Sexual Assault & Sexual Misconduct in the CF

[BeyondTheNow]

I've been keeping an eye on this thread and while I'm sorry that the female in question had such a horrible experience that she felt the need to exit the military environment altogether, I feel I must speak up from the unique position as a recruit who spent well over a year at the school on multiple platoons, as well as regularly engaging with instructors and various staff/ranks of the school on a regular basis.

Firstly, I'll be clear. Are there blatant examples of inappropriate statements or conduct exhibited from those present at the school, including recruits and otherwise? Yes. I have personally witnessed such incidents (to which details need not be given) from both sides. (Instructors and recruits) Rumours are rampant as well, which doesn't help. As with any corporation/establishment/place of employment etc. etc., anywhere, there are bad apples whose actions risk placing everyone in a bad light. But I have to interject with what I witnessed as the positive handling of anything related to sexual harassment while there, as I don't feel that the school is being looked at objectively during this current conversation.

During my time there, on each of the platoons I was on, instances involving even slight concerns brought to staff regarding sexual harassment were dealt with swiftly and were taken seriously and investigated. Consequences included (but were not limited to) recruits being removed from course, formal PRBs, MP involvement, etc. The different incidences ranged from verbal comments to physical incidences. It was taken very seriously. AND, it must be noted, as I feel it is often overlooked, there were cases where females were the aggressors/the ones at fault, NOT males.

Perhaps I'm just lucky in that I had largely excellent staff who weren't going to tolerate such behaviour, but I really don't think so. I think the majority of pers in leadership roles involved with recruits try their best and take it seriously. Is there room for improvement? Absolutely. But I don't want anyone thinking that females who go there are going to be abused, harassed, heckled, treated unfairly etc etc, OR males, for that matter.

A certain level of 'thick skin' needs to be had, yes. And I'm wary of individuals who may not have a realistic view of what to expect going in. But if someone is legitimately made to feel personally unsafe and is ridiculed to any degree by superiors if their concerns are brought forward, then yes also--that issue needs to be resolved.

For the record, the school teaches/encourages recruits to try and handle concerns/issues at their own level before bringing things up. Talk to the individual/section leader/CS. If it can't be resolved, then involve staff. Obviously, yes, if it's a serious matter, staff can be notified directly, but the point is to teach CoC. I had no problems letting someone know if they ticked me off, but I'm also older and extremely assertive--sometimes too much so.

In any event, again, I'm sorry the female mentioned in above posts felt driven to leave the CAF under such poor circumstances. While we were told often that the school is not reflective of the military environment as a whole (things are VERY different when actually out of basic) sometimes it's difficult to remember that when immersed in turmoil while there.

Perhaps in the future she might reconsider. I thoroughly enjoy where I am and have been fortunate to work along-side some fantastic people.

 

[Andraste]

C Canuk,

Actually, I did not advocate for anything of the sort. I literally wrote " I'm not advocating for tolerance of prejudice or discrimination, but asking if we have a plan to harden our troops against the effects of it outside of garrison."

Actually, you indicated you were going to play devil's advocate so in effect you are advocating.  However, I never said you were advocating for prejudice or discrimination but was addressing your point of view.

After accusing me of advocating for inoculation theory, your answer essentially boils down to literally we plan to do nothing.

Umm . . . never accused you of anything.  I merely pointed out that you were espousing a valuable tool in psychology  known as "inoculation theory".  We utilize that for stress or when people have phobias.  Specifically you bring them into contact with what they are afraid of (i.e., stresses them) and it helps to inoculate them.  My stand was that this is not needed for people who already experience intolerance based on who they are because they have lived with it for many years prior to joining the CAF.  The people who would benefit from it are those who have never experienced intolerance.

If you feel as though I insulted you by accusing you . . . my apologies as that was not my intent. I guess I should have been a bit more descriptive of what inoculation theory meant.

Part of our job is to be able to shrug off this sort of thing from outside entities. What are we going to do to ensure we have that ability. Are we engaging with the psychiatric community to see what can be done to harden the troops against it?

Shrugging off hate filed comments from outside entities based on being in their country at time war is fundamentally different from shrugging off intolerance from your own fellow soldiers, the two are not linked.  If an outside entity hates me because I am transgender or you because you are someone they equally despise well . . . just saying . . . you and I have already fought that battle so their comments will mean little to us.  But I get the sense you are talking about dealing with cultures who do not want us in their country . . . again that is different. 

Tcm621,

My biggest problem with this whole thing is not the big picture of handling actually sexual misconduct. It is the idea that everyone is such a fragile flower that a dirty joke or perhaps an advance from a co-worker will send then in to a withering spiral of depression, etc.

Seriously . . . an unwanted advance from another person be that male to male, female to female, female to male or male to female is the text book definition of sexual misconduct.  If it is not wanted it should not be given.  Dirty jokes . . . again if it denigrates a target group male or female . . . textbook definition of sexual harassment.  Let me ask you this . . . what you do if someone in your family came home and said a person at work keeps telling dirty jokes to them and making advances and this person is their boss?  Tell them to suck it up and grow a thicker skin?  If you say yes, I will call BS on that one. 

I remember being told, "sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me" and  to stand up to bullies or they will walk all over you.  Now we are helping to create a culture of victims. We should be tougher than the average and part of that is learning to deal with people who say or do mean things.

Rather than coddle those who can't handle a little adversity,  we should empower them to deal with it themselves as much as possible. And it should go with out saying that any cases of rape, or the like, should be dealt with in the harshest possible manner.

That is exactly what we are doing. Sexual misconduct irrespective of your gender cannot be tolerated that include rude sexually charged comments, unwanted advances and sexual assault (unwanted touching to rape).  Again, I would ask you if your boss came up to you and suggested you could do better performance wise if you were receptive to his/her advances . . . what would you do?  The system in place now is designed to empower the victim by allowing him/her to come forward and report the person.  My point was the chain of command at all levels needs to ensure this type of behavior stops.  That is our jobs a leaders.

Cheers

Andraste

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

devil's advocate here... Let's say we completely stamp out all discrimination and prejudice in the CAF. Turn it into a SJW utopia of perfection.

What happens when the soldiers who made it though without ever having to deal with discrimination/prejudice make contact with external entities?

How do we prepare them for what they will experience when interacting with other cultures/nationalities.  I'm not advocating for tolerance of prejudice or discrimination, but asking if we have a plan to harden our troops against the effects of it outside of garrison.

Are you suggesting that a little bit of sexual harassment is good for them since it makes them harder? I would suggest that soldiers who grow up in an ethically challenged culture of prejudice, harassment, and general low ethics aren't hard- they're bitter, jaded, and angry. If you need an example, look no further than the Airbourne Regiment.

Conversely, soldiers who live by the CAF ethos, treat each other with respect, and act like professionals (and adults... and citizens of a first world nation) are MORE able to comprehend other cultures and adapt to the realities of complex theatres. We need more soldiers able to treat people with dignity and think rather than more brainwashed ones who believe that it's ok to carry on as we are. And yes- I am suggesting the ones who act in the manner discussed in the DesChamps report are the brainwashed ones. They've bought into an ethical organizational culture and demonstrated a lack of ethical behaviour, critical thinking, and backbone to act against those who still believe this behaviour is ok.

 

[captloadie]

BeyondTheNow,
What you described was all geared at how staff dealt with students. How did the CoC deal with staff when these issues arose? And if you didn't see any examples of this on your year at the school, it means it either was swept under the rug and instructors were protected, or action was taken behind closed doors where recruits weren't made aware of the outcomes (which I think is wrong, as if recruits know poor staff behaviour is punished, they will be more likely to trust the system).

We have another issue when it happens in the military. Victims have no place to escape. If I'm being sexually harassed at a job in the private sector, I can go home to get away, or I can quit and find the same job at different company. In the military, we force victims to live in and around the abuse. If you love being infantry or a fighter pilot, you can't leave and go somewhere else to do the job you love. That's why we need to fix our current culture. We can toughen members up when we deploy them using specific training if the need calls for it.

 

[Andraste]

Firstly, I'll be clear. Are there blatant examples of inappropriate statements or conduct exhibited from those present at the school, including recruits and otherwise? Yes. I have personally witnessed such incidents (to which details need not be given) from both sides. (Instructors and recruits) Rumours are rampant as well, which doesn't help. As with any corporation/establishment/place of employment etc. etc., anywhere, there are bad apples whose actions risk placing everyone in a bad light. But I have to interject with what I witnessed as the positive handling of anything related to sexual harassment while there, as I don't feel that the school is being looked at objectively during this current conversation.

:goodpost:

BTN,

Agree completely . . . it is the bad apples which need to be routed out and I truly believe they are the minority.  Great post and a nice balanced perspective.

Cheers

Andraste 

 

[McG]

devil's advocate here... Let's say we completely stamp out all discrimination and prejudice in the CAF. Turn it into a SJW utopia of perfection.

What happens when the soldiers who made it though without ever having to deal with discrimination/prejudice make contact with external entities?

How do we prepare them for what they will experience when interacting with other cultures/nationalities.  I'm not advocating for tolerance of prejudice or discrimination, but asking if we have a plan to harden our troops against the effects of it outside of garrison.

You are not "advocating for tolerance of prejudice or discrimination, but" your whole post smacks of being an apologist for it all. 

How do we prepare our recruits for the experiences and reality of their future occupation?  With legitimate, indescriminate, hard, challenging training.

It is just stupid suggesting that there is any place in training for harassment, discrimination from prejudice, or abusive hazing.  I hope you were just having a low caffeine moment.

 

[TCM621]

[quote author=Andraste]

Tcm621,

Seriously . . . an unwanted advance from another person be that male to male, female to female, female to male or male to female is the text book definition of sexual misconduct.  If it is not wanted it should not be given.  Dirty jokes . . . again if it denigrates a target group male or female . . . textbook definition of sexual harassment.  Let me ask you this . . . what you do if someone in your family came home and said a person at work keeps telling dirty jokes to them and making advances and this person is their boss?  Tell them to suck it up and grow a thicker skin?  If you say yes, I will call BS on that one. 
[/QUOTE]

If someone makes an advance  maybe, just maybe,  that person likes the other person. And sometimes the advance will be unwanted but that does not make it sexual harassment. Just like a drunk dude trying to kiss a girl isn't sexual assault,  it is just people being people. If someone has been told in no uncertain terms that the advance is unwanted and persists,  he should be counselled and dealt with as needed. If a person forces him/herself on another and I see it they won't need the CF system to deal with it. There are lines and IMO Op honour is too vague.

If my daughter came home and said, "Dad, this guy asked me to go out with him".  I would say, " I'll kill him", because I am a dad. But then I would ask, "well what did you say?"  If she said,  "This guy keeps asking me out and making suggestive comments. He won't leave me alone no matter how many times I tell him too." It would be a different matter. But I would also hope my daughter made every attempt to resolve it herself because I am attempting to raise a strong and self reliant person.

That is exactly what we are doing. Sexual misconduct irrespective of your gender cannot be tolerated that include rude sexually charged comments, unwanted advances and sexual assault (unwanted touching to rape).  Again, I would ask you if your boss came up to you and suggested you could do better performance wise if you were receptive to his/her advances . . . what would you do?  The system in place now is designed to empower the victim by allowing him/her to come forward and report the person.  My point was the chain of command at all levels needs to ensure this type of behavior stops.  That is our jobs a leaders.

Cheers

Andraste

See,  I think Op Honour is about looking good to civilians and SJWs. I know that there are assholes in the military and some of them cross a line. I think in very few cases are they cut and dried. A blanket solution is both a waste of time and in many cases more harm than its worth.

As leaders, we just need to know our subordinates and promote their welfare. We don't need Op honour,  we need to stop treating that type of leadership as a fault. I have been told by a senior instructor of a leadership course that "[it]  wasn't leadership. That's like being a shop steward". We actively promote and encourage people like that.

Leaders also need the ability to move people if issues arise. Not to shuffle problems but split up people who may have any sort of relationship that could cause issues . We are hamstrung in terms of what we can do because of any number of factors such are available positions and an unwillingness to act. In the recent past, my subunit had no less than 3 couples working on it. In each case 1 member was ranked than the other. In this case, there were no major issues that arose but they could have. Even if everything goes smoothly, there are biases there. Sgt Jim knows that Cpl Nancy is going to be unhappy if she has to do X job. He doesn't want to here about it later and,  really,  it isn't a big deal so I'll give it to corporal Bloggins instead. I'll bet non of that would even be conscious.

Rather that create safe spaces and response centers, let's concentrate on teaching leaders that their subordinates welfare is their responsibility and give them the tools needed to deal with the issues that come up. We already have the systems in place to deal with major issues like the harassment complaint system and the CSD through the MPs.

 

[The Bread Guy]

... I think Op Honour is about looking good to civilians and SJWs. I know that there are assholes in the military and some of them cross a line. I think in very few cases are they cut and dried. A blanket solution is both a waste of time and in many cases more harm than its worth ...

Blanket rules/systems often get set up, though, when not enough individual opportunities for individual leaders to show leadership and/or use all the tools already at their disposal to deal with things - or senior leaders to support junior leaders who want to.  It only takes one "holy crap" to negate a thousand "atta boy's".  You've hit the nail on the head right here:

As leaders, we just need to know our subordinates and promote their welfare. We don't need Op honour,  we need to stop treating that type of leadership as a fault. I have been told by a senior instructor of a leadership course that "[it]  wasn't leadership. That's like being a shop steward". We actively promote and encourage people like that.

Good post.

 

[Andraste]

If someone makes an advance  maybe, just maybe,  that person likes the other person. And sometimes the advance will be unwanted but that does not make it sexual harassment.

There is mutual attraction . . . I like "x" and she/he likes me and has shown an interest, so I will approach the person and see where it goes (i.e., ask them out on a date).  If she/he declines, no harm no foul and I will move on.  However when you used the word "advance" in the context of thread on sexual misconduct the word in and of itself implies aggression on the part of one party against another.  I am going to make an advance on "x" even is she/he doesn't like me and actively pursue that person until they acquiesce.  In the military we "advance" on the enemy regardless of whether they want us to or not.  So, if the advance is unwanted and the person knows it is unwanted . . . textbook definition of sexual harassment.  In other words if you can't pursue the person civilly . . . back off.

I can say that within my 35 years of service I have never seen a sexual harassment complaint submitted because someone asked someone out on a date.   

Just like a drunk dude trying to kiss a girl isn't sexual assault,  it is just people being people.

Seriously  :facepalm:.

So a guy walks up to a girl in a bar and forcibly holds her against her will and plants an unwanted kiss on her and he gets a pass because why?  He is drunk?  It is people just being people?  So when does it become sexual assault in your opinion?  When he fondles her against her will, drags her into a dark secluded corner and forces himself on her?  Or does he get a pass because he is drunk.  By your logic then a drunk dude who walks up to you in bar and smacks you between the eyes is not guilty of assault . . . it is just people being people?  Or perhaps the drunk driver who kills someone should get a pass . . . just a good dude who is a little bit drunk?

Assault is assault and you don't get a pass because you are drunk.  Sorry, it is beliefs like this that perpetuate this "it is only harmless fun so don't be such a delicate flower" sentiment.

If someone has been told in no uncertain terms that the advance is unwanted and persists,  he should be counselled and dealt with as needed. If a person forces him/herself on another and I see it they won't need the CF system to deal with it. There are lines and IMO Op honour is too vague . . . snip . . . See,  I think Op Honour is about looking good to civilians and SJWs. I know that there are assholes in the military and some of them cross a line. I think in very few cases are they cut and dried. A blanket solution is both a waste of time and in many cases more harm than its worth . . . snip . . . Rather that create safe spaces and response centers, let's concentrate on teaching leaders that their subordinates welfare is their responsibility and give them the tools needed to deal with the issues that come up. We already have the systems in place to deal with major issues like the harassment complaint system and the CSD through the MPs.

Yes and we have been doing such a bang up job in dealing with this issue.  That is the problem, while some leaders take the appropriate action and deal with it, others do not and in fact condone poor behavior and sexual harassment.  To put this in context since you feel we have a system which already deals with it.  A statistics Canada survey from 2013 indicates that 7.5 % of women in the CAF ( 1 in13 women) were sexually assaulted during their career (more so on deployment) with this rising to 15.5% if you included rude remarks (dirty jokes at their expense) or unwanted advances.  Now that means that your daughter, wife, sister whoever should they pursue a career in the CAF has a statistically significant chance of being sexually assaulted or harassed . . . so where is all this great leadership you are referring to?  Who is looking after the welfare of their troops? 

To put it into further context by comparison .02% 0f men reported sexual assault with it rising to .08% if you included rude remarks and unwanted advances.

So yup . . . we are doing a great job.  Does OP Honor have its problems?  Sure but it is still dealing with the problem instead of trying to cover things up, sweep it under the carpet or make excuses for the perpetrators of this abhorrent behavior by blaming the victims for being thinned skinned.


Andraste.

 

[Jarnhamar]

How do we prepare them for what they will experience when interacting with other cultures/nationalities.  I'm not advocating for tolerance of prejudice or discrimination, but asking if we have a plan to harden our troops against the effects of it outside of garrison.

I'm all for harsh mental and physical training including exposure to verbal abuse and some physical manhandling but that's in a very controlled and regulated training environment.  Not someone  who takes it upon themselves to merit out some abuse  themselves because they can and think it's good for someone.

I agree with you we need to expose our members to the harsh reality of the world but it has to be structured and relevant and not kept at a personal level. 

 

[Lightguns]

There is mutual attraction . . . I like "x" and she/he likes me and has shown an interest, so I will approach the person and see where it goes (i.e., ask them out on a date).  If she/he declines, no harm no foul and I will move on.  However when you used the word "advance" in the context of thread on sexual misconduct the word in and of itself implies aggression on the part of one party against another.  I am going to make an advance on "x" even is she/he doesn't like me and actively pursue that person until they acquiesce.  In the military we "advance" on the enemy regardless of whether they want us to or not.  So, if the advance is unwanted and the person knows it is unwanted . . . textbook definition of sexual harassment.  In other words if you can't pursue the person civilly . . . back off.

I can say that within my 35 years of service I have never seen a sexual harassment complaint submitted because someone asked someone out on a date.   

Seriously  :facepalm:.

So a guy walks up to a girl in a bar and forcibly holds her against her will and plants an unwanted kiss on her and he gets a pass because why?  He is drunk?  It is people just being people?  So when does it become sexual assault in your opinion?  When he fondles her against her will, drags her into a dark secluded corner and forces himself on her?  Or does he get a pass because he is drunk.  By your logic then a drunk dude who walks up to you in bar and smacks you between the eyes is not guilty of assault . . . it is just people being people?  Or perhaps the drunk driver who kills someone should get a pass . . . just a good dude who is a little bit drunk?

Assault is assault and you don't get a pass because you are drunk.  Sorry, it is beliefs like this that perpetuate this "it is only harmless fun so don't be such a delicate flower" sentiment.



Yes and we have been doing such a bang up job in dealing with this issue.  That is the problem, while some leaders take the appropriate action and deal with it, others do not and in fact condone poor behavior and sexual harassment.  To put this in context since you feel we have a system which already deals with it.  A statistics Canada survey from 2013 indicates that 7.5 % of women in the CAF ( 1 in13 women) were sexually assaulted during their career (more so on deployment) with this rising to 15.5% if you included rude remarks (dirty jokes at their expense) or unwanted advances.  Now that means that your daughter, wife, sister whoever should they pursue a career in the CAF has a statistically significant chance of being sexually assaulted or harassed . . . so where is all this great leadership you are referring to?  Who is looking after the welfare of their troops? 

To put it into further context by comparison .02% 0f men reported sexual assault with it rising to .08% if you included rude remarks and unwanted advances.

So yup . . . we are doing a great job.  Does OP Honor have its problems?  Sure but it is still dealing with the problem instead of trying to cover things up, sweep it under the carpet or make excuses for the perpetrators of this abhorrent behavior by blaming the victims for being thinned skinned.


Andraste.

Nicely spoken!  Do you know the percentages for the greater Canadian society?  I am wondering because folks are always saying that the military, despite it's recruiting system, is just a reflection of the greater society.  I would thing that workplace sexual violence would be lower in a organization that does so much scientific hiring technique. 

Edit, I found it in Stats Can.  Sexual harassment in workplace; 4% in Quebec raising to a high of 7% in Ontario.  Sexual assault in workplace; 1% nationally raising to 6% for a life time employee; includes all touching, actual penetration is 1%.  Guess the military is not quite reflective of society on this issue!

 

[c_canuk]

You are not "advocating for tolerance of prejudice or discrimination, but" your whole post smacks of being an apologist for it all. 

How do we prepare our recruits for the experiences and reality of their future occupation?  With legitimate, indescriminate, hard, challenging training.

It is just stupid suggesting that there is any place in training for harassment, discrimination from prejudice, or abusive hazing.  I hope you were just having a low caffeine moment.

Begging your pardon, but that's on you, not me.

I wrote literally this: "How do we prepare them for what they will experience when interacting with other cultures/nationalities.  I'm not advocating for tolerance of prejudice or discrimination, but asking if we have a plan to harden our troops against the effects of it outside of garrison."

Then when someone else also accused me of the same, clarified: "Part of our job is to be able to shrug off this sort of thing from outside entities. What are we going to do to ensure we have that ability. Are we engaging with the psychiatric community to see what can be done to harden the troops against it?"

Not sure where I implied we should allow some discrimination. I was just pointing out that we may need to improve how we train our troops to deal with it from entities outside our CoC. And not just from our Enemies but Neutrals, host countries and allies. I think you can understand my ire at being accused of being an apologist, and kindly would ask you to take that back.

It's really hard to have a grown up discussion about this, every time you make a point about how changes in one area may necessitate changes in another, people jump down your throat for shit you didn't even say and/or specifically said you weren't saying.

I don't appreciate being labelled an apologist just because I asked if we have a plan to mitigate damage from prejudice and discrimination from entities outside our control. It's a given that those behaviours are damaging, hence ongoing efforts to stamp it out. Op Honour being the latest iteration. What are we going to do about damage from the prejudice and discrimination we can't stamp out?

Do we have a plan?

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Begging your pardon, but that's on you, not me.

I wrote literally this: "How do we prepare them for what they will experience when interacting with other cultures/nationalities.  I'm not advocating for tolerance of prejudice or discrimination, but asking if we have a plan to harden our troops against the effects of it outside of garrison."

Then when someone else also accused me of the same, clarified: "Part of our job is to be able to shrug off this sort of thing from outside entities. What are we going to do to ensure we have that ability. Are we engaging with the psychiatric community to see what can be done to harden the troops against it?"

Not sure where I implied we should allow some discrimination. I was just pointing out that we may need to improve how we train our troops to deal with it from entities outside our CoC. And not just from our Enemies but Neutrals, host countries and allies. I think you can understand my ire at being accused of being an apologist, and kindly would ask you to take that back.

It's really hard to have a grown up discussion about this, every time you make a point about how changes in one area may necessitate changes in another, people jump down your throat for crap you didn't even say and/or specifically said you weren't saying.

I don't appreciate being labelled an apologist just because I asked if we have a plan to mitigate damage from prejudice and discrimination from entities outside our control. It's a given that those behaviours are damaging, hence ongoing efforts to stamp it out. Op Honour being the latest iteration. What are we going to do about damage from the prejudice and discrimination we can't stamp out?

Do we have a plan?

I would suggest that sexual harassment and misconduct isn't a psychological issue but an ethical and leadership one. We need to increase our ethics training and strengthen it so that its less a yearly burden and more an engaging and educational experience. We then need to assess individuals on their ethics, including sexual harassment, and hold them to account. If we look at the DesChamps report clearly the CoC has failed to instill confidence that leadership throughout the CAF has dealt with this issue for a wide variety of issues (careerism, weak leadership, organizational cultures, etc).

There are many tools available to assess ethics and leadership that we could implement- for example, we could implement a 360 degree evaluation system that included ethics and harassment questions as part of a PDR (or a replacement to a PDR). If the leadership fails these evaluations than its in the open.

 

[TCM621]

I would suggest that sexual harassment and misconduct isn't a psychological issue but an ethical and leadership one. We need to increase our ethics training and strengthen it so that its less a yearly burden and more an engaging and educational experience. We then need to assess individuals on their ethics, including sexual harassment, and hold them to account. If we look at the DesChamps report clearly the CoC has failed to instill confidence that leadership throughout the CAF has dealt with this issue for a wide variety of issues (careerism, weak leadership, organizational cultures, etc).

There are many tools available to assess ethics and leadership that we could implement- for example, we could implement a 360 degree evaluation system that included ethics and harassment questions as part of a PDR (or a replacement to a PDR). If the leadership fails these evaluations than its in the open.

I would argue that a failure to trust leadership is the problem not sexual misconduct. A certain amount of misconduct will happen, we can minimize it but not get rid of it. If someone doesn't trust their leaders to look after them when it comes to PERs , tastings,  etc. They are not automatically going to trust them for something big like sexual misconduct because the CAF has made them go through some OP honour briefings.

In my career,  I have ran the gamut of supervisor types. From the just one of the guys type to the (and I quote verbatim) 'At the end of the day, you are all just paperwork to me" types and everything in between. I know what is like to be going through major issues with a CoC that just doesn't give a shit about you. If you can't trust your leadership, you probably won't go to them with a sexual misconduct or harassment problem until it is too late to use the tools we have in place. And now you end up with a victim who quits because they don't feel safe or respected in the military and,  in many cases, losing someone who could have remained an asset if they were set straight early enough.

I reiterate, the problem isn't that the CAF is running rampant with rapists and misogynists but we do not do enough to have our leaders be trust worthy in the eyes of the subordinates. Op honour doesn't address that IMO.

 

[MARS]

What happens when the soldiers who made it though without ever having to deal with discrimination/prejudice make contact with external entities?

How do we prepare them for what they will experience when interacting with other cultures/nationalities. 

Like the myriad of other issues that the military does not prepare us for, we rely on our Canadian/Western democratic value system.

I have made it through 25 years of service without once witnessing murder, for example, and without the CAF spending ANY time "preparing" me for it, but I still know it when I see it and I know that it is wrong and I know to tell someone in authority.  Same applies to rape, robbery...whatever other crimes or social ills (prejudice and discrimination) you want to throw out there.

Because I am not an idiot.

The CAF isn't the only place where we are socialized to an appropriate value system.  It is probably the LAST place.  It starts with the familial institution (parents), continues with the educational institution (teachers), reinforced by religious institutions (for those who are part of them), legislative institutions (politicians making laws) and finally judiciary institutions (judges enforcing laws).  Indeed a core responsibility of all of those institutions is to instill in citizens these core values, like "don't sexually harass people". THAT is the preparation phase. The CAF should play NO unique role in "preparing" us for dealing with sexual assault/harassment/exploitation on deployment, except to reinforce what anyone...and everyone - except the most retarded troglodytes among us - have already assimilated from 17+ years of living in Canadian society.  And we certainly do not need to engage the psychiatric community...WTF is that all about?

We don't need a "plan" - this isn't that complicated.  We need to get some of our folks to stop being dumb. 

 

[The Bread Guy]

... I would thing that workplace sexual violence would be lower in a organization that does so much scientific hiring technique ...

I'll let others pick on the bit in yellow, but with military and, to a lesser extent, policing organizations, there's also a case to be made that there should be fewer such incidents, given the emphasis on following orders in a structured way under sometimes difficult circumstances that don't exist as much outside these groups. 

I know, the systems are far from perfect, but this is also part of where the "we hold some groups to a higher standard" comes from.

... for example, we could implement a 360 degree evaluation system that included ethics and harassment questions as part of a PDR (or a replacement to a PDR). If the leadership fails these evaluations than its in the open.

Ballsy, that would be, both for the system doing it, and the leader who'd be comfortable about what his/her troops would say about them.

We don't need a "plan" - this isn't that complicated.  We need to get some of our folks to stop being dumb.

Well said -- simple, but not easy.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

I would argue that a failure to trust leadership is the problem not sexual misconduct. A certain amount of misconduct will happen, we can minimize it but not get rid of it. If someone doesn't trust their leaders to look after them when it comes to PERs , tastings,  etc. They are not automatically going to trust them for something big like sexual misconduct because the CAF has made them go through some OP honour briefings.

In my career,  I have ran the gamut of supervisor types. From the just one of the guys type to the (and I quote verbatim) 'At the end of the day, you are all just paperwork to me" types and everything in between. I know what is like to be going through major issues with a CoC that just doesn't give a crap about you. If you can't trust your leadership, you probably won't go to them with a sexual misconduct or harassment problem until it is too late to use the tools we have in place. And now you end up with a victim who quits because they don't feel safe or respected in the military and,  in many cases, losing someone who could have remained an asset if they were set straight early enough.

I reiterate, the problem isn't that the CAF is running rampant with rapists and misogynists but we do not do enough to have our leaders be trust worthy in the eyes of the subordinates. Op honour doesn't address that IMO.

I agree. That's why we need systems that allow subordinates input into the CoC, such as a 360 degree evaluation system. Attached is an example of one such system that focusses on leader integrity and ethics. It was prepared by Prof Northouse, who is a leading author in leadership studies.

 

[Andraste]

I would argue that a failure to trust leadership is the problem not sexual misconduct. A certain amount of misconduct will happen, we can minimize it but not get rid of it. If someone doesn't trust their leaders to look after them when it comes to PERs , tastings,  etc. They are not automatically going to trust them for something big like sexual misconduct because the CAF has made them go through some OP honour briefings.

I'm sorry, your argument is cyclical at best . . . we don't have an issue with sexual misconduct it is lack of trust in leaders?  If leaders turn a blind eye to sexual harassment/assault then yes, I agree who is going to trust their leadership.  However let's not be naïve here and say sexual misconduct is not the issue . . . it is definitely an issue as the statistics I quoted in reply to your other posts clearly illustrate that point.

Poor leadership in the CAF is a noted problem at all levels and on that I think we can all agree.  As I noted in my reply, some leaders (even at high levels) have been doing a poor job at shutting this type of behavior down and in some cases condoning it.  That is why we are forced to give way to mega entities such as OP Honour because the leadership to date has been all but absent in policing their own backyard so now somebody has to force them to do so . . . it should never have come to this.  In addition, OP Honour it is not just about sitting through some briefings and irrespective of what some may feel it is not about finger pointing.  It is designed to identify the problem (sexual misconduct - irrespective of gender) and a way of dealing with it.  It provides a mechanism outside of the chain of command to report these issues.  You do realize that a high percentage of sexual misconduct is perpetrated by an individual in a position of authority over the other person.  That is why there has to be a reporting chain outside of the chain of command.  If your boss was harassing you at work would you want to go to her/him and ask them to investigate your harassment complaint against them?

Yes, restoring faith in leadership will help create an environment of trust and perhaps more people will come forward.  However once the person comes forward then the leadership has to act appropriately and deal accordingly with the perpetrator, not sweep it under the carpet, ignore it or blame the victim . . . that is the real problem.  Until that occurs then sexual misconduct and any form of harassment will always be an issue.  OP Honour is designed to ensure the "kids aren't running the candy shop" making up their own rules as they go along".  As I said before, it should never have come to this as there are a lot of great leaders out there who now have to toe the line with those leaders who still think things are 5x5.

A

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I would suggest that sexual harassment and misconduct isn't a psychological issue but an ethical and leadership one. We need to increase our ethics training and strengthen it so that its less a yearly burden and more an engaging and educational experience. We then need to assess individuals on their ethics, including sexual harassment, and hold them to account. If we look at the DesChamps report clearly the CoC has failed to instill confidence that leadership throughout the CAF has dealt with this issue for a wide variety of issues (careerism, weak leadership, organizational cultures, etc).

There are many tools available to assess ethics and leadership that we could implement- for example, we could implement a 360 degree evaluation system that included ethics and harassment questions as part of a PDR (or a replacement to a PDR). If the leadership fails these evaluations than its in the open.

I don't trust the DesChamps report.  There are issues; some of the women involved stated they found the questions, discussions "leading" for example.

FWIW, and this is just my opinion...

We already HAD policies, regulations, orders..you name it...in place to deal with harassment, assault, all of this stuff.  The problem is...they were not being applied and employed.

I agree this is mostly a LEADERSHIP issue.  If LEADERS, at all levels, applied the policies, regulations, orders, CSD, RMs, etc etc the way they were supposed to...there would be no need for OP HONOUR.

Who is responsible for harassment stuff, ultimately?  ROs...who are they?  COs, Cmdts, etc.  If a case was mishandled...are they not responsible for it?  If they mishandle a case, complaint, etc are they then held to account?  In some cases, for sure, the answer is 'no'. 

Leadership and deterrence are what is needed now to get those who aren't paying attention to pay attention.  At all rank levels. 

In all honesty...we are doing 'more with less' all the time.  Ethics Programs are part of our (minimum) yearly trg requirements, but the scope of OP HONOUR can't be supported by the unit level Ethic Coord's. 

This is a leadership task.  There were enough rules and policies and corrective tools in place.  If those weren't being used before, the only thing that will make the change desired is holding people, at all levels, to account for their performance and/or conduct deficiencies.  Hey...we even have DAODs about that stuff.  How odd.

But, much like CFPAS...let's not just issue stern direction and marching orders from the top to "follow orders and policy, no questions, get on with it"...we'll reinvent the wheel instead.  "If we make it look broken by not using it right, we won't have to use it at all!"

 

[Fishbone Jones]

There are many tools available to assess ethics and leadership that we could implement- for example, we could implement a 360 degree evaluation system that included ethics and harassment questions as part of a PDR (or a replacement to a PDR). If the leadership fails these evaluations than its in the open.

If you're willing to blanket everyone, no matter their knowledge or personal conviction on the item, why not just give the test, as part of the recruiting process and bar anyone who fails it, from the military, period? Oh, and add about another month to the already archaic recruiting process already in place.

It would have about the same impact as your suggestion.