Sexual Assault & Sexual Misconduct in the CF

[The Bread Guy]

I'm going to throw something a bit different into the mix - I spotted this in one of the stories:

.... This is a presentation Lalonde said she has given more than 100 times, from Grade 6 students to other members of the military at Canadian Forces Base Petawawa. Never had she been treated in such an aggressive way ....

Anyone have a chance to sit in on one of the Petawawa briefings?  Why no fracas out of that?  How is it that folks there were better behaved than at RMC?

 

[armyvern]

I'm going to throw something a bit different into the mix - I spotted this in one of the stories:Anyone have a chance to sit in on one of the Petawawa briefings?  Why no fracas out of that?  How is it that folks there were better behaved than at RMC?

Lurking RSMs ... 

 

[The Bread Guy]

Lurking RSMs ... 

Good point ....

 

[pbi]

...What we want NEED is an internal and external investigation to see what the events were. Many in the RMC circle are claiming that Ms Lalonde was quite provocative in her portrayal of the young men there which caused the reaction she received. Maybe this is the case, maybe it isn't. But by examining her character as part of a larger investigation we could actually come to a real conclusion, pinpoint actual, not perceived problems, and come up with targetted, reasoned responses to attack core problems. What I fear we're going to see is one side taken verbatem and excessive action taken.

I tend to agree with you here, although should the investigation substantiate it, I'm for exemplary punishment.

As for the arsonist comment, dont we do this with politicians all the time? For example, does the NDP MLA in Alberta taking a pic giving the Canadian flag the bird reflect on her ability to represent her constituents any more than a harrassment advisor publishing pictures and opinions that are anti-men, anti-religion? And once the person loses credibility do we just ignore the parts that indicate hypocrisy or poor judgement and focus solely on the other parts of her character? If the arsonist told me my house was on fire I wouldn't ignore it, but I sure as f**k would be real skeptical about how the fire started in the first place.

Yes, we may "do it all the time", but it's a logical fallacy.  Just because a person acts in a way we don't like, or even is legally or morally wrong, in no way implies that everything they say is therefore also false. If this were true, police would never rely on informants or stool-pigeons, many of whom are nasty people.

As you might know from my earlier rants elsewhere on this site about Rob Ford, I am a big believer in character as a prerequisite for leaders. But even Ford said things that were true. Ms Lalonde may have terrible character-I don't know much about her other than her rather stupid picture posting-but that doesn't mean there is no truth in what she says.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

I tend to agree with you here, although should the investigation substantiate it, I'm for exemplary punishment.

Yes, we may "do it all the time", but it's a logical fallacy.  Just because a person acts in a way we don't like, or even is legally or morally wrong, in no way implies that everything they say is therefore also false. If this were true, police would never rely on informants or stool-pigeons, many of whom are nasty people.

As you might know from my earlier rants elsewhere on this site about Rob Ford, I am a big believer in character as a prerequisite for leaders. But even Ford said things that were true. Ms Lalonde may have terrible character-I don't know much about her other than her rather stupid picture posting-but that doesn't mean there is no truth in what she says.

I agree that if they're found to have been unprovoked and ignorant in the way that she states than they should, at minimum, lose their commissions and be released as we dont need that in our leaders.

 

[Strike]

I'm going to throw something a bit different into the mix - I spotted this in one of the stories:Anyone have a chance to sit in on one of the Petawawa briefings?  Why no fracas out of that?  How is it that folks there were better behaved than at RMC?

And the fact that there is such silence from anyone out of Pet on the topic, even here on the site, makes me wonder about the veracity of that statement.

 

[McG]

New sex assault allegations at RMC announced today.  This has not been a positive week for the institution.

Royal Military College facing new cadet assault allegation
On same week as alleged incident, 2 officer cadets before courts martial on other sexual assault allegations
JAMES CUDMORE, CBC NEWS
27 May 2015

CBC News has learned military police are investigating a new allegation that a cadet was sexually assaulted at the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ont.

The assault is alleged to have taken place on May 13, the day before the college's high-profile convocation.

Capt. Joanne Labonte said the military's sensitive investigation squad is handling the case.

"This alleged sexual assault was brought to the attention of the military police by a third party complainant," Labonte wrote in an email to CBC News.

"The Canadian Forces National Investigation Service are investigating this matter and no further information can be offered at this time."

The same week the assault is alleged to have taken place, two officer cadets from the college were brought before courts martial to answer to earlier unrelated allegations of sexual assault.

In one case, a cadet is accused of assaulting two female cadets in separate incidents.

In the other case, a cadet was found guilty of the lesser offence of assault. Officer Cadet J.C. Scott was sentenced to a  severe reprimand and a fine of $2,000.

Officials at RMC tell CBC News the school takes sexual misconduct seriously and is crafting a new campaign to deal with the issue.

The details of the new case are still unclear.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/royal-military-college-facing-new-cadet-assault-allegation-1.3089634

 

[Brad Sallows]

There is a tension here between the duty to be a good listener and the duty to be a credible messenger.

The more the topic hews to moral and ethical issues, the more the responsibility falls on the latter side.  The younger the audience, the more the responsibility falls on the latter side.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

In the other case, a cadet was found guilty of the lesser offence of assault. Officer Cadet J.C. Scott was sentenced to a  severe reprimand and a fine of $2,000.

Seriously??  Really??  Are you freakin' kidding me??  Someday some hard-working, honest, salt of the earth Sgt. will have to salute this guy??
Well I guess if you won't get rid of a scab when he or she are at their lowest level, they figure they're untouchable once they get some TI,......and it seems they are correct.
No wonder the leadership of the CAF is rapidly becoming a very unfunny joke.......and it hurts this old guy so much to say that.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Bruce,

Not defending the young lad but two things come to mind:

First, the "leadership" of the CF did not find him guilt sentence and sentence him- a judge in a court martial did. Unless you are suggesting judges face command influence? In any case, how do you know if he now faces an admin review and possible release, or not?

Second, perhaps we should all wait until the judgement is published on the JAG website and actually read it, before we rush to judge on how the Judge erred in sentencing...

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

You are correct of course, but just as a Judge mostly sentences along the guidelines that society expects, I would assume a military judge would sentence somewhat to what the military expects...............so yes, they do 'face' command influence.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Bruce,

My limited experience with military Judges is that they apply the law. Period. They really don't care what Commanders think, except in the sense that they might offer either evidence or that they might provide tidbits useful for sentencing.

Again, in this case, nothing precludes the CoC from initiating administrative action. That is firmly a Commander's decision.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Agreed, for conviction I'm sure they do, but I'm having issues with the sentencing here, and I am pretty sure that "the law" has no reprimands as a sentencing tool.

Though like you said, it would be prudent to see what the JAG website says.

 

[FJAG]

You are correct of course, but just as a Judge mostly sentences along the guidelines that society expects, I would assume a military judge would sentence somewhat to what the military expects...............so yes, they do 'face' command influence.

Bruce

That's a complete misstatement of what command influence is and you know it.

The most obvious conclusion in a case where an person accused of sexual assault is convicted of assault instead is that the judge has found that on the facts of the case the crown has proven that an assault has taken place but has failed to prove that there was a sexual component to the assault.

In its simplest terms, an assault is an application of force to another person without that person's consent. A sexual assault in its simplest terms is an assault of a sexual nature that violates the sexual integrity of the victim. A sexual assault does not have to be a rape, it can be far short of that.

The sentencing factors that are used by military judges are derived primarily from the same principles used by civilian judges. Military judge's decisions, when appealed, are reviewed by civilian appeal judges.

There are recognized factors that relate to military activity such as the requirement to maintain discipline, the fact that more senior members may carry more responsibility than more junior ones for the same act, etc, but there is absolutely no input from the chain of command about these issues.

:cheers:

 

[FJAG]

Agreed, for conviction I'm sure they do, but I'm having issues with the sentencing here, and I am pretty sure that "the law" has no reprimands as a sentencing tool.

Though like you said, it would be prudent to see what the JAG website says.

I'm not sure how you can have an issue with the sentence when you do not yet know of what actual circumstances the cadet was convicted of. If he was a first offender (and I assume as a cadet he probably was) and in the case of a simple assault, a $2,000 fine is not an unusual sentence for a civilian. Very few people go to jail on a simple assault.

You are right that a civilian would not face a severe reprimand. This sentence is disciplinary in character and is:

"intended to reflect a sanction against misconduct related to the rank and status of the offender. The punishments of a severe reprimand and a reprimand are intended to stand out as a blemish on the career record of the offender. In imposing this punishment recognition should be given to the place which these punishments hold on the scale of punishments. A severe reprimand is higher on the scale of punishments than a reprimand. They are both higher on the scale of punishments than fines and minor punishments. They are not subject to automatic removal from the member's conduct sheet after one year."

In other words the court has indicated some extreme censure here as the next higher punishment would be a form of detention (actually reduction in rank and loss of seniority fall between detention and severe reprimand but those aren't much of an option with a cadet) Quite frankly his career is probably toast.

:cheers:

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Consider something else in this sentence. An Officer Cadet makes, what? About $18,000 per year?

He was fined 1/9th of his annual salary. For say, a Major, to get an equivalent fine would  be something over $10,000 dollars. Have ever heard of a fine that large? Me neither. The Judge threw the book at him, relative to what he was charged with.

To speak nothing of what admin action he is probably facing, too. He is probably going to be shortly out of a job, too, if I don't miss my guess.

 

[Underway]

RMC as a school is no different than any other university in many ways.  As a mature student currently attending a Civi U there are unfortunately plenty of similar "assaults" that take place in residences and across campus.  This is why campuses have emergency phones and dozens of help organizations.  I can't speak to the culture of RMC directly or whether the incidences of this sort of behaviour is higher or lower than Civi U but I can say that because the military tracks this stuff and deals with it in house it becomes public record.  At a Civi institution this sort of thing becomes part of the legal system and after the initial rumour mill disappears off the radar.

Admin action is comming for this OCdt.  He's going to be released from RMC or at the very least be on CMP.  Officer like quality complete failure.  RMC has ways to remove cadets (chit system if I recall) and its far easier to do at this stage of their career than after they graduate, when the institution is now responsible for them.  As he's been found guilty I wouldn't be surprised if he's out relatively quickly.

As for why this Speaker was treated badly I can tell you here's what likely happened for some of the students:
- cadets were told they would LOSE their weekend for this seminar.  People HATE that, esp students who are managed so tightly throughout the week with every minute accounted for.
- they do some google fu on this speaker and find all her twitter, FB and political posts, angering them more.  Some automatically have it in for her now no matter what she says as they see her as pushing some sort of message that they don't like.
- being university students they have decided that she's going to be challenged, they are going to argue and disagree and push her to defend her point of view
- being young they don't know how to do the above in a polite way or know when to shut up when they are getting upset
- they go to the lecture but here is the main issue with RMC -  the senior students are in charge of the Jr students.  I guarantee no one from Sgt or above showed up to this thing.  Right off the bat you have the blind leading the blind.  One RSM, Capt or Sgt would have just had to stand up and glare down one disrespectful comment and this probably would have been shut down.  What are you gonna do if you are a senior student?  Try to shut down your peers and then face the consequences?  No chance.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I do a lot of public speaking for my job and it continues to be one of the toughest things I have ever done. One mistake, and the audience can turn on you like a pack of wild dogs. Of course, in such situations, the worst thing is that you have no one to blame but yourself.

It sounds like she may have missed a few of these 'lessons learned':

http://www.genardmethod.com/blog-detail/view/110/the-10-biggest-public-speaking-errors-and-how-to-avoid-them#.VWiTGE13vF8

 

[dapaterson]

From the ongoing court-martial in Kingston, a second individual is testifying.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/cadet-raped-her-royal-military-college-dorm-officer-testifies

 

[pbi]

...they go to the lecture but here is the main issue with RMC -  the senior students are in charge of the Jr students.  I guarantee no one from Sgt or above showed up to this thing.  Right off the bat you have the blind leading the blind.  One RSM, Capt or Sgt would have just had to stand up and glare down one disrespectful comment and this probably would have been shut down.  What are you gonna do if you are a senior student?  Try to shut down your peers and then face the consequences?  No chance.

This is my concern (admittedly knowing very little about what happened): where was the military leadership of the College? If they were there, and did nothing, then I'm not so sure I would go after the cadets: maybe the military leadership are the ones needing their chains jerked. If they weren't there, it's not much better. When you send the troops out to do something that you know they really, really don't want to do (especially on a weekend!), in my experience you better be there along with them.

But, as has been noted a few times now, most of us on this page probably don't know what really happened.