of Service Discipline, QR&Os, CFAOs, DAODs, LFCADs, or whatever other CF Policy/Regulation/Dictate should stiffle these freedoms, then feel free to do so.  We, however, have just as many rights to disagree with your opinions. 

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

No officer or non-commissioned member shall do or say anything that:
(a) if seen or heard by any member of the public, might reflect discredit on the Canadian Forces or on any of its members;

Or, DAOD 2008-2 if you prefer, that lays out that the MND is the only person who can speak for the activities of the CF as a whole.  Yes you can comment on things that you are damn sure of their factual acuracy, but you can NOT give opinions on things you don't have the facts on.

WHAT?!?

This is the stupidest statement I've read this week,.....what if the "factual acuracy" brings discredit to CF?

But Petamocto said that as long as.........

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

..and based on a "Report to Moderator" message I'm going to lock this until this evening so that folks can have a good think about what they wish to say without the personal attacks.

See ya around 22:30.

 

[Loachman]

Well, if you want to play the "Reference Game", then let me bring to your attention the extra laws that apply to us:

CF administrative orders, particularly Volume 1, Chapter 19, Para 19.14:

No officer or non-commissioned member shall do or say anything that:
(a) if seen or heard by any member of the public, might reflect discredit on the Canadian Forces or on any of its members;

Or, DAOD 2008-2 if you prefer, that lays out that the MND is the only person who can speak for the activities of the CF as a whole.  Yes you can comment on things that you are damn sure of their factual acuracy, but you can NOT give opinions on things you don't have the facts on.

Not to the media, not on this board, not anywhere.

You are in the wrong on this one, and you are violating laws by suggesting it is okay for soldiers to give opinions on this board about whatever they want.

Those are not "laws".

Those are "regulations", made pursuant to the NDA, which is the "law".

There are good laws, and there are bad laws.

That is why we have courts and a Constitution.

Now, what part of "any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect" do you not understand?

The Constitution and Charter trump the NDA.

This is why sections of the NDA and regulations pertaining to "sexual deviancy" (as it was worded in the seventies) no longer exist.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

You do know that most of us do have our bosses read this site. Some of our bosses even know who we are. Believe I am sure if there was an issue something would have been said before now.

EDIT: Sorry Bruce did not see your lock.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

This topic is now unlocked. I did not 'clean' up any of the posts but I would hope those involved have now had time to think about the way they wish to present their arguements.

Best behaviour folks.

 

[SeanNewman]

Bruce,

I understand your intent, but Jammer and I aren't teenagers who post out of rage and I am sure that just as I thought carefully about what I was writing that he did, too.

As for you stating "that's the stupidest statement I've read all week" about a CFAO, then I'm not really sure where else I can go with this argument.

Someone says something is okay, I present the rule from the CF that it is not, and then get told it's stupid.  Who was it that needed the break, here?

 

[Jammer]

I have to agree with Petamocto.
To label a statement as stupid is perhaps a tad bit harsh. We disagree on one level, but fundamentally we know where each other is coming from.

 

[gcclarke]

It comes down to how to interpret the regulations in question. Quite frankly, this particular website does a rather good job of enforcing reasonable discussion. And I rather doubt that anyone would interpret any reasonable discussion on any issue as reflecting discredit upon the CF or its members. Even if, during the course of said discussion, a member expresses an opinion that is not fully in line with current government priorities. Nor do I believe that any reasonable person would confuse someone posting upon here as "speaking for the Canadian Forces as a whole". Unless of course said poster had been confirmed to be the Minister of National Defence, but that's another issue.

Even if I state that I think that we should have gone ahead and pushed through with the JSS procurement process, rather than rejecting the bids that were provided, everyone is probably smart enough to figure out that I'm speaking as Mr. Clarke, a concerned citizen utilizing his freedom of speech, rather than Lt(N) Clarke speaking on behalf of the Canadian Armed Forces.

Now, if I were instead to state that everyone in cabinet are fools for getting us our new ships, and I should know because I'm a Naval Officer, well, that likely would be reflecting discredit upon the Canadian Forces. But I'm not saying that. And, for the most part, neither are others posting upon this board.

It is perfectly reasonable to discuss issues, even those relating to the CF and governmental policy that affects the CF.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I said the statement was stupid, and I still say it.

There is nothing personal there, as I'm probably good for about 3 stupid statements per day,........and I like me.

 

[SeanNewman]

I have to agree with Petamocto.

Damn you and your courteous chivalry!  After such a respectful and dignified truce, I must respectfully bow to your character.