New Dress Regs 🤣

[Jarnhamar]

Only question the old army doc asked me along those lines was, "Do you like girls?"

Was this where you were diagnosed with Mechanophilia?

 

[Kilted]

While I'm all for allowing CAF members to have dyed hair, I don't believe that personal appearance is covered under Freedom of Expression.

If you're going to expand the legal definition of free expression that far, then you could also argue that any physical act that you take could be considered a basic human right... As Thunderbug suggested, the same argument could be made for going nude in public.

I think that that is a thing in the UK, although I'm not sure if anyone actually understands the law.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Do we have that many transgender people actively seeking enrollment in the CAF, and would that number actually go up with specific advertising?

The CAF has a slightly higher representation of trans members compared to Canadian society in general.

Not bad for a predominately white male cis het organization with ancient dress regulations.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

As I have said, we will have these dress reg changes happen regardless of opinion or approval from the masses.

It's giving people an option until reality sets in. I don't dye my hair, keep it long, have a goatee, get face tattoos, or wear a skirt on the regular. Just because I can doesn't mean I will. Nor does it mean anyone who does decide to do so on Sep 6 will be doing so for Remembrance Day or Maple Clusterfuck 2023.

The operational impacts of this are microscopic. This is a lot of pearl clutching that we have also seen previously with Beardforgen and Weedforgen. The CAF is still standing... mostly... and we are still doing the business we're asked to do.

The greater concern I have for my troops is how they're going to afford food and rent in a market with no PLD and pay that hasn't kept pace for inflation.

 

[Winds]

I think that that is a thing in the UK, although I'm not sure if anyone actually understands the law.

The U.K.'s definition of Freedom of Expression:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises."

Human Rights Act 1998

An Act to give further effect to rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights; to make provision with respect to holders of certain judicial offices who become judges of the European Court of Human Rights; and for connected purposes.

www.legislation.gov.uk

I am unaware of any legal challenges where someone successfully argued that their personal appearance fell under this protection (religious adornment aside). If such cases exist, I'd be interested in reading them.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I think you seem to be failing to grasp the point that these changes are being implemented, to quote the CFCWO, "to better reflect the changing tastes of the Canadian society we serve".

Society has moved on from the notion that everyone needs to look like a proper English gentleman. So should we.

I'm no longer serving and work in the private sector now. So I'll give my personal opinion:

Lets stop pretending this is about "reflecting changing tastes of Canadian society" or "recruitment". It has nothing to really do with those things and will have no impact.

This is about protecting the CAF from legal liability and that is all. Everything else is a secondary/tertiary concern.

The organization will adopt Its own new expectations and norms when the rules are adopted. People who diverge from those expectations and the group-think will have a similarly terrible time that they would have in any other large organization.

Warning: Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

Personally, I don't think the CAF is seen as a very serious organization anymore by our partners or the general population but the CAF can be whatever it wants to be.

 

[Kilted]

The U.K.'s definition of Freedom of Expression:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises."

Human Rights Act 1998

An Act to give further effect to rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights; to make provision with respect to holders of certain judicial offices who become judges of the European Court of Human Rights; and for connected purposes.

www.legislation.gov.uk

I am unaware of any legal challenges where someone successfully argued that their personal appearance fell under this protection (religious adornment aside). If such cases exist, I'd be interested in reading them.

It wasn't specifically human rights that I was referring to, I only meant that the laws regarding public nudity were much more lenient in the UK.

 

[Kilted]

As I have said, we will have these dress regs changes happen regardless of opinion or approval from the masses.

It's giving people an option until reality sets in. I don't die my hair, keep it long, have a goatee, get face tattoos, or wear a skirt on the regular. Just because I can doesn't mean I will. Nor does it mean anyone who does decide to do so on Sep 6 will be doing so for Remembrance Day or Maple Clusterfuck 2023.

The operational impacts of this are microscopic. This is a lot of pearl clutching that we have also seen previously with Beardforgen and Weedforgen. The CAF is still standing... mostly... and we are still doing the business we're asked to do.

The greater concern I have for my troops is how they're going to afford food and rent in a market with no PLD and pay that hasn't kept pace for inflation.

I suspect that there will still be a level of policing at the lowest level. Just because the regs say that you can do something doesn't mean that your peers won't continually question why you are doing something/ or continually tell you how stupid that they think you look.

 

[TacticalTea]

It's a form of Freedom of Expression protected under section 2(b) of the Charter. Granted, if we continued to bar it it'd probably survive the challenge via the Oakes test, but it's still a protected right. How you choose to present yourself to the world, via hair, clothes, etc is absolutely a human right.

Look I'm on the fence wrt this whole discussion, but I gotta say you're severely undermining your point by claiming @Colin Parkinson is "a terrible person" for denying "basic human rights" yet claiming purple hair is one of those basic human rights.

As @Jarnhamar alluded to, I think we've lost track of what truly constitutes a fundamental right.

 

[Kilted]

Personally, I think that it was a travesty that the Barons did not insist that King John include hair colour in the Magna Carta.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

I suspect that there will still be a level of policing at the lowest level. Just because the regs say that you can do something doesn't mean that your peers won't continually question why you are doing something/ or continually tell you how stupid that they think you look.

I don't even think it's a matter of peers even, I think it's just the reality of the situation.

There is a lot of upkeep for certain looks and styles. I have had to counsel troops for not washing after PT, yet these same troops are going to maintain long hair with the same Axe 7 in 1 body wash they use occasionally? My spouse pays 200 bucks every 2 months to sit in a salon chair, for 5 hours, to maintain her hair colour in such a way that it doesn't look like shit; lot more hassle than a 20 dollar haircut.

Same goes for field hygiene. Adds a whole new level of suck. If people are willing to put in the effort, you do you. Tattoos are forever, and the "Fuck the Dinosaurs" decision you make at 21 is yours to make, but might not be your jam at 42 or 32 even when Mr. Bloggins is now trying to get a job in the private sector.

Treat people like adults, they will behave as such. Some people will figure it out the hard way.

 

[btrudy]

While I'm all for allowing CAF members to have dyed hair, I don't believe that personal appearance is covered under Freedom of Expression.

If you're going to expand the legal definition of free expression that far, then you could also argue that any physical act that you take could be considered a basic human right... As Thunderbug suggested, the same argument could be made for going nude in public.

I think it'd be quite reasonable to make the argument that going nude in public is an aspect of freedom of expression, however again, laws against it are something that the government would be very easily able to make a case for under the Oakes test.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Bigotry does make someone a bad person.

I should add, that my inlaws are devout Muslims in a country with Sharia laws, no doubt you will consider them bigots, but my sister inlaw has made a significant difference for all the handicapped people in Malaysia as she pushed hard for them to have basic accessibility. My brother inlaw volunteers at a school for the blind, but by your standard these would be bad people because of their views on Trans and gays. Frankly I don't think anyone will survive your good/bad test.

 

[Winds]

I think it'd be quite reasonable to make the argument that going nude in public is an aspect of freedom of expression, however again, laws against it are something that the government would be very easily able to make a case for under the Oakes test.

Well, you also believe that arguments unlikely to pass legal scrutiny (the Oakes Test) are still protected... protected by what exactly, if not the law?

 

[Kilted]

I should add, that my inlaws are devout Muslims in a country with Sharia laws, no doubt you will consider them bigots, but my sister inlaw has made a significant difference for all the handicapped people in Malaysia as she pushed hard for them to have basic accessibility. My brother inlaw volunteers at a school for the blind, but by your standard these would be bad people because of their views on Trans and gays. Frankly I don't think anyone will survive your good/bad test.

Even in Canada, there is still protection for religious beliefs with regard to homosexuality. For example, Ministers and other religious leaders cannot be forced to conduct same-sex marriages.

 

[Remius]

Bottom line if you value individual freedoms of expression then who cares how people dress, love or identify as.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Effective military culture requires people to submerge their egos, not parade them.

 

[Kilted]

Bottom line if you value individual freedoms of expression then who cares how people dress, love or identify as.

Well, if we truly cared about everyone's freedom of expression not being curtailed, we would let our people say whatever they want on social media, and speak to the media about anything the forces do that they disagree with. That's not realistic, considering how much damage one untrained CIC Officer Cadet could have potentially done if the Forces hadn't taken swift action. We live in a country with reasonable limits, someone joining the CAF should except that they won't be able to do whatever they want.

 

[Jarnhamar]

CAF members should be banned from putting political signs on their lawn while we're at it

 

[Kilted]

CAF members should be banned from putting political signs on their lawn while we're at it

Depends if they live on base or if they actively present themselves as a military member in the context of their political activities.