Sexual Assault & Sexual Misconduct in the CF

[Edward Campbell]

It doesn't matter how any of feel about this report, nor are our individual experiences relevant. There is a problem ... some members are being treated poorly, not given the respect that is their due and even assaulted by other members. That ought to be, must be, in my opinion, unacceptable to all of us: newly joined privates and major generals alike.

It also doesn't matter if the report is overstated; perhaps Mme Justice Deschamps should not have been shocked at the sorts of language she heard; perhaps the actual numbers are small; none of that matters either. There is a problem ... some leaders are failing the troops under their command.

Maybe the CF is just about the same as society at large; maybe we have all become desensitised to sexual violence; that doesn't matter either. There is problem ... the CDS has promised action; he must do that; he owes nothing less than action to the men and women under his command.

The actions the CDS takes should make service life better for all, without, in any way, weakening the military ethos.

 

[a_majoor]

Two points from my quick reading of this:

1. One of the recommendations (if I am reading it correctly) suggests that a complaint can be laid without triggering a formal investigation. Withdrawing a person's due process rights is even more abhorrent than the problem it is supposed to eliminate. Any complaint should be formally investigated, but in an open and transparent manner. People cannot and should not ever be expected to respond to what is essentially hersay and innuendo.

2. My other fear is that the definition of sexual assault will be broadened so much that determining what took place will become largely subjective. Once again, this really cuts the due process rights out from under the accused; how would anyone be able to sense what another person "felt" about a particular issue, unless that is clearly articulated.

These are not idle complaints or observations. The US higher education system is being rocked by complaints of sexual assault which are not being investigated by the police or punished by the judiciary, but rather through administrative "star chambers", in which the accused student has few options and little ability to respond since their due process rights are not being respected by these administrative tribunals. (You might note that the "Human Rights" commissions and tribunals in Canada already operate under similar rules). Even when the complainant recants or investigation by the competent authorities (police) fail to turn up any evidence, the accused student usually faces expulsion, restrictive "conditions" and essentially has their lives taken away and ruined.

So my recommendation is not to create a totally new system, but to vigorously use the system we already have (including sending investigations to the NIS or the RCMP if the NIS is not available or suitable for some reason). Sexual assault is a crime, and we have a criminal justice system capable of dealing with it.

 

[Takeniteasy]

I agree with Campbell, the CAF is socially constructed through Canadian culture. If any institution is going to lead the way then why not the CF. Legislation and policy is only the first step, actual acceptance within the rank and file is a whole other story? Being told to "ignore the situation and let the COC take care of it" and "we need to access your mental competence" would deter anyone from coming forward with a formal complaint. Individuals in the COC need to verbally demonstrate and then actively pursue complaints made by the rank and file in order to ensure a 100% no tolerance solution. Performance measures in a professional environment are based on actual individual and group outcomes that are based on institutional directives, not on individual ideology or values that are opposed to Canadian values and morals. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is what we strive to uphold and protect.
Lets be absolute in our convictions, if it happens to one, it happens to all! And our strength will enable Canada to empower individuals in their pursuit for their rights and freedoms.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

nor are our individual experiences relevant.

I will have to disagreee.  Our collective individual experiences are the sum total experiences in the CF, no?  Should we all just nod our head in agreement with statements that are inaccurate to our own experience, experience that was from the inside, immersed in the day to day life over decades?  I think not.

That ought to be, must be, in my opinion, unacceptable to all of us: newly joined privates and major generals alike.

Fully agree.

It also doesn't matter if the report is overstated; perhaps Mme Justice Deschamps should not have been shocked at the sorts of language she heard; perhaps the actual numbers are small; none of that matters either. There is a problem ... some leaders are failing the troops under their command.

Come again?  Accuracy doesn't matter?  How can something be fixed correctly if the nature and extent of the problem isn't identified correctly?  Or should we just hammer all our nails with 10lb sledgehammers.

Don't get me wrong, there are men AND women in the CF who will cross the line and they need to be dealt with, and I also have no issues with changes that improve the current ways and means.  I do not like suggestive wording that paints each and everyone one of us poorly.  Thankfully, people like Mrs Blatchford are a voice for us.

The actions the CDS takes should make service life better for all, without, in any way, weakening the military ethos.

Agree!

 

[pbi]

Wow. Go away for a year and look what happens! Since I kicked off this thread......

I agree with a number of ERC's points:

...There is a problem ... some members are being treated poorly, not given the respect that is their due and even assaulted by other members. That ought to be, must be, in my opinion, unacceptable to all of us: newly joined privates and major generals alike.... There is a problem ... some leaders are failing the troops under their command... ... the CDS has promised action; he must do that; he owes nothing less than action to the men and women under his command.The actions the CDS takes should make service life better for all, without, in any way, weakening the military ethos..

And (surprisingly, me being such a spineless, left of centre progressive liberal dissembler ;D) I agree fully with Thucydides:

1. One of the recommendations (if I am reading it correctly) suggests that a complaint can be laid without triggering a formal investigation. ..People cannot and should not ever be expected to respond to what is essentially hersay and innuendo.

2. My other fear is that the definition of sexual assault will be broadened so much that determining what took place will become largely subjective...how would anyone be able to sense what another person "felt" about a particular issue, unless that is clearly articulated.

...So my recommendation is not to create a totally new system, but to vigorously use the system we already have (including sending investigations to the NIS or the RCMP if the NIS is not available or suitable for some reason). Sexual assault is a crime, and we have a criminal justice system capable of dealing with it.

To state my bias, I am very happy to see any actual proven offender in this regard punished in the most exemplary manner possible, and then summarily booted out. While serving, I  conducted two very unpleasant investigations into anti-female sexual harassment of the most disgusting sort, so I have no doubt that it has happened. It might still be happening. I really hope not: it would be sad and disappointing to think that we are slipping backwards, especially now that we have female soldiers who have died in combat like any male soldier. Such sickening behaviour would not honour them.

However, I am also worried, because I think I smell over-reaction. While my uniformed days are long behind me, I lived through the period in the 1990's when the CAF, in a desperate attempt to show that it took sexual harrassment and assault seriously, was creating a climate of fear. I lived through two boards of inquiry as one of the  respondents to false claims of sexual harassment by a disgruntled female soldier: even though we knew it was BS, it was scary. As a result of that experience, for my remaining time in uniform I would never interview a female in my office without either having the door open or another person, female if possible, present. Maybe not right, but I felt safer. (Sounds a bit cowardly, I know...)

As Thucydides suggests, the very WORST possible outcome would be if the CAF rushed about creating even more external "bolt-on" structures and systems, further weakening and hampering the chain of command (which was already being weakened and hampered when I was in).

If (if...) the chain of command has demonstrably failed, then bloody well hold those who have failed responsible, regardless of whether they are section 2ICs or Bde Commanders. I am assuming of course, that these failed leaders will be identified by due process, not by a secret inquisition. But for God's sake, let's not invent any more "helpful" organizations.

Soldiers are soldiers. We have female soldiers. We have gay soldiers. So what? Grow up and get over it, and don't treat people badly for things they can't change. Worry about whether or not people are good soldiers.

But don't, please DON'T plunge the CAF into another time of scurrying over-reaction, panic, and witch-hunting. It won't help anybody.

Cheers

 

[Edward Campbell]

...
However, I am also worried, because I think I smell over-reaction. While my uniformed days are long behind me, I lived through the period in the 1990's when the CAF, in a desperate attempt to show that it took sexual harrassment and assault seriously, was creating a climate of fear. I lived through two boards of inquiry as one of the  respondents to false claims of sexual harassment by a disgruntled female soldier: even though we knew it was BS, it was scary. As a result of that experience, for my remaining time in uniform I would never interview a female in my office without either having the door open or another person, female if possible, present. Maybe not right, but I felt safer. (Sounds a bit cowardly, I know...)

As Thucydides suggests, the very WORST possible outcome would be if the CAF rushed about creating even more external "bolt-on" structures and systems, further weakening and hampering the chain of command (which was already being weakened and hampered when I was in).

If (if...) the chain of command has demonstrably failed, then bloody well hold those who have failed responsible, regardless of whether they are section 2ICs or Bde Commanders. I am assuming of course, that these failed leaders will be identified by due process, not by a secret inquisition. But for God's sake, let's not invent any more "helpful" organizations.

Soldiers are soldiers. We have female soldiers. We have gay soldiers. So what? Grow up and get over it, and don't treat people badly for things they can't change. Worry about whether or not people are good soldiers.

But don't, please DON'T plunge the CAF into another time of scurrying over-reaction, panic, and witch-hunting. It won't help anybody.

Cheers

:bravo:  &    :ditto:

 

[George Wallace]

Excellent points pbi.

 

[c_canuk]

Two points from my quick reading of this:

1. One of the recommendations (if I am reading it correctly) suggests that a complaint can be laid without triggering a formal investigation. Withdrawing a person's due process rights is even more abhorrent than the problem it is supposed to eliminate. Any complaint should be formally investigated, but in an open and transparent manner. People cannot and should not ever be expected to respond to what is essentially hersay and innuendo.

2. My other fear is that the definition of sexual assault will be broadened so much that determining what took place will become largely subjective. Once again, this really cuts the due process rights out from under the accused; how would anyone be able to sense what another person "felt" about a particular issue, unless that is clearly articulated.

I don't know what form the independent review organization will take, however, my read on it was that it would provide an anonymous way to report a problem. That its focus would be on investigation not enacting punishment.

One reason, it is claimed, that harassment is not reported is the allegedly person suffering the harassment feels they cannot resolve the problem at their level, and now have to potentially involve every link in their CoC.

The premises here are that the harassment is at a marginal level such that the "victim" may feel that while it's unacceptable, elevating it up the CoC is unwarranted and will be seen as starting drama. There is also a loss of confidentiality for both parties at each step in the CoC as yet another person becomes involved. The current system lacks delicate handling.

Having an outside agency that can be the sole POC for both parties during an investigation keeps the amount of people privy to the details to a minimum. Most of these details would be hearsay to begin with. The investigators would also not be a part of the member's CoC after the investigation is over, so fears of the details colouring their superior's future handling of them is less a concern.

Should the accuser not feel charges are waranted, communication within an understanding and educational tone can be effected so that positive change and corrections can take place without anyone having negative career or social implications, on either side of the complaint.

There is also the aspect that should someone need therapeutic help, but does not want to pursue charges, they can go to the  organization for access to mental wellness resources, without having the CoC involved.

As long as the independant organization cannot engage in any punitive measures outside of a formal charge, I think it would be a good step towards the ideal solution.

Especially if they also become the central repository for all policy and direction for sexual misconduct in the CAF.

EDIT: it's its, spelling

 

[George Wallace]

I don't know what form the independent review organization will take, however, my read on it was that it would provide an anonymous way to report a problem. That its focus would be on investigation not enacting punishment.

One reason, it is claimed, that harassment is not reported is the allegedly person suffering the harassment feels they cannot resolve the problem at their level, and now have to potentially involve every link in their CoC.

The premises here are that the harassment is at a marginal level such that the "victim" may feel that while it's unacceptable, elevating it up the CoC is unwarranted and will be seen as starting drama. There is also a loss of confidentiality for both parties at each step in the CoC as yet another person becomes involved. The current system lacks delicate handling.

Having an outside agency that can be the sole POC for both parties during an investigation keeps the amount of people privy to the details to a minimum. Most of these details would be hersay to begin with. The investigators would also not be a part of the member's CoC after the investigation is over, so fears of the details colouring their superior's future handling of them is less a concern.

Should the accuser not feel charges are waranted, communication within an understanding and educational tone can be effected so that positive change and corrections can take place without anyone having negative career or social implications, on either side of the complaint.

There is also the aspect that should someone need therapeutic help, but does not want to pursue charges, they can go to the  organization for access to mental wellness resources, without having the CoC involved.

As long as the independant organization cannot engage in any punitive measures outside of a formal charge, I think it would be a good step towards the ideal solution.

Especially if they also become the central repository for all policy and direction for sexual misconduct in the CAF.

EDIT: it's its

Meanwhile, we already have measures in place to cover "Workplace Harassment" and a resolution process under those rules to resolve issues, including the point that legal action could be instituted if an action or event were to be deemed illegal or criminal in nature.  We have Harassment Advisers, an investigative process, etc. already in place.  Are we now committed to create another level of redundancy to cover what we have in place?

 

[PanaEng]

Well said.

I don't know what form the independent review organization will take, however, my read on it was that it would provide an anonymous way to report a problem. That its focus would be on investigation not enacting punishment.

One reason, it is claimed, that harassment is not reported is the allegedly person suffering the harassment feels they cannot resolve the problem at their level, and now have to potentially involve every link in their CoC.

The premises here are that the harassment is at a marginal level such that the "victim" may feel that while it's unacceptable, elevating it up the CoC is unwarranted and will be seen as starting drama. There is also a loss of confidentiality for both parties at each step in the CoC as yet another person becomes involved. The current system lacks delicate handling.

Having an outside agency that can be the sole POC for both parties during an investigation keeps the amount of people privy to the details to a minimum. Most of these details would be hersay to begin with. The investigators would also not be a part of the member's CoC after the investigation is over, so fears of the details colouring their superior's future handling of them is less a concern.

Should the accuser not feel charges are waranted, communication within an understanding and educational tone can be effected so that positive change and corrections can take place without anyone having negative career or social implications, on either side of the complaint.

There is also the aspect that should someone need therapeutic help, but does not want to pursue charges, they can go to the  organization for access to mental wellness resources, without having the CoC involved.

As long as the independant organization cannot engage in any punitive measures outside of a formal charge, I think it would be a good step towards the ideal solution.

Especially if they also become the central repository for all policy and direction for sexual misconduct in the CAF.

EDIT: it's its

 

[c_canuk]

Meanwhile, we already have measures in place to cover "Workplace Harassment" and a resolution process under those rules to resolve issues, including the point that legal action could be instituted if an action or event were to be deemed illegal or criminal in nature.  We have Harassment Advisers, an investigative process, etc. already in place.  Are we now committed to create another level of redundancy to cover what we have in place?

My hope is that all sexual misconduct processes, documentation, education, investigation, and resolution falls into the new organization's AOR. My impression is that is exactly what some of the 10 recommendations call for.

 

[George Wallace]

My hope is that all sexual misconduct processes, documentation, education, investigation, and resolution falls into the new organization's AOR. My impression is that is exactly what some of the 10 recommendations call for.

OK.  And then do we create another process for any misconduct, documentation, education, investigation, and resolution to matters that are racial in nature.  And another that may cover religious misconduct, discrimination, education, investigation and resolution processes.......and another to cover matters of ethnicity.....and so on and so on?  One process is in existence now to cover ALL forms of discrimination, harassment, improprieties, etc.  How far do you want to go, by creating numerous different processes to cover what is already covered in an all encompassing process? 

 

[cupper]

A couple of things stood out for me when I read the report.

First, I agree that this may be an overstatement of what the problems really are.

My impression with respect to the issue of harassment is that  there is an excessive use of derogatory terms or expressions used in a training and everyday work setting which female members may well find offensive. Specifically the use of expressions directed at male members which essentially compare them to females in the context that females are weaker than males. (That was difficult to put together without referencing specific examples). The creates a hostile workplace environment because of the perception that females are considered less capable. When extended and put together with the minority view held by some that females don't belong in the military, I can see how this can be perceived as endemic. But how prevalent is this?

Second, I found it difficult to follow the discussion of sexual harassment vs sexual assault vs inappropriate sexual behaviour vs adverse personal relationships. It seemed to me that terminology and the understanding of how it applies in different contexts was tripping her up. I'm not entirely sure that the recommendations for changing definitions and clarifying terms as she seems to think is necessary will provide any more clarity.

I don't agree that policies regarding sexual harassment and sexual misconduct and so forth need to be revised so much as they need to be consolidated into one single reference document that can be easily accessible to all members. Policies and regulations are spread across many documents, such as the CCC, QR&O's, DAOD's, other applicable Laws and Acts of Parliament which govern Federal workplaces and employees.

I find it disappointing that the Judge has painted the entire CF with a broad brush, and disgusted that the media has chosen to grasp onto a poorly worded description of what the problems really are. Sensationalized reporting yesterday made the CF out to be nothing but a bastion of hypersexed males that thrive on misogyny.

With respect to a separate system to investigate claims sexual assault and harassment, I am of mixed minds about how effective this would be, and how problematic it would be with respect to its effects to the regular chain of command. And I don't think it would really address the concerns of victim privacy. As is pointed out in the report, the CF is a small community. Because of that, it's like any small one business town where everyone knows what is going on and knows everyone else's business. Privacy is at a premium.

And having a system where a complaint can be either investigated or put on the back burner at the discretion of the victim does no one any good. Yes, it allows the victim to get the necessary support and treatment to help them move on, but if the complaint is not acted upon, how is that any different from the current problem that the review authority says in inherent in the system now? And how does it help address the issue that there is someone within the ranks who has perpetrated a crime or violation of the regs who will remain unpunished, and potentially go on to do the same thing with another victim?

It is interesting that the media has reported that only a couple of the recommendations have been accepted, and that many are nuder review, specifically the establishment of the CASAH. The CoC has acknowledged there is a problem, but may not agree as to the means and methods for addressing the problem.

I agree with the view that has been expressed here that perhaps we need to look at how the current regulations and policies are being applied and ensure that they are being followed as intended by all levels. Something does need to be done, if only to allow female members a sense of security and inclusion in the CF, rather than feeling as less capable and burdensome, fearful for their personal safety.

Just my  :2c: , and I apologize if that rambled. It was a bad night of insomnia.

 

[Loachman]

hersay

Intentional...?

 

[c_canuk]

OK.  And then do we create another process for any misconduct, documentation, education, investigation, and resolution to matters that are racial in nature.  And another that may cover religious misconduct, discrimination, education, investigation and resolution processes.......and another to cover matters of ethnicity.....and so on and so on?  One process is in existence now to cover ALL forms of discrimination, harassment, improprieties, etc.  How far do you want to go, by creating numerous different processes to cover what is already covered in an all encompassing process?

I think one main point of the report, is that we do not have an all encompassing process. What we have a patchwork of overlapping processes and documentation that are separately administered across multiple AORs with different levels of enforcement in different geographical locations.

I agree that creating an independent organization for every brand of misconduct is probably counter productive.

I could see the obvious solution would be not to limit the independent entity to just one brand of misconduct as the process would be near identical for all of them.

 

[c_canuk]

Intentional...?

Fixed, thanks for pointing out that unintended typo.

Cupper, I think that I illustrated specific points that would address much of your previous post.

 

[George Wallace]

I think one main point of the report, is that we do not have an all encompassing process. What we have a patchwork of overlapping processes and documentation that are separately administered across multiple AORs with different levels of enforcement in different geographical locations.

I agree that creating an independent organization for every brand of misconduct is probably counter productive.

I could see the obvious solution would be not to limit the independent entity to just one brand of misconduct as the process would be near identical for all of them.

Way back when, I took the Harassment Adviser Crse. It was an eye opener. I left wondering what kind of life one could have if one had to constantly look over their shoulder in their attempts not to offend anyone.

I am a firm believer that it should be a compulsory Crse for all MCpl and above. It exposes you to what constitutes harassment and assault.  Remember; assault is not necessarily restricted to "physical", but can also be "verbal" and now with the internet and twitter, in a written/text form.  The HA Crse lays out the process of how the complaint is done, processed, and recorded.  It stresses the fact that the CO is to be informed immediately of a 'complaint' made, and provides the protection of anonymity to both the person laying the complaint and the person being accused in the complaint.  It introduces some of the Laws involved and explores the Charter of Human Rights.  The Crse lays out the steps followed once a complaint has been made and carries on through resolution.  The Crse also covers the administration of the 'complaint' and how long the records must be kept.  It really is an eye opener. 

I find it redundant to be suggesting that another form of handling these cases has to be created when one already exists.  I feel that if all supervisors, MCpl and up, had this education it may sort out this problem and the Public's views on the military.....especially those who may have agendas to discredit the CAF.

 

[c_canuk]

I don't think the case is being made to add another layer, I think the case is being made to replace all the layers with a single entity.

I don't think having a single entity precludes SHARP/HA training, infact it could be part of the yearly DAG process. Delivery of this trg would be within the AOR of this independent org, as I envision it. Same as the SISIP financial/insurance briefs ect.

The CDS seems to be saying he is going to action all of the recommendations, one of which is to establish this organization.

It seems like it's going to happen, I'm just explaining what form I hope it takes and why.

 

[George Wallace]

SHARP and Differential Training (Are you an "X" or a "Y"?) were just that: training.  Often dependent on who run the training as to how relevant the training was.  The Harassment Advisor Crse is a Qualification, which holds responsibilities.  Just a little bit different than annual DAG training.

 

[captloadie]

For someone who has just gone through the harassment process, I can say this: it's broken. I was a respondent, and although the complaint was over a minor issue (in my opinion), it was an unwieldable process with conflicting regulations on how it was to proceed depending on which guide you read (RO, HA, HI). There was also no defined final resolution. It was also not anonymous. I know exactly what the complainant wrote. I have an almost word for word summary of what the witnesses all said. If my experience was anything like what a complainant would go through for a sexual harassment complaint, I'd be surprised anybody would come forward.