Sexual Assault & Sexual Misconduct in the CF

[George Wallace]

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.

Then let's fix it. 

As for anonymous, it has full disclosure for all parties involved, but is not open to the public (what I should have said).  If it is public knowledge, then the "rumour mill" has been at work.

 

[dimsum]

From the G&M, an article by the mother of Capt Nichola Goddard:

I am concerned that people reading the report will get a lopsided view of women in the military. In 2003, Nichola came to my Grade 9 class to talk to the students about her life in the military. They wrote to her afterwards and asked her some questions. One of them was: “Are there a lot of women in the army?” Her reply is worth recalling.

“The short answer is no. The long answer is that there are some, and there are more and more every day. It is definitely not the right lifestyle for everyone, men or women, but I really don’t believe that gender has anything to do with whether you can be a good soldier. I’ve worked with women who have been five-foot-three and 100 pounds, and carried far more for far longer than guys who were six feet and and 200 pounds… so much of what makes you a good soldier is your attitude and heart. And how good a shot you are with your rifle, I guess.”

Let’s remember that there’s always more to the story.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/as-my-daughter-knew-the-military-can-change-its-ways/article24213440/

 

[The Bread Guy]

I think most people in the military want it to work as effectively and fairly as possible, including when it comes to gender issues.  That said ....

.... 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 ....

.... like most rules, they don't come into place because of the ones who have followed the process, but for those (likely few, but in some case egregious) instances where it was not followed.

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.

Even if the training is first rate, it has to be applied, and/or allowed to be applied.

 

[OldSolduer]

The NDA can be utilized can it not? Harassment is abuse and the NDA should be used IMO.

 

[George Wallace]

From the G&M, an article by the mother of Capt Nichola Goddard:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/as-my-daughter-knew-the-military-can-change-its-ways/article24213440/

A good read.

The end of the article:

Let’s remember that there’s always more to the story.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Random thoughts on the issue  :2c:

The Canadian Forces needs a better plan than to give it's members a brief on something and then tell them, or order them, not to talk on social media about it.

The article doesn't address how prevalent false sexual harassment/assault claims are (or how damaging they can be).  We have a real problem with members who, if someone looks at them sideways, run and scream harassment- same boat as the people abusing the t-cat/chit system.

I'm not in an environment that has a lot of women but I've heard stories from friends (whom I trust) about stupid shit NCOs and Officers say and do to female soldiers to believe it's a problem.  There seems to be a lot of creepy dudes out there who aren't getting sorted out.

I'm not suggesting women should 'get tougher skin'.  There IS a pretty unique work place environment in the military, especially in the combat arms, when it comes down to the conversations the majority of members (men) have.  If you sat in a platoon room or company lines and charged everyone who made a comment that would be inappropriate in a civilian office place we could afford a fleet of new LAV6s, but we wouldn't have anyone to drive them.

I find the 'Harassment adviser' thing generally a joke and the running joke seems to be the unit harassment advisers are typically the worst offenders.  If I had an issue with harassment I would sooner come to army.ca than approach any self-identified harassment adviser.

For serious macleans-level  cases of harassment or assault it seems like there's been a few instances where people have been harassed and it's been ignored or shot down by the various chain of command until the member is released and then after digging in and battling it out it finally comes to light the ex member was telling the truth after all. (where the CF hysterically offers the member a chance to go back to work). Anyone CoC guilty of that level of incompetence (and cover up) should have their career stop dropped and released.
Hell I think supervisors guilty of serious harassment (and obviously assault) should lose rank.

Lastly I'd say the current PER-promotion system causes members to be less inclined to report harassment or champion members who are harassed.

 

[George Wallace]

I must admit; the most foul-mouthed person I have ever met in the Army was a female trucker from 2 Svc Bn.  In many cases, it comes down to the sensibilities of the audience.  There are quite a few in the CAF, both male and female, whose tolerance to crude language is very low.  That demographic will wreck havoc in any organization.

 

[cupper]

There are quite a few in the CAF, both male and female, whose tolerance to crude language is very low.  That demographic will wreck havoc in any organization.

It's one thing to be thin skinned because you don't like foul language. If you can't handle the odd F-bomb, S-bomb, A-hole then you need to deal with it. Sure, it shouldn't have a place in a professional setting, but there are cases where it has a larger impact in getting the point across than other less foul terms.

But it's more of the case where derogatory expressions meant to humiliate or embarrass that may be the larger issue here. it was and could still be a fairly common thing to refer to underperforming troops a colloquial term for a certain part of the female anatomy, or skirt wearing ladies (highlanders not withstanding). It's terms like that which undervalue females, and make for a difficult environment.

And it doesn't necessarily need to be foul language to be offensive. I have a senior manager / VP in my office that liked to introduce me to people as the resident "Frost-back". I've had to address this with him to point out that this is offensive on so many levels. The least of which is that it is unprofessional, and diminishes my status with people I need to work with. After a 20 minute discussion, he no longer introduces me that way to others, but still periodically calls me "frost-back" in the office. I'd push the point further, but it's not a battle worth fighting, so I just ignore it.

 

[mariomike]

I must admit; the most foul-mouthed person I have ever met in the Army was a female trucker from 2 Svc Bn.  In many cases, it comes down to the sensibilities of the audience.  There are quite a few in the CAF, both male and female, whose tolerance to crude language is very low.  That demographic will wreck havoc in any organization.

Interesting article about language when transitioning out of the military:
http://www.highspeedlowdrag.org/6-bad-habits/

 

[armyvern]

The NDA can be utilized can it not? Harassment is abuse and the NDA should be used IMO.

Yes, it can indeed be utilized -- and has been. You can find results in the Court Martial site.

See it?  Stop it.  Report it.  Deal with it -- officially; that's what good leaders do.

I certainly have dealt officially with those matters that have come to my attention ... and I can certify that my career has definitely not been negatively impacted.  It's rather the opposite in my case. 

 

[Halifax Tar]

Yes, it can indeed be utilized -- and has been. You can find results in the Court Martial site.

See it?  Stop it.  Report it.  Deal with it -- officially; that's what good leaders do.

I certainly have dealt officially with those matters that have come to my attention ... and I can certify that my career has definitely not been negatively impacted.  It's rather the opposite in my case.

I whole heatedly agree. 

I have to say though things get muddied when CoCs choose not to use the directives at their disposal and instead choose to do PDR 5B's or "Talking too".  I have been part of organizations that choose not to follow the discipline/admin procedures as laid out for performance and conduct failures and they are sick and cancerous environments.

***Vern this is not reflective of my time under your leadership just so you know ***

 

[Colin Parkinson]

On a ship which had just recently gone mixed crews, a poster of Penthouse girl was on the wall, one of the female crew commented it was not what she needed to see. One of the guys said "Oh it just for fun and nice to look at" So she went out and got a poster of nude male model and put it beside the Penthouse one. Next day they were both gone and no more posters. The guys had a lot of respect for the way she dealt with it.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Nice way for her to handle it Colin.

However, IMO, it would have been even better if the seniors on that ship had toured it before the arrival of the first female crew and had such displays removed, and indicated to all what was expected of them. I served on the first commissioned ship that had mixed gender crew (not COR, but PD in 1981), and we certainly did that, plus everyone coming onboard got the brief:

(1) this is an order so get on with it and keep your personal opinion to yourself; (2) all seaman to be treated the same - you give female seamen the same job as male ones and expect the same standards; (3) any harassment or inappropriate behaviour WILL be dealt with IAW regulations and laws. (4) have a good day.

[ At this juncture, I will note that I was amazed to see Canada's first female jet jockey mentioning on The National that there were penthouse posters all over the briefing room when she started and she was told it was normal part of such rooms - Which brainless squadron commander failed to have those removed BEFORE she even showed up? I am totally baffled.]

There are no reason not to continue in that direction: We have orders, rules and regulations dealing with this and it's an obligation for the chain of command to use them every time they are applicable. When the CoC does, there are no later problems. It is nipped in the bud.

We have had problems in the Navy, long ago, with officers/CoC not obeying clear orders they "did not believe in" and it lead to mutinies.

Dixit Lawyer L.C. Audette, a member of the Mainguy Commission, in an article published in 1982:

"On 28 July 1947, a year and a half before the mutinies. a message was issued from NSHQ to all ships ordering that "immediate steps" be taken to institute welfare committees  and ensure that all classes of ratings were represented on them. There was no possible trace of ambiguity or equivocation in the message.
        The executive officer in HMCS Magnificent was aware of this clear and unmistakable order, but because, in his own words, he "did not believe in the desirability" of welfare committees, there was no welfare committee in the ship. (…) In all three ships, the men were aware of their officers' disobedience of orders on this score and resented having no forum in which to plead. (…)
(…)
(…) What most surprised the three commissioners was the curious abandon with which the permanent force officer could disobey orders which he deemed undesirable, an unexpected characteristic which was displayed right to the very top. This attitude made some of the permanent officers fellow felons with the mutineers much more than either group realized, an aspect which never seems to have struck the insubordinate officers or the senior officers whose orders had been disobeyed."

In short, when the CoC does not take certain matters seriously or dismiss them as inconsequential instead of dealing with the matter IAW regulations and this "dismissal" is known in the service, it creates the very climate where the bad apples can ripen.

I don't believe that the problem is as widespread as the report makes it sound like, but shutting problems down right from the go by using the applicable regulations would eliminate many of the recriminations noted in the report. 

 

[OldSolduer]

Yes, it can indeed be utilized -- and has been. You can find results in the Court Martial site.

See it?  Stop it.  Report it.  Deal with it -- officially; that's what good leaders do.

I certainly have dealt officially with those matters that have come to my attention ... and I can certify that my career has definitely not been negatively impacted.  It's rather the opposite in my case.

Then in my tiny pee brain we don't need another layer of bureaucracy. Leaders need to step up and lead, and dispense discipline where it is needed.

One of our favourite "military experts" had an opinion piece in the Free Press this morning. I won't tell you who as I am sick of kittens dieing.....

I also have some thoughts on the report. Is interviews of 700 pers representative? Who was interviewed? Rank levels? Male or female? Army, RCN or RCAF? Trades?

 

[kratz]

My 9re was at the group interviews hosted in Borden. There were multiple groups at different rank levels. With her group there were no males present, but this does not mean men were not interviewed.

 

[c_canuk]

Then in my tiny pee brain we don't need another layer of bureaucracy. Leaders need to step up and lead, and dispense discipline where it is needed.

One of our favourite "military experts" had an opinion piece in the Free Press this morning. I won't tell you who as I am sick of kittens dieing.....

I also have some thoughts on the report. Is interviews of 700 pers representative? Who was interviewed? Rank levels? Male or female? Army, RCN or RCAF? Trades?

Based what I read, I believe the recommendation is not to add another layer, but to take all the existing layers and put it in one silo that is accessable separate from the CoC.  The same sort of idea as SISIP, Medical, Dental, Supply etc. If you need the services of the dept on the individual level, you make contact with them.

I think the idea is that CoC approval is not required, excepting authorization to go if an email won't suffice.

That sort of setup would remove a large portion of the indicated problems created by having one's superiors investigate claims of misconduct without biases, perceived or factual, that will arise from the fact that they are your superiors.

To clarify the idea; if an external entity investigates and claims there is no basis for a complaint, then it's more likely to be taken seriously than if it was the member's own CoC that determined that there was no basis for the complainant's claim of a superior's misconduct.

It also removes the suggestion that later negative consequences of reporting misconduct, perceived or otherwise, is at play since the investigators and people holding the data are external to the CoC.

Obviously that's not a 100% solution, but those don't exist in the real world. I can see how in this case, creating a central authority (not just another layer) will improve things.

 

[GAP]

This whole discussion is fertile ground for the Teamsters, et al, to run a membership drive.......

Classic situation for a union to form...... :2c:

 

[cupper]

This whole discussion is fertile ground for the Teamsters, et al, to run a membership drive.......

Classic situation for a union to form...... :2c:

Which will inevitably lead to the Good Idea Fairies issuing a new Union Label insignia which all members will have to sew onto their uniforms. >

 

[Tibbson]

As long as they are not made in China.

 

[Edward Campbell]

:soapbox:

<rant>

Let's admit first that there is a problem: some people never get the memo; they think that they're above the rules; they think it's OK to abuse others; we, 95+% of us, anyway, don't agree, but we're rarely alert enough or strong enough or anything enough to prevent abuse, and we expect our institutions to sort it out. One of our institutions is the military chain of command; our chain of command is,  by and large, full of good, earnest, hard working, honest people - from leading seaman all the way up to LGen Vance and the Governor General ~ by and large is a95+%, I think. The chain of command is imperfect; it has been since the bloody Greeks were forming up in phalanxes; it makes mistakes; sometimes, as OGBD explained the wrong people are the wrong links of the chain. The same applies in police forces; airlines; giant corporations and corner stores: mostly, most of time, most of us do the right thing in the right way but for some small ~ but still painfully large, painful especially for those who are abused ~  percentage of the time we get it wrong.

But the problem is that when we get things wrong we look for easy solutions; we look to "pass the buck," and so we create ombudsmen and public complaints commissions and civilian review boards and consumer advocates, and, and, and ... seemingly ad infinitum. Every time we do that we excuse the failings of the chain of command or the management team or the leadership or whatever, and we ask outsiders to protect us from ourselves, because we recognize that we are weak and imperfect and we don't want to be stronger because that's bloody hard.

I don't have any answers ... but I hate things like ombudsmen and complaints commissions and review boards because they tell me that we have given up trying to bet better, to fix ourselves.

</rant>