Canada's wounded soldiers told not to criticize online

[Teager]

For any injured/ill member who knows they don't meet U of S and knows they will be getting released is not going to care about any form. IMO they should voice their concerns if they have any that can't or aren't being taken care of.

 

[PuckChaser]

For any injured/ill member who knows they don't meet U of S and knows they will be getting released is not going to care about any form. IMO they should voice their concerns if they have any that can't or aren't being taken care of.

And feed money from fines into the system they're pissed off with? If I'm heading out on a 3B and pissed off with the system, I'd rather wait and keep all my money before running my mouth off.

 

[Teager]

And feed money from fines into the system they're pissed off with? If I'm heading out on a 3B and pissed off with the system, I'd rather wait and keep all my money before running my mouth off.

If there are issues that aren't being taken care of for yourself and others you would be willing to let that slide because of a fine? I've stood up for a lot of issues that have affected a lot of injured members so far I've paid $0 in fines.  Once your out you may not be able to do much about the issue as you did when you were in.

The media is a tool and should only be used when every other avenue has been tried.

 

[krustyrl]

I believe the Ombudsman is looking for just this sort of feedback for his investigation on just how the ill/injured are being treated by the JPSU/IPSC Units.
I know I will be forwarding my personal concerns having dealt with 2 different IPSC's.
In my case both Units admitted dropping the ball on several occasions for my 3b.
I will use this as my method of voicing deficiencies and of course my personal concerns.
Will gladly offer my  :2c:

 

[The Bread Guy]

The media is a tool and should only be used when every other avenue has been tried.

And one used realizing that once you've spoken to them, you have no control over what they write/broadcast.

I believe the Ombudsman is looking for just this sort of feedback for his investigation on just how the ill/injured are being treated by the JPSU/IPSC Units.

Good point re:  one way to work within the current system.

 

[Edward Campbell]

"New media" has made life very complicated for large organizations, especially for governments and, within governments, for special agencies like the military.

We you The military is a very, very process driven organization and systems are put in place (and, hopefully, constantly reviewed and updated) to deal with situations in a manner that best meets the "needs of the service." "New media" allows people to 'jump the queue' and to try to adapt the system to one individual's needs rather than to the "needs of the service."

Clearly anyone who is not in the CF is welcome to comment and criticize as they see fit. Those of you who are serving, on the other hand, have promised to "be faithful and bear true allegiance" and Canada, from the Governor General on down to your ship's captain and platoon WO interpret fidelity and allegiance to include not openly criticizing the policies of the CF or the Government of Canada.

Years and years ago we, people of my age, understood what Restricted meant: for internal, within the CF use, only, not to be communicated to the press or public. Well, there is no more restricted and even if there was it's not clear how it would apply to public discourse.

In my opinion: if you are serving, regular or reserve, you have a duty to obey the rules - not just as written but also as intended.

 

[Lightguns]

Pissing off the guys with the guns is never a good idea, it only takes one really PO'ed individual to cause a gigantic crap storm.

I understand that you are angry (or prehaps joking) but I caution you on using the noun "guns" in this way.  We live in a frightened society where our police have made "guys with guns" the boogey man with a police force that, during a major flood, spends more time and scarce military resources rounding up guns and ammo than it appears to have done assisting human and animal life.

Nor do we want the public to think we would do anything but complain and lobby legally to get changes we need. 

 

[pbi]

...Years and years ago we, people of my age, understood what Restricted meant: for internal, within the CF use, only, not to be communicated to the press or public. Well, there is no more restricted and even if there was it's not clear how it would apply to public discourse....

People serving have the same choice they've always had: put up and shut up, or speak up and be prepared to take the consequences, if they feel strongly enough about the issue. People who are out can fill their boots, as they are more and more frequently doing. (Much to the discomfiture of the current Govt). Granted that a percentage of these may be whiners from the "blame/entitlement" sector of society, but from my own contact with vets I think these are probably a small minority.

That said, as some posters have suggested, there is a "social contract" between a society and its volunteer, professional, long-service military. In exchange for its unlimited liability and obedient, reliable service without threat to the state, serving members expect more than just a pay cheque. If the relationship is reduced to just that IMHO it borders on a one-sided "mercenary" relationship.

The soldier expects that his injuries and reasonable needs will be taken care of, including after he has finished uniformed service. This is a part of that contract. As soon as there is any suspicion raised about the state's intent to fully honour the spirit and not just the letter of this contract or any part of it, then the soldier may begin to question whether or not the contract is going to be honoured at all.

I think this is what is happening. Unclear, poorly-explained things like this document we are discussing only fan the flames of mistrust and suspicion, even when they aren't really meant that way (the Army I remember lived  on rumours and misunderstandings...), What is needed here IMHO is a very clear, timely and forthright statement by the responsible Minister as to what this is all about.

 

[The Bread Guy]

.... What is needed here IMHO is a very clear, timely and forthright statement by the responsible Minister as to what this is all about.

And if the past is any indicator, we may get a statement by a General/senior official to explain what was really meant.

 

[pbi]

And if the past is any indicator, we may get a statement by a General/senior official to explain what was really meant.

"May" being the operative word. And that IMHO is the problem.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I understand that you are angry (or prehaps joking) but I caution you on using the noun "guns" in this way.  We live in a frightened society where our police have made "guys with guns" the boogey man with a police force that, during a major flood, spends more time and scarce military resources rounding up guns and ammo than it appears to have done assisting human and animal life.

Nor do we want the public to think we would do anything but complain and lobby legally to get changes we need.

It was an off the cuff comment I made in reference to the fact that societies that stop treating people properly usually end up with bigger problems to contend with.  I am not angry at all but I just look at our neighbors to the South where the mistreatment of portions of their society has lead in the past to people taking matters into their own hands.

I don't think we are even remotely close to being there but if you beat a dog for long enough eventually it is going to fight back and bite you.

 

[captloadie]

That said, as some posters have suggested, there is a "social contract" between a society and its volunteer, professional, long-service military. In exchange for its unlimited liability and obedient, reliable service without threat to the state, serving members expect more than just a pay cheque. If the relationship is reduced to just that IMHO it borders on a one-sided "mercenary" relationship.

But in this day and age, with the current crop of junior members, is this true? Many walk through our doors with a sense of entitlement before they even don the uniform full time. Try to get guys to put in some extra hours or attend social events without ordering them to do so; there is a general apathy in many corners. Members would also rather turn to social media sites, or the MSM, to bitch and complain about their lot in life instead of addressing their issues up the chainof command, and god forbid actually have to wait for a response.

 

[OldSolduer]

"New media" has made life very complicated for large organizations, especially for governments and, within governments, for special agencies like the military.

We you The military is a very, very process driven organization and systems are put in place (and, hopefully, constantly reviewed and updated) to deal with situations in a manner that best meets the "needs of the service." "New media" allows people to 'jump the queue' and to try to adapt the system to one individual's needs rather than to the "needs of the service."

Clearly anyone who is not in the CF is welcome to comment and criticize as they see fit. Those of you who are serving, on the other hand, have promised to "be faithful and bear true allegiance" and Canada, from the Governor General on down to your ship's captain and platoon WO interpret fidelity and allegiance to include not openly criticizing the policies of the CF or the Government of Canada.

Years and years ago we, people of my age, understood what Restricted meant: for internal, within the CF use, only, not to be communicated to the press or public. Well, there is no more restricted and even if there was it's not clear how it would apply to public discourse.

In my opinion: if you are serving, regular or reserve, you have a duty to obey the rules - not just as written but also as intended.

Very well said. And I agree.

 

[Jed]

"New media" has made life very complicated for large organizations, especially for governments and, within governments, for special agencies like the military.

We you The military is a very, very process driven organization and systems are put in place (and, hopefully, constantly reviewed and updated) to deal with situations in a manner that best meets the "needs of the service." "New media" allows people to 'jump the queue' and to try to adapt the system to one individual's needs rather than to the "needs of the service."

Clearly anyone who is not in the CF is welcome to comment and criticize as they see fit. Those of you who are serving, on the other hand, have promised to "be faithful and bear true allegiance" and Canada, from the Governor General on down to your ship's captain and platoon WO interpret fidelity and allegiance to include not openly criticizing the policies of the CF or the Government of Canada.

Years and years ago we, people of my age, understood what Restricted meant: for internal, within the CF use, only, not to be communicated to the press or public. Well, there is no more restricted and even if there was it's not clear how it would apply to public discourse.

In my opinion: if you are serving, regular or reserve, you have a duty to obey the rules - not just as written but also as intended.

And this is why I kept my opinions to myself (online anyway) until I had taken off my uniform for the last time. 

 

[Teager]

I think some members here need to take a step back and think about a few things. Yes, there are rules and we need to obey them. Yes, there are those that think they are self entitled but this exists in all organizations just like bad apples. With multiple comments about the self entitlement you may just make some of the public beleive that the injured/ill are all greedy when there may be a serious issue affecting members and now the public simply beleives there just being self entitled.

IMO it seems some here think speaking out on issues wrt the injured/ill is wrong because of the rules. Well when it was annouced that there would be cuts to mental health within the CF soldiers went to the media to speak out about this. Thanks to them speaking out the cuts did not happen and funding was increased. If no one had spoke out the cuts would have happened and our mental health units would be in a severe crisis right now. For the injured/ill some issues are time sensitive and cannot wait long periods of time for an answer.

To date I don't think there have been any soldiers that have been punished for speaking out. This might be because the solider tried other avenues first but went nowhere and was right and a change occured which is usually the case.

For those that have not had to go through the process I suggest wearing the boots of someone for a day who has to deal with their injury/illness and deal with the system that DND and VAC have. Your opinion might change.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I think some members here need to take a step back and think about a few things. Yes, there are rules and we need to obey them. Yes, there are those that think they are self entitled but this exists in all organizations just like bad apples. With multiple comments about the self entitlement you may just make some of the public beleive that the injured/ill are all greedy when there may be a serious issue affecting members and now the public simply beleives there just being self entitled.

We used to kick homosexuals out of the military. It was the rules, so we obeyed.

 

[Lightguns]

It is a moral decision that every individual has to make based on their own inputs.  The rules are clear but our society is such that clear rules often run counter to societal expectations of organizations.  Are we entitled...yes very much.  Is it right to speak out yes if it is in your lane.... if you are wounded, it is in your lane, IMHO.  I am far too old to say this but "rules must evolve with society and the organizations that represent that society". 

Being wounded in the Canadian military is the new "gay", so to speak...very loosely.  Do not speak out and you will not be punished.  I am not going to critique the combat casualty care system as I have not experienced it.  If I was among the wounded and I did not get the best care, I am not sure I would shut up regardless.  There is something systemically wrong, if a military has to encourage a muzzle on their wounded over issues of care.  We prided ourselves in the 50s, 60s and 70s on how well Canada treated veterans, that pride is not there...in military, in the vet groups, in VAC, in the government.  Let's honestly and openly look at what we are doing, maybe we are providing an excellent level of care but expectations are too high,; maybe we are not.  Let's listen to the complaints and address them transparently, no hiding behind privacy or "rules". 

If you are proud of your system, you will address concerns and rectify errors in the open.

God bless each and everyone who is struggling in this system!

 

[Teager]

We used to kick homosexuals out of the military. It was the rules, so we obeyed.

Your point?

 

[MARS]

We used to kick homosexuals out when we were living in a time and space where being homosexual carried MUCH more of a social stigma than it does today.  It Didnt make it "right" back then, but society was not as accepting.  Correspondingly, the knowledge that a military member was homosexual was indeed, in my opinion, a valid security risk.  If it wasn't, then our enemies wouldn't have wasted time trying to exploit that knowledge.  That wouldn't happen today.  It would be an empty threat in trying to turn someone.

So yeah, those were the rules.  and when measured against the values held by the majority of canadian ciizens today, those rules would appear distasteful.  But not back then.  and they aren't the rules today.

 

[OldSolduer]

Attitudes need to be changed, but it takes time and education to change attitudes.

Women in the Infantry in 1980 were unheard of and would not have been accepted. Now we have female infanteers.

Homoseuxuals were released in the 90s once they were "outed". No longer.

It used to be acceptable to smoke the the Mess Hall. No longer.

Give it time. Plant a seed in someone's mind and it will take root.