Michael Dorosh
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
MissMolsonIndy said:
I wasn't aware you had offered any criticism; indeed, all I've seen was a lack of understanding or misinterpretation of the role of military power in Canada's history.
Should the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Human Rights Code apply to the CF?
- Thread starter Cloud Cover
- Start date
I wasn't aware you had offered any criticism; indeed, all I've seen was a lack of understanding or misinterpretation of the role of military power in Canada's history.
- Reaction score
- 2,082
- Points
- 1,160
MissMolsonIndy said:
"You're right, my case my not be entirely viable, but if we're speaking in those specific terms, neither is yours, or any other case presented here."
Take a deep look at all of the postings contained herein, your remarks are a little off base with that one. Then, collect all of your postings in this thread, and please articulate your case in clear and concise terms, and might i ask that your remarks be confined to the subject matter at hand: The Charter; Professionalism + Self Governance; and reorientating the culture back towards where it ought to be. If you are hoping to engage in historical debates with some of these members, you do so at the peril of your own word and reputation. And in the end, if you wanna be a lawyer or philosopher or whatever, your word and reputation are what matter most. Take some time to do this right, I gaurantee it will be pay future dividends on this forum.
"You're right, my case my not be entirely viable, but if we're speaking in those specific terms, neither is yours, or any other case presented here."
Take a deep look at all of the postings contained herein, your remarks are a little off base with that one. Then, collect all of your postings in this thread, and please articulate your case in clear and concise terms, and might i ask that your remarks be confined to the subject matter at hand: The Charter; Professionalism + Self Governance; and reorientating the culture back towards where it ought to be. If you are hoping to engage in historical debates with some of these members, you do so at the peril of your own word and reputation. And in the end, if you wanna be a lawyer or philosopher or whatever, your word and reputation are what matter most. Take some time to do this right, I gaurantee it will be pay future dividends on this forum.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
You betcha'
I'm going camping, but you'll have your clear, concise and articulate response shortly.
I'm gaining a lot of insight here, and this is by far one of the most interesting debates I've partaken in, but where this conversation will prove to be a dead-end is the fact that I can comment on my own biased nature, while the majority of you overlook your own.
I'm going camping, but you'll have your clear, concise and articulate response shortly.
I'm gaining a lot of insight here, and this is by far one of the most interesting debates I've partaken in, but where this conversation will prove to be a dead-end is the fact that I can comment on my own biased nature, while the majority of you overlook your own.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
whiskey 601 said:
The Charter says nothing against having a separate justice system. The only qualification is that system must abide by the Charter, which the military one does. I believe that is why the military justice system went through a very large revamping a few years ago.
Michael Dorosh
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
MissMolsonIndy said:
Your bias is that we have a bias that overrides our knowledge of history and our own profession.
I agree with Eowyn - step back, consolidate, think about what you are saying, and try again. Frankly, I think you are smarter than you give yourself credit for, you just lack experience. I was seven years in University and never really understood what a "thesis" was - it wasn't til I got online and started talking to peers - which I think you and I are - that I learned what I really needed to about debate and the nature of discourse.
Go camping, think about what you are saying, and come back again and articulate what it is you are trying to say. I'll look forward to it.
Incidentally, if you feel I am biased in that I feel Canada's military has been either engaged in operations, or else had a high potential to be engaged in same operations, in the last 60 years, so be it - but you need to prove the opposite was true.
- Reaction score
- 2,082
- Points
- 1,160
Eowyn
I don't recall saying that the Charter precludes a military justice system, in fact there is explicit recognition of the military justice system [MJS} in the text of the document. And, to state that the military justice system as a whole complies with the Charter is somewhat of a misnomer, to say the least. Even the Criminal Code of Canada doesn't comply with the Charter in places, as I'm sure you learned in law school. And, I don't know what law school you went to- [though I'm sure it was good one] - one of the first things law students, nay, 1st year poli-sci students, are taught, is minimal impairment as one of the most critical aspects of the Oakes test. As I said in the post, Bloggins 7-11 rights are minimally impaired, if at all in the scenario from which his name arose. It follows, therefore, that at best, his rights are promoted, not degraded . As far as statutory language goes, the Charter encourages the MJS[Criminal] to thrive in its own right:
CCRF, section 11.
Any person charged with an offence has the right:
...
(f) except in the case of an offence under military law tried before a military tribunal, to the beneft of trial by jury, where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment.
So, you obviously are in full agreement with what i have said so far in this thread. If not, I encourage you to elaborate in a reasoned and rational manner. Execution will be the key.
BZ on your military career, you made a career decision that you will never regret.
Cheers, ... FN.
I don't recall saying that the Charter precludes a military justice system, in fact there is explicit recognition of the military justice system [MJS} in the text of the document. And, to state that the military justice system as a whole complies with the Charter is somewhat of a misnomer, to say the least. Even the Criminal Code of Canada doesn't comply with the Charter in places, as I'm sure you learned in law school. And, I don't know what law school you went to- [though I'm sure it was good one] - one of the first things law students, nay, 1st year poli-sci students, are taught, is minimal impairment as one of the most critical aspects of the Oakes test. As I said in the post, Bloggins 7-11 rights are minimally impaired, if at all in the scenario from which his name arose. It follows, therefore, that at best, his rights are promoted, not degraded . As far as statutory language goes, the Charter encourages the MJS[Criminal] to thrive in its own right:
CCRF, section 11.
Any person charged with an offence has the right:
...
(f) except in the case of an offence under military law tried before a military tribunal, to the beneft of trial by jury, where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment.
So, you obviously are in full agreement with what i have said so far in this thread. If not, I encourage you to elaborate in a reasoned and rational manner. Execution will be the key.
BZ on your military career, you made a career decision that you will never regret.
Cheers, ... FN.
- Reaction score
- 6,474
- Points
- 1,360
MissIndy,
I'm not sure that you should be making ANY assumpions of bias upon others.
QUOTE
Understandably, cut-backs will have to be made...perhaps they could start with the cutting of a "bilingual standard" on all Canadian documentation.
Scenario:
War is waged on Canadian grounds, and Canada is brought into direct hot conflict. Would you...
A) Rather have agreed to cut-backs on a bilingual standard on all Canadian documentation, saving the government millions of dollars, which could then be funneled into important bodies of government, such as the Canadian Military, allowing Canada to augment her military forces and perhaps even stand on her own two feet in the face of conflict. (Yes, the people of Quebec may not have a copy of documentation translated into french, for their own archives...but I'm almost certain there are those that have come to master both languages, and could maybe even (bear with me here) translate it orally.)
Or
B) Rather have kept bilingualism as a running standard in Canada, rendering the Canadian Military stagnant politically, socially and economically. Although the Canadian political, economic and social structure would collapse as a direct result of war, at least when the citizens of Quebec came to the West Coast and rummaged through debris, they could read and understand wash, rinse and repeat cycles on shamphoo bottles.
Vous devrais penser un peu plus avant de ecrire. Merci!
Bruce
I'm not sure that you should be making ANY assumpions of bias upon others.
QUOTE
Understandably, cut-backs will have to be made...perhaps they could start with the cutting of a "bilingual standard" on all Canadian documentation.
Scenario:
War is waged on Canadian grounds, and Canada is brought into direct hot conflict. Would you...
A) Rather have agreed to cut-backs on a bilingual standard on all Canadian documentation, saving the government millions of dollars, which could then be funneled into important bodies of government, such as the Canadian Military, allowing Canada to augment her military forces and perhaps even stand on her own two feet in the face of conflict. (Yes, the people of Quebec may not have a copy of documentation translated into french, for their own archives...but I'm almost certain there are those that have come to master both languages, and could maybe even (bear with me here) translate it orally.)
Or
B) Rather have kept bilingualism as a running standard in Canada, rendering the Canadian Military stagnant politically, socially and economically. Although the Canadian political, economic and social structure would collapse as a direct result of war, at least when the citizens of Quebec came to the West Coast and rummaged through debris, they could read and understand wash, rinse and repeat cycles on shamphoo bottles.
Vous devrais penser un peu plus avant de ecrire. Merci!
Bruce
- Reaction score
- 2,082
- Points
- 1,160
As per M Dorosh et. al, perhaps it would be best to let MMI disengage and retreat to the high ground and reconsider tactical options at this point. I'm sure you agree, at this point MMI is owed this, as the offer has been previously extended.
Cheers, and BTW, if '83 Regs is NFG Rookie, holy crap!! I am not worthy!!!!
Cheers, and BTW, if '83 Regs is NFG Rookie, holy crap!! I am not worthy!!!!
- Reaction score
- 2,082
- Points
- 1,160
I guess Miss Molson Indy has gone AWOL!! Too bad, there was a great discussion going here.... it's my understanding the British soldier in the article below was investigated by his C.O., and cleared of wrongdoing, yet for some reason charges were laid by Metro (UK) Police. Can anyone confirm this, with a credible refernce source, i.e. journal or similar piece? I am toying with some idea's for a new thread on this matter, which will once again bring up the subject matter of a professional organization which enjoys some measure of deference from civilian entities. I am specifically looking for the scenario leading to events from which the charges stem. Thank you in advance for your assistance.
W601.
From the Guardian:
British soldier charged with murder of Iraqi civilian
Tuesday September 7, 2004
Police today charged a 21-year-old British soldier with the murder of an Iraqi civilian, the first civilian murder charge in connection with the war in Iraq.
A Metropolitan police spokesman said trooper Kevin Williams, of the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment, would appear at Bow Street magistrates court later today charged with the murder of Hassan Said.
In May, the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, ordered a civilian police investigation into the death of Said, who died in ad-Dayr, near Basra in south-eastern Iraq, on August 3 2003. Said is believed to have been shot while being arrested, but little has been made public about the incident in which he died.
Lord Goldsmith was expected to make a statement in connection with the case later today.
The British military has launched 131 investigations into deaths and injuries of Iraqis, in incidents ranging from combat to detentions to road accidents. Seven cases cover detainees who died in custody. Lord Goldsmith announced in June that four soldiers would be charged in military courts with sexually abusing detainees.
The government has previously expressed regret and sympathy for the deaths of Iraqi civilians, but it is fighting a lawsuit by the families of six Iraqis allegedly killed by British troops, who have gone to the high court in London seeking to force an independent investigation. Hassan Said's case is not among these.
The government says it has paid more than £142,000 in compensation to settle 106 cases of death, injury and property damage in Iraq. Another 537 claims have been denied, while 149 remain under investigation.
Today the prime minister, Tony Blair, said that most of the 8,000 British troops in Iraq "have done a fantastic job an amazing job in Basra and elsewhere". Mr Blair told reporters at his monthly press conference that it was important British troops "adhere to high standards, and where they don't we take action".
W601.
From the Guardian:
British soldier charged with murder of Iraqi civilian
Tuesday September 7, 2004
Police today charged a 21-year-old British soldier with the murder of an Iraqi civilian, the first civilian murder charge in connection with the war in Iraq.
A Metropolitan police spokesman said trooper Kevin Williams, of the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment, would appear at Bow Street magistrates court later today charged with the murder of Hassan Said.
In May, the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, ordered a civilian police investigation into the death of Said, who died in ad-Dayr, near Basra in south-eastern Iraq, on August 3 2003. Said is believed to have been shot while being arrested, but little has been made public about the incident in which he died.
Lord Goldsmith was expected to make a statement in connection with the case later today.
The British military has launched 131 investigations into deaths and injuries of Iraqis, in incidents ranging from combat to detentions to road accidents. Seven cases cover detainees who died in custody. Lord Goldsmith announced in June that four soldiers would be charged in military courts with sexually abusing detainees.
The government has previously expressed regret and sympathy for the deaths of Iraqi civilians, but it is fighting a lawsuit by the families of six Iraqis allegedly killed by British troops, who have gone to the high court in London seeking to force an independent investigation. Hassan Said's case is not among these.
The government says it has paid more than £142,000 in compensation to settle 106 cases of death, injury and property damage in Iraq. Another 537 claims have been denied, while 149 remain under investigation.
Today the prime minister, Tony Blair, said that most of the 8,000 British troops in Iraq "have done a fantastic job an amazing job in Basra and elsewhere". Mr Blair told reporters at his monthly press conference that it was important British troops "adhere to high standards, and where they don't we take action".
- Reaction score
- 6,474
- Points
- 1,360
Some thoughts and articles.
http://arabiansea.com/s/baghdad/ Click on" war crimes?" at the top I could use some coin.
http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20040908/topstories/139662_ARC.shtml
Attorney General Lord Goldsmith said in a written statement to Parliament that he had been asked by the Ministry of Defense to review the case "after charges were dismissed by the soldier's commanding officer. This meant the case could not be tried by court martial."
http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/13027935?source=PA
That one is interesting, so from what I've gathered this morning is that he can't be court-martialled because his CO declined to press charges. Personally I would think that someone higher-up the food chain could over-rule the CO's finding based on the evidence. Two reasons come to mind quick [a] keeping it out of the civilian system and all the bad publicity that it entails and especially in a combat area the personal involved could be a little too intertwined[not saying that about this case, not enough facts yet] to make a fair objective finding and not to mention the possible feeling that the "big guy sold us out" feeling the men might have.
EDIT: One more... http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004420467,00.html
http://arabiansea.com/s/baghdad/ Click on" war crimes?" at the top I could use some coin.
http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20040908/topstories/139662_ARC.shtml
Attorney General Lord Goldsmith said in a written statement to Parliament that he had been asked by the Ministry of Defense to review the case "after charges were dismissed by the soldier's commanding officer. This meant the case could not be tried by court martial."
http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/13027935?source=PA
That one is interesting, so from what I've gathered this morning is that he can't be court-martialled because his CO declined to press charges. Personally I would think that someone higher-up the food chain could over-rule the CO's finding based on the evidence. Two reasons come to mind quick [a] keeping it out of the civilian system and all the bad publicity that it entails and especially in a combat area the personal involved could be a little too intertwined[not saying that about this case, not enough facts yet] to make a fair objective finding and not to mention the possible feeling that the "big guy sold us out" feeling the men might have.
EDIT: One more... http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004420467,00.html
- Reaction score
- 6,474
- Points
- 1,360
Just to add a question to this, would this be the same in the Canadian military?
Similar threads
