UVIC threads on Recruiting, Protests & Students against War

[vonGarvin]

"We have much to build on. According to the London Free Press, "The number of Canadian soldiers who have gone absent without leave has doubled in the last six years... Records[what records????????] obtained through access to information show 708 troops were convicted of going AWOL in 2005 - more than twice the 340 convicted of the offence in 2000. Numbers show a sharp rise after 2001, when the 9/11 terrorist attacks propelled Canada's military into a more dangerous, combative role abroad." This highlights just how much support this national counter-recruitment campaign will have. Indeed, Francisco Juarez, a Canadian soldier until recently, became the first to speak out against Canada's war in Afghanistan. It is just a matter of time before more Canadian soldiers begin to do the same." (http://operationobjection.org/about.html)

"Going AWOL" could mean something like sleeping in and missing PT.  Not always the case, of course, but certainly included in the figures.  I know ALL ABOUT being charged with AWOL  :'(

 

[Greymatters]

"Going AWOL" could mean something like sleeping in and missing PT.  Not always the case, of course, but certainly included in the figures.  I know ALL ABOUT being charged with AWOL   :'( 

It speaks volumes that the people who quote AWOL statistics do not even understand how broadly the charge is applied. 

 

[Reccesoldier]

I'm more pissed that they called Juarez a 'soldier'. :rage:

 

[medaid]

I agree. Juarez... I really wish they would STOP using that IDIOT as their poster child! My God! What a fracking idiot he was and now he's being used as a tool to change the minds of more idiots! Lovely!

 

[Strike]

"Going AWOL" could mean something like sleeping in and missing PT.  Not always the case, of course, but certainly included in the figures.

...missing a dentist/doctor/physio/IRP appointment, getting caught behind a pile-up on the way back from leave and not making it in past check-in, getting weathered in and losing phone service -- any number of these would still be qualified as AWOL.

 

[career_radio-checker]

It speaks volumes that the people who quote AWOL statistics do not even understand how broadly the charge is applied. 

Operation Objection has been covered already in other threads.

Still, in collaboration with what has transpired at UVic in the past month, both Students Against War (SAW) and Operation Objection follow the same trend of quoting American recruiting styles and practices as Canadian. This is their fatal error -- to which we are eager to point out. But one thing I have notice while following this story is that the students who successfully campaigned against the ban at UVic lobbied on the platform that this was of 'freedom of choice' issue. Rarely, if ever, did they point out the completely unfounded claims of Students Against War. I admit to writting the anti-ban camp, pointing out the flaws of SAW and their ridiculous claims to which they thanked me yet stuck to their original platform. In my own selfishness this somewhat annoyed me, yet after seeing the results of Thursday's vote, I realized this made the victory all the sweeter.
1. It disproved the myth that University students (especially on the 'left' coast) are all 'pinkos' and 'commies';
2. It proved students not only understand the freedoms afforded to them but that they want to exercise them;
3. It showed students do understand the necessity of a military even if they don't want to join;
4. It showed SAW that they were really in the minority;
5. And most importantly it proved that UVic students were fully capable of mounting their own protest against what they rightfully saw as ignorant and naive claims and infractions on their rights -- without some selfish pissed off soldier, like myself, needing to point it out to them.

I shall enjoy my humble pie.
Good job to the anti-ban group
CRC  

 

[JBoyd]

what they need to realize is that there is a large difference between AWOL and desertion

 

[TCBF]

what they need to realize is that there is a large difference between AWOL and desertion

- A couple of weeks...

;D

 

[Greymatters]

Operation Objection has been covered already in other threads.

Still, in collaboration with what has transpired at UVic in the past month, both Students Against War (SAW) and Operation Objection follow the same trend of quoting American recruiting styles and practices as Canadian. This is their fatal error -- to which we are eager to point out. But one thing I have notice while following this story is that the students who successfully campaigned against the ban at UVic lobbied on the platform that this was of 'freedom of choice' issue. Rarely, if ever, did they point out the completely unfounded claims of Students Against War. I admit to writting the anti-ban camp, pointing out the flaws of SAW and their ridiculous claims to which they thanked me yet stuck to their original platform. In my own selfishness this somewhat annoyed me, yet after seeing the results of Thursday's vote, I realized this made the victory all the sweeter.
1. It disproved the myth that University students (especially on the 'left' coast) are all 'pinkos' and 'commies';
2. It proved students not only understand the freedoms afforded to them but that they want to exercise them;
3. It showed students do understand the necessity of a military even if they don't want to join;
4. It showed SAW that they were really in the minority;
5. And most importantly it proved that UVic students were fully capable of mounting their own protest against what they rightfully saw as ignorant and naive claims and infractions on their rights -- without some selfish pissed off soldier, like myself, needing to point it out to them.

+1 to that!

 

[vonGarvin]

what they need to realize is that there is a large difference between AWOL and desertion

DESERTION:
(1) Section 88 of the National Defence Act provides:
  "88. (1) Every person who deserts or attempts to desert is guilty of an offence and on conviction, if the person committed the offence on active service or under orders for active service, is liable to imprisonment for life or to less punishment and, in any other case, is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to less punishment.
  (2) A person deserts who
  (a) being on or having been warned for active service, duty during an emergency or other important service, is absent without authority with the intention of avoiding that service;
  (b) having been warned that his vessel is under sailing orders, is absent without authority with the intention of missing that vessel;
  (c) absents himself without authority from his place of duty with the intention of remaining absent from his place of duty;
  (d) is absent without authority from his place of duty and at any time during such absence forms the intention of remaining absent from his place of duty; or
  (e) while absent with authority from his place of duty, with the intention of remaining absent from his place of duty, does any act or omits to do anything the natural and probable consequence of which act or omission is to preclude the person from being at his place of duty at the time required.
  (3) A person who has been absent without authority for a continuous period of six months or more shall, unless the contrary is proved, be presumed to have had the intention of remaining absent from his place of duty."

(1) Section 90 of the National Defence Act provides:
  "90. (1) Every person who absents himself without leave is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to imprisonment for less than two years or to less punishment.
  (2) A person absents himself without leave who
  (a) without authority leaves his place of duty;
  (b) without authority is absent from his place of duty; or
  (c) having been authorized to be absent from his place of duty, fails to return to his place of duty at the expiration of the period for which the absence of that person was authorized."

I put in the punishments available in BOLD YELLOW for emphasis.  Note that the punishment listed for Desertion is for "active service" offences. (EG: not showing up to go to Afghanistan).  I also seem to remember that desertion used to be punishable by death or less punishment prior to 1999.

EDIT: Should a better way to track the effect on war be how many convictions of desertion have taken place since 2001? Service members who avoided going to Bosnia (say, 1993 time frame, if any) could have been charged under this section (desertion, vice AWOL).

 

[vonGarvin]

- A couple of weeks...

;D

Actually, continous absence for six months or more turns it from AWOL to desertion.

 

[JBoyd]

DESERTION:
(1) Section 88 of the National Defence Act provides:
  "88. (1) Every person who deserts or attempts to desert is guilty of an offence and on conviction, if the person committed the offence on active service or under orders for active service, is liable to imprisonment for life or to less punishment and, in any other case, is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to less punishment.
  (2) A person deserts who
  (a) being on or having been warned for active service, duty during an emergency or other important service, is absent without authority with the intention of avoiding that service;
  (b) having been warned that his vessel is under sailing orders, is absent without authority with the intention of missing that vessel;
  (c) absents himself without authority from his place of duty with the intention of remaining absent from his place of duty;
  (d) is absent without authority from his place of duty and at any time during such absence forms the intention of remaining absent from his place of duty; or
  (e) while absent with authority from his place of duty, with the intention of remaining absent from his place of duty, does any act or omits to do anything the natural and probable consequence of which act or omission is to preclude the person from being at his place of duty at the time required.
  (3) A person who has been absent without authority for a continuous period of six months or more shall, unless the contrary is proved, be presumed to have had the intention of remaining absent from his place of duty."

(1) Section 90 of the National Defence Act provides:
  "90. (1) Every person who absents himself without leave is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to imprisonment for less than two years or to less punishment.
  (2) A person absents himself without leave who
  (a) without authority leaves his place of duty;
  (b) without authority is absent from his place of duty; or
  (c) having been authorized to be absent from his place of duty, fails to return to his place of duty at the expiration of the period for which the absence of that person was authorized."

I put in the punishments available in BOLD YELLOW for emphasis.  Note that the punishment listed for Desertion is for "active service" offences. (EG: not showing up to go to Afghanistan).  I also seem to remember that desertion used to be punishable by death or less punishment prior to 1999.

EDIT: Should a better way to track the effect on war be how many convictions of desertion have taken place since 2001? Service members who avoided going to Bosnia (say, 1993 time frame, if any) could have been charged under this section (desertion, vice AWOL).

Well yes, that was what i was getting at, they seem to think that AWOL means that a soldier deserted his post he doesnt agree with the war or the efforts of the CF, when in fact this is hardly the case. I hate that these organizatiosn are so much on the high horse that they skew information for their benefits

 

[Greymatters]

Well yes, that was what i was getting at, they seem to think that AWOL means that a soldier deserted his post he doesnt agree with the war or the efforts of the CF, when in fact this is hardly the case. I hate that these organizatiosn are so much on the high horse that they skew information for their benefits

Well put...

 

[Foxhound]

This line from the article a couple of pages back, is the one that caught my eye:

"For me, exercising my democratic right and freedom of speech is about taking actions to actually stop things from happening," student Jennifer King said.

So, if i understand correctly, this student's idea of her responsibilities in a democracy include agitating against the democracy of which she is supposed to be a part, not defending it.  "...stop[ing] things from happening" versus working to make things happen.

Ugh.

 

[Munxcub]

Well the opposition's job is to oppose right?  :

 

[Foxhound]

I get that Munxcub, honestly I do.  I have no problems with legitimate protests per se.  Yet to have a university student stand up on her hind legs and declare that, for her, in order for her to be exercising her democratic rights and freedom of speech, she must "stop things from happening."  So no wonder the right-of-center is called un-democratic, we're not stopping enough from happening, I guess.

 

[JBoyd]

Perhaps it would help if they could actually see what would eventually happen if she along with the others like here suceeded in stoping in any actions.

Personally I also think that her comment is off-the-wall ridiculous, Why is it none of these kids understand that without our military, democracy would not prevail?

 

[larry Strong]

I would be interested to see a break down of the stats...

 

[Center_Right_newfie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmKub_BXXV8

Enough of that. Its all over. Membership in these unions should be voluntary and their activities heavily curtailed. I dont care if most students dont give a rats ass about the union

 

[PMedMoe]

Listening to Sounds Like Canada on CBC radio right now.  The opponents on military recruitment in schools just called the recruiters liars.  These people need to look in a mirror.