The Merged Thread on Gay/ Homosexual Topics and the CF.

[TCBF]

- Too bad they never got around to asking about kids being kept in the attic at CFB Chatham.

 

[Jarnhamar]

That is so true.  If it was truly sexual assault then there should have been enough evidence to lay charges right away.  Was there a charge laid and the assault is just another example to make her point?  Who knows, I know I sure don't.

Are you in the same CF?

You mean to tell me that back in the day when it was  "fags or dyke's"  (Words used apparently BY the SIU) you don't think it's plausible that a woman suspected of being gay would brig up allegations of sexual harassment or assault and the CF would laugh and say ya okay we'll get on that!

Not really our place to judge wether she's 'greedy' or not according to how much money she's asking for IMO.  To me that's akin to criticizing soldiers with PTSD or severe wounds. "Man you only lost your leg! You can still walk with a crutch, why are you trying to get such a big pension? Greedy"

 

[Slim]

You are so right, I am quick to condemn.

Not for laying the law suit, but as I said before, for waiting so long and for asking for $1.5 Million.  If it meant that much why wait so long and why ask so much.  Even if she only got $1000 it would say yes you were right and we are sorry.  A $100,000 would do the same and not show greed.

Well Bud

I take exception to that line of thinking...As I said before, I had a friend, now dead, who tried to deal with being harrassed and couldn't.

He DID get a pension, councilling and everything else that the CF could do...However it just wouldn't go away so he took himself out of the picture.

He was a damn fine soldier and became a damn fine police officer after releasing from the CF...after doing 10 years and several tours...

But, according to you, it's his fault right?!

To my way of looking at it you need to rethink some stuff...

Slim

 

[Harley Sailor]

Well Bud

I take exception to that line of thinking...As I said before, I had a friend, now dead, who tried to deal with being harrassed and couldn't.

He DID get a pension, councilling and everything else that the CF could do...However it just wouldn't go away so he took himself out of the picture.

He was a damn fine soldier and became a damn fine police officer after releasing from the CF...after doing 10 years and several tours...

But, according to you, it's his fault right?!

To my way of looking at it you need to rethink some stuff...

Slim

Well Slim you must have used the wrong quote..  I am I wrote better ones that you could have used to make your point.. The Quote you used was about money and by the sounds of it no amount of money would have helped your friend.. Would it have made a difference if the goverment gave him a million dollars, or even two?  That was, after all, my point, or did you miss that..

 

[armyvern]

Well Slim you must have used the wrong quote..  I am I wrote better ones that you could have used to make your point.. The Quote you used was about money and by the sounds of it no amount of money would have helped your friend.. Would it have made a difference if the goverment gave him a million dollars, or even two?  That was, after all, my point, or did you miss that..

Perhaps it may made squat of a difference to him, but I'm sure that it would have to the family who has suffered the greatest financially etc from his "personal" loss. This happens ALL the time. Get hit by a drunk driver? His insurance pays you out so that you/survivors can live. We call these people "victims".

In this case, all you seem to be doing is painting the CF as the "victim", not the woman who actually "lived it".

If her claims are bogus - the court judgement will decide that; likewise if she's determined to actually be the "victim."

Until such time, I'm not willing to paint either side as the victim in this. Time will tell - as will the facts.

 

[Harley Sailor]

Maybe if I use another case as an example I can explain my point better.  The fire on our Submarine a few years ago also caused a lot of people a lot of mental problems.  How much did the government give them for thier pain and suffering? They averaged less then $1500 a month for PTSD.  Which means they will get less then a million over 50 years.  The families of our fallen soldiers get less then $50,000 a year in pension, which means it will take more then 30 years for them to make $1.5 million.

IMO their losses are much worth and they will be getting a lot less.  Is that really fair?

 

[Slim]

  The fire on our Submarine a few years ago also caused a lot of people a lot of mental problems.  How much did the government give them for their pain and suffering?

I know what you're trying to say...And you're probably right. Lt Saunder's family aside, the crew that suffered in that accident are probably not nearly as well compensated for their suffering, during and after that terrible ordeal.

No dispute;

However, I do believe that there is a difference in that the crew were performing their jobs at the time. No one expects accidents but they do happen, on land, at sea and in the air.

I think the difference is that a case of sexual assault is outside the purview of a soldier/sailor/airman's sworn duties and therefore, in the eyes of all parties concerned, that much worse.

The take on this incident that you hold is one of perspective. 10 years ago, while I was still serving I would probably have felt the same way you do about this....Time and distance have given me another perspective I guess. I no longer believe "Shut up and soldier on!" to be the answer.

Peope can be irreparably damaged by events such as that one  and it's up to the individuals mettle whether they sink or swim. Councilling and compensation can help in overcoming such an event...Compensation is basically the admission that the entity that the abused served was wrong in not preventing, stopping or investigating the incident and acting accordingly within a reasonable amount of time.

My 2 pennies

 

[gun runner]

Maybe she didn't like the pensionable amount she was/is entitled to... IMHO that is it in a nutshell for me!! Ubique

 

[armyvern]

Maybe she didn't like the pensionable amount she was/is entitled to... IMHO that is it in a nutshell for me!! Ubique

Well, she also wouldn't be the first to sue DND or VAC for that.

There's a whole class action happening on that front right now ... troops & vets getting screwed on claw-backs ...

Surely, you're not suggesting that the government would never screw over Joe & Jane Regularsoldier??

There wouldn't have been a requirement for an Ombudsman if that were the case.

I love how some of you are so quick to judge her guilty of something. Absolutely amazing --- the facts may make you look the fool when they do come out.

 

[gun runner]

The pensioned amount after retirement for the C.F. as a whole is a complete joke.. unless you retire flag rank. You all deserve alot more than what you will take in after deductions. That is fact not fiction. Ubique

 

[lou-reed]

Gun runner,

The pensioned amount after retirement for the C.F. as a whole is a complete joke.. unless you retire flag rank. You all deserve alot more than what you will take in after deductions. That is fact not fiction. Ubique

I will respectfully disagree with you.  I am a recent retiree with 20 years pensionable service.  I have no complaints with 40% of my best five (Capt 5)  Would I take more if I could?  Absolutely, but the fact is that the $1800+ I get a month is, in my opinion reasonable for 20 years of my service.  If I really felt that I deserved more I would have stayed in!  My pension is adequate for me to live on with some minor lifestyle changes.

Regarding the original subject - Let's not be too hasty in passing judgement without knowing all the facts.  PTSD and its related symptoms are all handled differently by everyone.  I know first hand about some of the underhanded tactics used by SIU back 20 years ago regarding gays and lesbians.  The problem is that now, due to the passage of time, records and witnesses may not be as reliable if they are still available.  Until we know all the facts we cannot prove or disprove any of the accusations.  We should let this woman have her day to present her side of what happened. 

 

[Slim]

  We should let this woman have her day to present her side of what happened. 

I agree...Let the woman have her day...Which, in all likelyhood will be difficult for her given the way that courts can be regarding this type of alleged act.

However, at the end of it, it MAY help her face down her demons...Something that my friend was never able to do.

 

[Blackadder1916]

In reviewing many of the posts in this thread one would get the impression that the complaintant is suing because of psychological trauma that resulted from sexual assault and harassment during her time in the service.  However, from reviewing the scant information in the few tiny news articles, there is no mention that this suit is about the psychological effects of her (mis)treatment in the CF.  Her primary claim (according to news reports) is that she was denied promotion due to her sexuality and because she reported the harassment.  While it may be very easy to make that leap of deduction and so colour her case (and this discussion), she, apparently, has not.  It is likely that few, if any, participating in this thread know this woman.  For all we know, she may be a tough, scrappy fighter who does not want to be labeled a "victim", but is simply exercising her legal rights to gain what she believes was illegally denied her.  Though I'm not a lawyer (spit), from looking at reports of similar cases the amount requested is not totally exorbitant.

During my career (particularly during the period when homosexuals weren't allowed) there were many (?) of that persuasion that most of us were aware of or at least highly suspected.  In a lot of cases nobody really cared about it or the individuals were of more senior rank and thus were insulated from punitive action (official or unofficial).  Action, however, was usually taken against those who did not "fit in" or whose sexual activities came to public light (Shelbourne and Valcartier being two of the more public incidents back in the dark ages).  It was more convenient to take action against homosexuals who didn't "fit in" because there was a CFAO that said they didn't fit in and administrative means to get rid of them if their sexual orientation could be proven.  The only ways their sexual orientation could be proven was for the individual to admit it, someone else to testify that they had a (homo)sexual encounter with them or to be caught "in flagrante delicto".  A lot of the time it was the unofficial method that convinced them to leave the military, sometimes with a little official unrecognition (wink, wink, nod, nod) that it was taking place.  These days, that would be called harassment and it wouldn't surprise me if such unofficial activities continued after 1992.  So if this was Mythbusters, I would say that her claim is "plausible".

 

[Slim]

Interesting insight into the situation...And the method that you described was certainly the one that the CF used to 'deal' with the problem children of that persuasion.

Whatever the woman (who is suing) is, she still deserves her day to speak.

It will be interesting to see what the results will be...

Cheers

Slim

 

[petergoodman]

Or even just remember what the tolerance they call for REALLY means.....

What exactly does tolerance REALLY mean? We shouldn't allow ourselves to jump to irrational conclusions - as Hamilton PRide did, by assuming the worst stereotypes. Too easy. Toronto's parade was well-received so we can't use Hamilton as the rule.

 

[petergoodman]

Having pride in one's sexual preference is a bit of an odd thing for me to comprehend (much as pride in one's race, religion, or whatever, but hey, live and let live, I suppose)

'Pride' in this context is often misinterpreted, especially by people who've never been forced to hide who they are in a dominant or hostile culture.  It's about standing up to be counted without fear, and taking control of your own life, no matter how the peanut gallery reacts. Blacks did it in the 60's and now they have Obama.  Social evolution and democratic progress takes courage as all soldiers can appreciate.

Marching shows inner strength and outer courage to risk everything by 'outing' yourself in a public forum. 

We have endless events, rituals and institutions that inherently condone hetero/sexual orientation -not preference- every day with weddings, dances, government forms, etc, so why get our backs up when the gays take over the streets for one day every year? As military folks supporting freedom and democracy, isn't it the duty of the military to support these principles for all, regardless of your personal partisan inclinations?  I hope we see CF soldiers in pride parades across the country in years to come to show the country and the world that we stand by the true ideals which we claim to defend.

 

[petergoodman]

FYI the Love Parade happens 2 weeks after the Berlin Gay Pride Parade every year!!  They have both - Pride is fundamentally political in nature - about rights and visibility.  Love Parade is by design Apolitical - it's only about the music!

 

[norris]

I was always taught that pride was a sin.

 

[Edward Campbell]

What exactly does tolerance REALLY mean? We shouldn't allow ourselves to jump to irrational conclusions - as Hamilton PRide did, by assuming the worst stereotypes. Too easy. Toronto's parade was well-received so we can't use Hamilton as the rule.

Interesting question.

Put broadly, we tolerate that which we know or believe to be worthy of our disapproval but which, since it does not infringe our fundamental rights, ought not to be forbidden to others just because it offends our moral, religious or intellectual standards. Thus, I tolerate e.g. Brittney Spears even though she offends my moral, musical and intellectual standards - I don't think she should be hied off to a nunnery ... strike that, I do think she ought to be hied off to a nunnery, I just don't think it's proper to inflict her on any of them.

Equally, I tolerate public displays of homosexual 'pride' even though I find them to be in poor taste and unsuitable for children, adolescents, grown ups, pets and even civil servants. I also tolerate organized religion even though it offends intellectually - but I do like some of the music.

There is also the problem of each of us knowing or believing that something is wrong - and then deciding, or not, to tolerate it anyway. Who says we know the 'truth.' And who says that we should tolerate something that is really offensive? For many of us being tolerant is just easier that taking action against that which offends our sense of right and wrong.

Finally: Tolerance is different from toleration; see here, and here, but that's another debate.

 

[TCBF]

What exactly does tolerance REALLY mean? ...

- It means that we have to hire and promote people SOLELY based on their sexual orientation, not their ability and productivity, and nothing less will ever do.