• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Army commander vows to issue special order to weed out extremists in the ranks

ballz said:
It's almost like, after years of seeing the same thing over and over again, you know the CAF's playbook...

Yes his insight is deep and wise. I suspect that the deciding factor is whether NDHQ is feeling political/social heat for anything that might said or posted by a member and the real message is that: "we will throw you under the bus" regardless of how questionable the original statement/action is.
 
MJP said:
No they don't, nor do they have too.

Hi MJP

I don't get it. Doesn't CF or the NDA have to be consistent with the Charter? And if I understand you, the CF doesn't have to allow the presumption of innocence and the requirement that the charge be proved beyond a reasonable doubt? Okay military is different but it begs the question why not? And if a service member faces a charge of say "hateful conduct", he/she has the onus placed on them and not the other way around?

Forgive me - I'm confused.
 
FJAG said:
I'm still on Facebook but I've been using the "unfollow" function a lot more lately.

:clubinhand:

Oh heck yes, I don't want to look at anything political on there.  It's never what the platform was originally about but it's slowly descended in to complete garbage.
 
Admin actions are not disciplinary.  Don't confuse DAOD 5019 with QR&O volume II.
 
dapaterson said:
Admin actions are not disciplinary.  Don't confuse DAOD 5019 with QR&O volume II.

Thanks DA

Still over my head but I'm used to that ;)

:cheers:
 
dapaterson said:
Admin actions are not disciplinary.  Don't confuse DAOD 5019 with QR&O volume II.

Perhaps not by design. I've know several, as in more than a couple, of members who were given 6 months C&P, got their shit wired tight and checked every box on the supervising officers score card. After the 6 months? Punted, two of them off base within 72 hours. Once the all seeing eye of Mordor is on you and up your ass, that's punitive. Make a guy squirm for six months, see the finish line ahead and get to just to have it turn out to be a garrote. I'd call that more than punitive.
 
Jarnhamar said:
I hope this is a legitimate thing and not just fluff. I especially hope it's not just another tired DLN course that people speed-click through to challenge the test and report to higher that it's good to go so someone in brigade can populate a spread sheet and everyone call it mission accomplished.

After reading the Commander's Intent, I think you're probably right that this will just be a lip service order. It is naive to think we can eliminate hateful conduct within the CA. As pointed out earlier, we're a microcosm of Canadian society and we will have extremists slip through into the ranks. When your intent is unachievable, it greatly reduces the value of the the rest of the order.

What CCA should have said (IMO) was that he wants create a culture within the CA that makes hateful conduct unacceptable meaning those individuals harbouring extremist views can either get with the program or leave and also where everyone in uniform feels impowered to call out hateful conduct at any rank or experience level. We will be dealing with racists in the CAF until the end of time, no matter how many CCA's intend on removing all racists and it never be a problem again. It makes it easier to identify those extremists when we create that proper culture, not perpetually running witch hunts for racists.
 
MJP said:
I see where you are coming from and apologies if I came across as overly simplistic, have run across too many senior military folks who are fairly clueless on how admin measures work so I try not to make assumptions.

The real problem with racist or sexist or sexualized behaviour is not the big overt acts, we can all easily identify, it is those micro-aggression (believe me I scoffed when I first heard the term) and their effect on people, the org and the culture over time. The key to stamping it out much like Op HONOUR is a strong show by the leadership that these behaviours are unacceptable, hence orders like this one or Op HONOUR. 

Yeah, agree with you there; similarly scoffed about microaggressions until I had a discussion with a friend and he explained what it was like, and realized it was similar to some of the bullying I had as a kid (just with grownups). No reason anyone should have to put up with that as work.

Think microaggressions can be like 'tone' in emails; a lot of times it's intentional, but sometimes it's not. The question 'Where are you from' in the CAF context is totally different the on normal civie street, as very few of us are actually posted in our home town (and I joined the Navy specifically to see somewhere other then my home town). Anyway, not really too worried about it, as it's not a bad thing if people think for a second before saying/posting something.

 
Guess they might deem me a racist, as I love asking people where they/their family are from, as it gives me a chance to hear interesting stories and learn new things. Also a way to humanize people, personally I think we should spend more time learning about people's backgrounds as we will realize we all have commonalities.
 
dapaterson said:
Admin actions are not disciplinary.  Don't confuse DAOD 5019 with QR&O volume II.

They have 100% become punitive in nature.  Admin Action is honestly worse than the CSD. 
 
Colin P said:
Guess they might deem me a racist, as I love asking people where they/their family are from, as it gives me a chance to hear interesting stories and learn new things. Also a way to humanize people, personally I think we should spend more time learning about people's backgrounds as we will realize we all have commonalities.

Imagine a world where simply asking someone where they are from has become verboten. 
 
QV said:
Imagine a world where simply asking someone where they are from has become verboten.

It actually seems like a very North American thing to identify with where your ancestors immigrated here from. My experience with Europeans is that if you say you're "Irish" they actually think you were born in Ireland. And they find it downright strange that you'd consider yourself "Irish" as a result. When you say it Canada, it might mean your family moved here from Ireland 300 years ago and we just kinda know that that's what we meant.

I do have a friend of Asian descent who finds it extremely irritating (maybe even racist) to ask him where he's from. His answer is "Canada." His parents/family are from Hong Kong and he hates China so I dunno how much of it is also because he doesn't want to be associated with China. I take no side on this. Seems like a simple misunderstanding between two cultures that both sides can solve by simply being more in tune with each other. And being more "aware" is great.

I do take issue with the term "micro-aggression." This is deliberately trying to redefine the word "aggression" so that you can justify retaliating against it with actual aggression. I may, out of pure ignorance, not be aware that what I am saying or doing is not received well by someone from another culture background. I'm more than happy to talk about it, be corrected, work together to work it out, talk about it over a beer, whatever. But my ignorance does not equal aggression or hateful conduct. I can't know what I don't know, and supporting idea that it is "aggression" just legitimizes outrage culture. We should be trying to bring back some reason, like assuming the best in people, and allowing them the opportunity to redeem themselves, not legitimizing outrage / cancel culture which encourages people to assume the worst of everyone and "stay outraged" even if the person apologizes and wants to make amends.
 
QV said:
Imagine a world where simply asking someone where they are from has become verboten.

Actually we should define ourselves as Canadians - not Irish Canadian, Scottish Canadian etc etc.

I'm a Canadian pure and simple, as are several of my coworkers whose families originate from Asia.

BTW I'm a Jedi too if we are counting religious stuff as well. ;)
 
ballz said:
I do have a friend of Asian descent who finds it extremely irritating (maybe even racist) to ask him where he's from. His answer is "Canada."

I just ask "What is your family heritage" as a good way of tackling that one - "Irish," "Hong Kong," or "Pakistan by way of Africa" are some of the responses I've gotten.
 
ballz said:
It actually seems like a very North American thing to identify with where your ancestors immigrated here from.

It's common to Europe too where immigrants might come from, you know, the next county (20 kms away) and can be identified by their weird customs... and accents.

(It makes it easier to pick them out when you systematically discriminate against them, though. For centuries.)

Believe me, Canada is better  :nod:
 
Technically lumping all whitey's together is a "micro-aggression" as well. we should demand they identify us by our roots. From now on I demand they call me "white, English, Scots dogs breakfast"
 
MJP said:
No they don't, nor do they have too.

and

dapaterson said:
Admin actions are not disciplinary.  Don't confuse DAOD 5019 with QR&O volume II.

Hi dapaterson

I meant serious offences; not late for parade charges if that is what you meant.

Hi MJP

I finally found it.

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/reports-publications/military-law/an-overview-of-canadas-military-justice-system.html

Things certainly has changed over the years. Back in the early 70s, an MP informed me that "rape, murder, and manslaughter" cannot be tried in the military justice system. And child abduction is added or so I understand.

 
QV said:
Imagine a world where simply asking someone where they are from has become verboten.

Especially when you mean where in Canada they're from, its kind of a big country.
 
Micro aggression is certainly a nuanced and in some cases much misused word. I find most that scoff/complain about it don't really understand it (see also my other post where people believe myths regarding an actual issue). It certainly doesn't mean one has to perfect, rather that they are aware of their implicit and exhibited biases in how they behave and act. There are certainly some who will use anything to their advantage and feed an outrage train no question about it.  There are just as many (more IMHO) willing to put their head in the sand and not see their actions and behaviors, the institutions or the cultures inhibits people from fully being part of a diverse team.

Both need to be dealt with to make the team better....

https://www.apa.org/monitor/2009/02/microaggression

Meanwhile, social psychologists Jack Dovidio, PhD, of Yale University, and Samuel L. Gaertner, PhD, of the University of Delaware, have demonstrated across several studies that many well-intentioned whites who consciously believe in and profess equality unconsciously act in a racist manner, particularly in ambiguous circumstances. In experimental job interviews, for example, whites tend not to discriminate against black candidates when their qualifications are as strong or as weak as whites'. But when candidates' qualifications are similarly ambiguous, whites tend to favor white over black candidates, the team has found. The team calls this pattern "aversive racism," referring in part to whites' aversion to being seen as prejudiced, given their conscious adherence to egalitarian principles.

Sue adds to these findings by naming, detailing and classifying the actual manifestations of aversive racism. His work illuminates the internal experiences of people affected by microaggressions—a new direction, since past research on prejudice and discrimination has focused on whites' attitudes and behaviors, notes Dovidio.



Infanteer said:
I just ask "What is your family heritage" as a good way of tackling that one - "Irish," "Hong Kong," or "Pakistan by way of Africa" are some of the responses I've gotten.

Imagine having the emotional capacity, leadership and and understanding of how people work to have solid communication skills, mannerisms and behaviour across a broad spectrum to create an inclusive and diverse team instead of not changing and defending your communications skills for just innocence or the way you always did something?
 
MJP said:
Meanwhile, social psychologists Jack Dovidio, PhD, of Yale University, and Samuel L. Gaertner, PhD, of the University of Delaware, have demonstrated across several studies that many well-intentioned whites who consciously believe in and profess equality unconsciously act in a racist manner, particularly in ambiguous circumstances. In experimental job interviews, for example, whites tend not to discriminate against black candidates when their qualifications are as strong or as weak as whites'. But when candidates' qualifications are similarly ambiguous, whites tend to favor white over black candidates, the team has found. The team calls this pattern "aversive racism," referring in part to whites' aversion to being seen as prejudiced, given their conscious adherence to egalitarian principles.

I am willing to bet that this isn't a "white" phenomenon, but exists in any society where a majority group interacts with a minority group.  Francis Fukuyama's masterpiece, The Origins of Political Order, explores the two human psycho-social phenomenon that human societies and political order are built upon: kinship selection and reciprocal altruism.

Kinship selection is the old Bedouin proverb my brother before my cousin, my cousin before my neighbour, my neighbour before my tribe, etc, etc.  Humans prefer those closer in terms of kinship.  Reciprocal altruism is the phenomenon where humans will make themselves vulnerable to others (physically, materially, etc) under the expectation that the other will return the favour.  I will give you this, and you will give me that in return.  Reciprocal altruism is how humans drop their guard to go beyond their immediate kinship groups, and consistent instances of it make future instances more likely - the more we deal on fair terms, the more I am apt to trust you.  If you haven't dealt with someone much, you are less likely to trust them in an interaction.

Unfortunately, humans are visual species - we take in 90% of our information through sight.  So visible differences in physical features and melanin levels are apt to trip our sense of kinship selection - this person looks much different than I, and I don't know him, so he must be on an outside ring.  I imagine, if we were an auditory species, we would discriminate based on tonal pitch or something....

Its not an excuse for activities, only a pretty good explanation (to me) of why racism and racial bias are so embedded in the human condition, around the world (and yes, even in liberal whites in the West).  Humans can overcome these behaviours (like they overcome many other innate behaviours) but I suspect if they are raised to disdain those who look different, it only makes the behaviour that much harder to overcome.  As well, socio-economic segregation (like ghettos) probably make kinship selection harder to overcome - if all the folks of that group live on that side of the town, the sense of us and them is heightened.

No links to back this up - just my theorizing from a few decades of reading.
 
Back
Top