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

C.O.D.E (Conversation on Defence Ethics)

coolintheshade

Jr. Member
Reaction score
22
Points
210
ALCON,

...with the current subj mandate, what are some of the thoughts / take aways / opinions/ on the different scenarios presented from your group discussions thus far???

I'm doing a survey on opinions
 

coolintheshade

Jr. Member
Reaction score
22
Points
210
I'm tired of having to do more supplementary training because people F-up...

We have system to identify, address and correct those failures. Use that and leave me alone unless I F-up.
This right here is a very popular sentiment....unfortunately, it still appears that some of us still aren't getting the simple message, as evident with seeing those 2 donuts in uniform, and the bearded Maj online spouting their own rhetorics.
 

rmc_wannabe

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,920
Points
1,310
Honestly I have seen some of the content and its good. The problem I see is that its very "Ottawa, cubicle" centric and does nothing to reaffirm the "Warrior Ethos" mentality it should.

You shouldn't be a bullying, harrasssing piece of shit because DAOD 5012-XYZ says so. You shouldn't be a piece of shit because it degrades our combat effectiveness. makes you think of all the Ukrainian soldiers who are fighting shoulder to shoulder with their brothers and sisters in arms regardless of race, gender, or creed.

Bullets don't discriminate. The fact that this is a still a conversation we are having in a Western military is embarrassing.
 

coolintheshade

Jr. Member
Reaction score
22
Points
210
Honestly I have seen some of the content and its good. The problem I see is that its very "Ottawa, cubicle" centric and does nothing to reaffirm the "Warrior Ethos" mentality it should.

You shouldn't be a bullying, harrasssing piece of shit because DAOD 5012-XYZ says so. You shouldn't be a piece of shit because it degrades our combat effectiveness. makes you think of all the Ukrainian soldiers who are fighting shoulder to shoulder with their brothers and sisters in arms regardless of race, gender, or creed.

Bullets don't discriminate. The fact that this is a still a conversation we are having in a Western military is embarrassing.
Nicely put..appreciate the feedback.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
3,685
Points
1,060
What's the objective of this CODE training?

Is it to provide tools and methods to combat the toxic culture that's taken root in the military?

Or is it a reimagined robust approach to regurgitating the same training we've been getting for the last 2 or 3 decades?
 

kev994

Sr. Member
Reaction score
706
Points
1,060
What's the objective of this CODE training?

Is it to provide tools and methods to combat the toxic culture that's taken root in the military?

Or is it a reimagined robust approach to regurgitating the same training we've been getting for the last 2 or 3 decades?
I suspect the purpose is to do ‘something’. Our Ethics coordinator says it’s very similar to the ethics coordinator course.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
7,159
Points
1,090
In part, this specific Defence Ethics training session addresses the Heyder Beattie class action.

Will it be effective? Past efforts at day long training sessions included the Standard for Harassment and Racism Prevention (SHARP); Leadership in a Diverse Army (LDA); and Operation HONOUR; that we're back to "Let's try a day long discussion session for PD" as a solution rather than actual institutional action (you know, like transparency in senior leader selection; holding individuals to account when they repeatedly ignore transgressions; public announcements of individuals removed from command / appointments rather than quietly trying to shuffle them off to Europe after they are kicked out of the USA...) makes me think that this is merely more performative bullshit.
 

Ostrozac

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
306
Points
930
I have no idea what you’re talking about, and I’ve never heard the acronym CODE. If my unit was directed to initiate group discussions, we didn’t. That’s a major takeaway right there — some units will lean into initiating whatever new direction is issued, some units will send that email straight to trash and do what they want.

This isn’t the first time I’ve seen things like this happen. I saw a unit use the old 5.56mm pencil to ‘conduct‘ Operation Honour Bystander Training because they couldn’t be bothered to actually organize it. No training occurred, but they reported 100% complete.

*Googling CODE suggests that every member of the CAF has until 31 March to complete it. So charitably, perhaps my unit didn’t ignore direction — they are just waiting until 30 March to assign it as a task to a random person who can be blamed when we don’t meet our numbers.

**Being unethical in the conduct of ethics training is probably a whole postgrad thesis waiting to be written.
 

TCM621

Sr. Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
201
Points
430
I thought it was a waste of my time, designed like a sermon not a conversation and was obvious to its biases. All you had to do was read the objectives to learn what you were supposed to learn. On top of that, I also sat in a session with my boss and the DCO, which definitely killed some conversation.

The biggest problem is that it doesn't touch the real problems. The first is a general lack of discipline, too many people follow the rules they want to and ignore the ones they think are stupid. The other problem is a specific lack of discipline against specific superstars. Too many people get rewarded with promotions despite poor behaviour because they are succession planned or someone works for them behind the scenes.
 

Ostrozac

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
306
Points
930
The first is a general lack of discipline, too many people follow the rules they want to and ignore the ones they think are stupid.
It doesn’t help that the way our rules are written, it’s probably impossible to be In compliance with all of them. It’s almost theological— our version of original sin — all of us are sinners, so we are discouraged to pass judgement on each other, because all of us make our own choices about which rules are ‘stupid’. I don’t wear my dog tags on the beach in Thailand, your pockets bulge in uniform, he has a personal relationship with a subordinate. All three actions are against regulations, all three are ignored, and all three of us are co-conspirators for not reporting the violations — the result is honour among thieves rather than discipline.
 

rmc_wannabe

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,920
Points
1,310
It doesn’t help that the way our rules are written, it’s probably impossible to be In compliance with all of them. It’s almost theological— our version of original sin — all of us are sinners, so we are discouraged to pass judgement on each other, because all of us make our own choices about which rules are ‘stupid’. I don’t wear my dog tags on the beach in Thailand, your pockets bulge in uniform, he has a personal relationship with a subordinate. All three actions are against regulations, all three are ignored, and all three of us are co-conspirators for not reporting the violations — the result is honour among thieves rather than discipline.
Yep. I think that a lot of our ethics policies make enemies of potential allies.

I did the Sexual Trauma First Response course and said plainly " I admit I was part of the problem when I was a wee Troopie." And it was the facilitator that came to my defense more than anyone else.

We learn, we grow, we do better. We need to target those who don't/refuse to do better, instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
 

Furniture

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,150
Points
1,110
The biggest problem is that it doesn't touch the real problems. The first is a general lack of discipline, too many people follow the rules they want to and ignore the ones they think are stupid. The other problem is a specific lack of discipline against specific superstars. Too many people get rewarded with promotions despite poor behaviour because they are succession planned or someone works for them behind the scenes.
It doesn’t help that the way our rules are written, it’s probably impossible to be In compliance with all of them. It’s almost theological— our version of original sin — all of us are sinners, so we are discouraged to pass judgement on each other, because all of us make our own choices about which rules are ‘stupid’. I don’t wear my dog tags on the beach in Thailand, your pockets bulge in uniform, he has a personal relationship with a subordinate. All three actions are against regulations, all three are ignored, and all three of us are co-conspirators for not reporting the violations — the result is honour among thieves rather than discipline.

I think you both hit the nail on the head, but I will go one step further and say we do have some stupid rules.

We have a culture that accepts rule breaking, and just like the overly sexualized culture leads to/excuses inappropriate behaviour, rule breaking encourages more rule breaking.

We need to go through our rules, figure out what rules are stupid, then get rid of them. If a rule is ignored by most, and has no operational impact on the CAF, get rid of it.

As an example, I bet everybody on this forum has put their hands in their pockets in uniform. Everybody does it, but it's against the rules... Why not fix the rule? Maybe something like "No hands in pockets when on parade, or in No 1/1A" would achieve the professional look we want, but also bring some reality into the rules.
 

kev994

Sr. Member
Reaction score
706
Points
1,060
I think you both hit the nail on the head, but I will go one step further and say we do have some stupid rules.

We have a culture that accepts rule breaking, and just like the overly sexualized culture leads to/excuses inappropriate behaviour, rule breaking encourages more rule breaking.

We need to go through our rules, figure out what rules are stupid, then get rid of them. If a rule is ignored by most, and has no operational impact on the CAF, get rid of it.

As an example, I bet everybody on this forum has put their hands in their pockets in uniform. Everybody does it, but it's against the rules... Why not fix the rule? Maybe something like "No hands in pockets when on parade, or in No 1/1A" would achieve the professional look we want, but also bring some reality into the rules.
Standby for toque/glove/raincoat rant
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,681
Points
1,040
I think you both hit the nail on the head, but I will go one step further and say we do have some stupid rules.

We have a culture that accepts rule breaking, and just like the overly sexualized culture leads to/excuses inappropriate behaviour, rule breaking encourages more rule breaking.

We need to go through our rules, figure out what rules are stupid, then get rid of them. If a rule is ignored by most, and has no operational impact on the CAF, get rid of it.

As an example, I bet everybody on this forum has put their hands in their pockets in uniform. Everybody does it, but it's against the rules... Why not fix the rule? Maybe something like "No hands in pockets when on parade, or in No 1/1A" would achieve the professional look we want, but also bring some reality into the rules.
Maybe people in the CAF are smart enough to follow the rules that aren't stupid? I don't think hands in your pockets is a slippery slope to being a sex pest, but I do think if you get away with verbal sexual harassment you might go further.

I also jaywalk on occasion, but that doesn't make me think I should ignore all driving laws.

The broken window theory has been discounted a number of times, and it's a good example of trying to expand correlation/causation without having actual evidence. We have all the rules and tools to address the problem, but unless it's done consistently, fairly and uniformly you'll always have crazy outliers. We're part of Canadian society, so will never eliminate it until Canadian society does, but really nothing stopping us from stomping down on it when it comes up to bring our internal expectations up to what we expect of ourselves.

Right now all these courses are just window dressing. You want real change, hold people accountable for not holding people accountable. When a few COs and RSMs get frogmarched into a CM for letting their favourite subordinate slide on some sketchy shit, maybe a lot of this greasy back alley BS will stop. I can't think of a single instance of the CoC being taken to task despite numerous examples of clear fuckery being documented in grievances and other official investigations. If people don't want to be accountable, don't take the promotion or command appointments. 🤷‍♂️

That's one thing I think the US does really well; they don't hesitate to hold senior people accountable. Sometimes they go a bit hard over, but I think that's probably better than our optimistic ostrich approach.
 
Top