Sexual Assault & Sexual Misconduct in the CF

[mariomike]

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

Reminds me of something Tao Te Ching reportedly said. 

'Those who know do not speak. Those who speak do not know.'

 

[Edward Campbell]

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.

:bravo: Exactly!!!

 

[The Bread Guy]

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.

QFTFT

 

[Jungle]

- 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.

The asylum where the inmates are in charge... This is also known as carte blanche, or the absence of leadership.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Ok- look, NO!

It is a relatively recent phenomenon that the Cadet Wing at the military colleges were not (fairly) self regulating- ie the more senior cadets were responsible for leading and disciplining the more junior cadets.

It was not a perfect system and more than a few eggs got broken in process, but by and large the cadets rose to the challenge and led each other in an acceptable, and often, exemplary fashion.

Then, about 20 years ago, someone decided that was "too risky", and injected all sorts of leadership and supervision on the Cadet Wing and removed much of their responsibility. What do you suppose happened next?

The Cadets stopped giving a crap about leadership and discipline because it was someone else's job, that's what. Think about your own units and situations.  Which do you prefer- being given a free hand and lots of responsibility (and being held accountable) or being micromanaged?

This is not rocket science. The Cadets at RMCC could be leading troops in combat in as little as 4 years after walking in the door. Had we not be making them practice leading from day one?

 

[Jungle]

This is not rocket science. The Cadets at RMCC could be leading troops in combat in as little as 4 years after walking in the door. Had we not be making them practice leading from day one?

Yes, with a Warrant Officer by their side, and a group of Sgts and Mcpls to command the sections in the platoon. If a qualified young platoon commander is not left to his own device, I can't see why we would do it with even younger, potential future platoon commanders.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Ok- look, NO!

It is a relatively recent phenomenon that the Cadet Wing at the military colleges were not (fairly) self regulating- ie the more senior cadets were responsible for leading and disciplining the more junior cadets.

It was not a perfect system and more than a few eggs got broken in process, but by and large the cadets rose to the challenge and led each other in an acceptable, and often, exemplary fashion.

Then, about 20 years ago, someone decided that was "too risky", and injected all sorts of leadership and supervision on the Cadet Wing and removed much of their responsibility. What do you suppose happened next?

The Cadets stopped giving a crap about leadership and discipline because it was someone else's job, that's what. Think about your own units and situations.  Which do you prefer- being given a free hand and lots of responsibility (and being held accountable) or being micromanaged?

This is not rocket science. The Cadets at RMCC could be leading troops in combat in as little as 4 years after walking in the door. Had we not be making them practice leading from day one?

Ridiculous. And negligent IMHO.

Sandhurst has similar 'Cadet Government' system and it works very well for self-managing the organization.

 

[Strike]

Has anyone not thought that maybe, just maybe, the speaker asked that no staff be present?  Kind of like Padre Power Hour?  After all, when staff are there, the students are less likely to bring up any taboo subjects.  So we can harp on the staff all we want, but we just don't know what the speaker asked.

 

[Old Sweat]

Strike may have a point, but if this was at the request of the speaker, it indicates a level of not understanding her audience that is quite astounding.

If the Cadet Wing is supposed to police itself, is this the time to fire the Cadet Wing Commander. He or she did not maintain good order and discipline and surely has lost the confidence of the Commandant and his chain of command.

Note, if it was not glaringly obvious by now, I did not attend any of the service colleges, so I am speaking as an outsider about matters.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Has anyone not thought that maybe, just maybe, the speaker asked that no staff be present?

If this was the case:
1)  The "self-managing" cadets still appear to have been less than fully "self-managed".
2)  Is it still OK for troops to get out of line when their bosses aren't around?

 

[Jarnhamar]

There's something I read that I don't understand.  A cadet made a complaint of  sexual nature and then quickly withdrew the complaint. (The guy was taken out of class then had his privileges reinstated).

Why wouldn't the chain of command behave like the police? If someone makes a complaint then they follow it up regardless if the complainant changes their mind. ie the whole my husband/wife hit me but I don't want to press charges anymore.

Wouldn't the chain of command want to know what was going on and why someone made a complaint then changed their mind?

 

[medicineman]

Strike may have a point, but if this was at the request of the speaker, it indicates a level of not understanding her audience that is quite astounding.

Of course this is the cynic in me talking, but knowing some history of how much this person likes to listen to herself speak and perhaps cause a fuss, maybe she did exactly understand her audience and had the staff not attend with the sole purpose of these people "proving her point" for her?

:2c:

MM

 

[Strike]

If this was the case:
1)  The "self-managing" cadets still appear to have been less than fully "self-managed".
2)  Is it still OK for troops to get out of line when their bosses aren't around?

Not arguing any of those points.  Just rebutting the comments others were making wondering where the staff was at.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I know the speaker may have asked staff to stay away, but, were it my unit:

    1. Given that I ordered my people to parade for a briefing on a weekend; and

          2. Unless the speaker was a known quantity, like a military chaplain; then

              3. I and my RSM and my sub-unit officers commanding and their sergeants major would all have been there, too.

A guest might ask to speak to a group without the presence of superiors but it is my command decision to grant that request, or not.

 

[pbi]

I know the speaker may have asked staff to stay away, but, were it my unit:

    1. Given that I ordered my people to parade for a briefing on a weekend; and

          2. Unless the speaker was a known quantity, like a military chaplain; then

              3. I and my RSM and my sub-unit officers commanding and their sergeants major would all have been there, too.

A guest might ask to speak to a group without the presence of superiors but it is my command decision to grant that request, or not.

This is what I meant.

 

[Jungle]

I know the speaker may have asked staff to stay away, but, were it my unit:

    1. Given that I ordered my people to parade for a briefing on a weekend; and

          2. Unless the speaker was a known quantity, like a military chaplain; then

              3. I and my RSM and my sub-unit officers commanding and their sergeants major would all have been there, too.

A guest might ask to speak to a group without the presence of superiors but it is my command decision to grant that request, or not.

Exactly; it comes down to the basic leadersip principle that "one can delegate authority, but cannot delegate responsibility".

 

[McG]

The Ombudsman office weighs in, apparently setting the narrative for it to become the independent investigative panel.

Message from the Ombudsman
Clarifying Office’s Mandate on Sexual Harassment and Assault
28 May 2015

The Office of the Ombudsman for the Department of National Defence and Canadian Forces was established in 1998 under Ministerial authority in large part as a response to media reports of sexual assaults and sexual misconduct in the Canadian Forces. However, the first Ombudsman, the Department of National Defence and the government of the day negotiated a mandate that excluded the powers necessary to look into individual sexual harassment and assault issues.

Since then, every appointed Ombudsman has urged that the Office’s mandate be legislated to allow for broader powers beyond those currently granted by the Minister of National Defence. Maybe it is time.

Despite limited powers to assist victims of sexual assault and sexual harassment, the Ombudsman’s Office remains the only organization independent of the military chain of command and civilian management that is able to provide oversight and ensure procedural fairness in cases of reported sexual harassment. Granted that our ability to assist is restricted – particularly with regard to alleged sexual assault, which is a serious criminal matter requiring police investigation – we nevertheless help victims of alleged assaults by ensuring that they are referred to the appropriate police, medical and counselling services.

In cases of sexual harassment, with the permission of the complainant we can engage the chain of command to inform them we will be tracking how the case is handled through existing departmental and military mechanisms on the member’s behalf. This is an important oversight to ensure procedural fairness for the individual.

The recent Deschamps Report contained an assertion that the Ombudsman’s Office, in the opinion of Justice Deschamps, is not the place where victims of alleged sexual harassment or sexual assault should go. The fact remains that there are no other independent organizations where those affected feel they can go.

Of note, my Office has consistently flagged concerns that sexual harassment incidence rates were being significantly understated by both the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence. In 2012, we testified twice on this issue before the Status of Women’s Parliamentary Committee.

During the November 22, 2012 Committee hearing, a senior National Defence official testified that there was a (founded) sexual harassment incidence rate of just one case per year for the entire department and Canadian Forces over the previous 10 year period. During the December 4, 2012 Committee hearing, this Office’s acting Director General of Operations stated there was a disconnect between departmental reporting and actual incidence rates. He referred to Canadian Forces harassment survey results, which showed that 14% of women felt they were sexually harassed – a huge contrast to the number that is actually reported. He explained that a fear of reprisal, delays in complaint processing, and lack of real consequence for wrongdoing were reasons people do not come forward on alleged sexual harassment.

The fear of re-victimization on the part of sexual assault victims has been well documented in Canadian society in general. Clearly, the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence need to do far more to combat the problem within its own ranks. Canadian Armed Forces leadership has acknowledged as much in their response to the Deschamps Report.

Given that individual case files are held by the Ombudsman’s Office in strict confidence – one of the key tenets of any Ombudsman’s Office – I was not able to participate in Madame Deschamps anecdotal review of the experiences of individual members of the Canadian Forces. I explained those reasons in a letter I sent to her on November 7, 2014. I did provide statistical data, however.

As Ombudsman for the Department of National Defence and Canadian Forces I do not have an advocacy role for individuals. I do, however, advocate fairness for both individual and institution alike. Impartiality and independence are vital to being effective. With 17 years of proven success in helping resolve more than 20,000 cases – many of which were complex – my Office stands ready to assist the Canadian Armed Forces and National Defence to whatever level is required, in order to improve the way individuals with sexual harassment and assault allegations are treated.

Statistics  - Since January 1, 2007, the Ombudsman’s Office responded to 586 contacts related to harassment, 31 of which related specifically to sexual harassment.



Gary Walbourne
Ombudsman

http://www.ombudsman.forces.gc.ca/en/ombudsman-news-events-messages/clarify-mandate-sexual-assault-harassment.page

 

[pbi]

The Ombudsman office weighs in, apparently setting the narrative for it to become the independent investigative panel.http://www.ombudsman.forces.gc.ca/en/ombudsman-news-events-messages/clarify-mandate-sexual-assault-harassment.page

Well, probably the best outcome of a range of bad ones.

 

[McG]

I suppose so.

 

[a_majoor]

Well, it certainly didn't take long to go down the road US colleges and Universities are already on.

There misleading "statistics" about rape and sexual assault there were used to set up "star chambers" where allegations of assault and rape are heard, often without the accused knowing the facts, being allowed representation or the ability to defend themselves. This is even more egregious given that rape is a felony crime in the United States, and anyone accused of such an offence outside of any US college or university is given their full due process rights, not to mention the complaint is investigated by professionally trained police investigators. Say what you will about the US police or justice system, it is still orders of magnitude more professional and competent than a bunch of university administrators in conducting investigations and making determinations of guilt or innocence.

For the previous Canadian example of loss of due process rights and making a mockery of "justice", one only has to look at the so called Human Rights Commissions and Human Rights Tribunals.

Lets face it, while there is no excuse for sexual misconduct, there is also no excuse for creating "narratives" or eliminating people's due process rights. If the CoC is presented an allegation of a crime (and rape and sexual abuse are indeed crimes), then turn the investigation over to the competent authority: the Police. You could argue that the specific force should be the NIS, RCMP or local force that the base/unit is resident of, but that is splitting hairs.

It is far past time the military stops being a bunching bag for whatever cause de jour is out there. The Military CoC should tell the Ombudsman and all the other "agencies" eager to expand their powers to stuff it; criminal investigations will be carried out by competent authorities, not self appointed "star chambers". The 1-800 chain of command nonsense has caused far more confusion and thrown more sand in the gears rather than "solve" any problems that I can see. We know what works, use the tools that exist properly.