- Reaction score
- 5,706
- Points
- 1,040
I'm going to attempt clear up a few incorrect bits of information here so people can discuss the issue with some accuracy as there are important distinctions/details being missed. The FB and reddit rage is classic mob justice without the actual facts. I know we expect a higher standard here.
1) Rumor one: She groped a subordinate. False.
Her crime was against mess mates. She was a SLt at the time (most Jr member of the mess). The complaint came from someone who was not groped but reported one of the incidents. This was not against a subordinate, it was a peer.
2) Rumour two: She had preferential career progression because of gender. False.
Career and postings continued as normal after the incident with a swap to a different ship because; the complainant and respondent should be separated. Also as outlined in the HISB process there is a presumption of innocence with no career implications until the truth can be determined through an investigation.
3) Rumour three: She's free and clear at this point. Unknown.
No one but her chain of command really knows where the administrative process is on this. The disciplinary process is now over (aside from fine paying). There are a number of rumours but without a look a the actual file all we can do is speculate. As directed by the CDS in CANFORGEN 049/19 there may still be an Administrative Review to finish (resulting in an Admin Release). The initial investigating authority (aka her original ship) may have finished one, or applied other administrative functions (C&P, counselling, coursing, rehab whatever...) we don't know and frankly that information is private to the member. Complicating the issue was that the HISB policy/program was not as well defined when the incident happened.
4) Rumour four: If she was a man the punishment would have been worse. False.
The judge in sentencing used at least 4 previous cases to assign the punishment. Fines in those cases ranged from $1500 to $5000 and all included a severe reprimand. The most severe was a male Maj who groped their subordinates. The sentence didn't come out of nowhere, there are presidents. The punishment severity was within the spectrum of previous cases and thus cannot be argued to have been reduced by her gender..
Hopefully this will recenter the discussion on what I believe it should really be about. Are punishments assigned by the military justice system in these cases severe/appropriate enough? Is the HISB process as now written dealing with these incidents in an appropriate manner? How important is the Administrative review process and is it going to be used as supplementary punishment because the military justice system is deemed not harsh or politically sensitive enough? Should CAF members be allowed to learn from mistakes and resurrect their career over time?
As a PSA:
If you are not familiar with the HISB process I've linked the reference. I suggest especially if you are a leader in the CAF you make yourself very familiar with the contents. If you are in the RCN every single board qualification that you attempt will have an HISB component to it, with a hard pass/fail for the scenario.
HISB Procedure Manual.
1) Rumor one: She groped a subordinate. False.
Her crime was against mess mates. She was a SLt at the time (most Jr member of the mess). The complaint came from someone who was not groped but reported one of the incidents. This was not against a subordinate, it was a peer.
2) Rumour two: She had preferential career progression because of gender. False.
Career and postings continued as normal after the incident with a swap to a different ship because; the complainant and respondent should be separated. Also as outlined in the HISB process there is a presumption of innocence with no career implications until the truth can be determined through an investigation.
3) Rumour three: She's free and clear at this point. Unknown.
No one but her chain of command really knows where the administrative process is on this. The disciplinary process is now over (aside from fine paying). There are a number of rumours but without a look a the actual file all we can do is speculate. As directed by the CDS in CANFORGEN 049/19 there may still be an Administrative Review to finish (resulting in an Admin Release). The initial investigating authority (aka her original ship) may have finished one, or applied other administrative functions (C&P, counselling, coursing, rehab whatever...) we don't know and frankly that information is private to the member. Complicating the issue was that the HISB policy/program was not as well defined when the incident happened.
4) Rumour four: If she was a man the punishment would have been worse. False.
The judge in sentencing used at least 4 previous cases to assign the punishment. Fines in those cases ranged from $1500 to $5000 and all included a severe reprimand. The most severe was a male Maj who groped their subordinates. The sentence didn't come out of nowhere, there are presidents. The punishment severity was within the spectrum of previous cases and thus cannot be argued to have been reduced by her gender..
Hopefully this will recenter the discussion on what I believe it should really be about. Are punishments assigned by the military justice system in these cases severe/appropriate enough? Is the HISB process as now written dealing with these incidents in an appropriate manner? How important is the Administrative review process and is it going to be used as supplementary punishment because the military justice system is deemed not harsh or politically sensitive enough? Should CAF members be allowed to learn from mistakes and resurrect their career over time?
As a PSA:
If you are not familiar with the HISB process I've linked the reference. I suggest especially if you are a leader in the CAF you make yourself very familiar with the contents. If you are in the RCN every single board qualification that you attempt will have an HISB component to it, with a hard pass/fail for the scenario.
HISB Procedure Manual.