Sexual Assault & Sexual Misconduct in the CF

[OldSolduer]

I agree. As I stated earlier, the policies are all in place. All that really needs to be done is to consolidate into one easily accessed document that allows any party to go and find the policy, its application and so forth. The individual policy pieces (NDA, CCC, QR & O's etc) can then referenced as necessary should more detailed information be required.

DAOD 5019-5 should be utilized when necessary. It's quite comprehensive.

 

[c_canuk]

I think that the problem is mainly optics.

No matter how well the system works, there will always be someone who feels it has failed them. Sometimes it will be perception, sometimes it will be fact.

We can strive to enforce the rules better and yes our leaders are capable of enforcing the standards, however, there will always be a small number of dissatisfied people regardless of real effectiveness.

This seems to be a case of law of diminishing returns when the optics demands 100% success.

No where in the report, that I recall, did it compare us to the general population or a selection of the general population adjusted to match our demographics. I think we can all draw conclusions as to why.

When we are viewed from outside the organization in reference to the dissatisfied, the system will still be seen as providing opportunities for the CoC to cover up. Regardless of our leader's impeccable honour and diligence. Regardless of our effectiveness. Regardless of what actually happened.

The system appears to outsiders, to be formed in a way that makes it possible for one of less honour and diligence to affect the outcome and/or punish those that stand up and make a complaint.

I feel that in the minds of some of those looking in, pointing fingers, and stirring up controversy; honour and diligence are meaningless blandishments. I feel that to them those words hold no substance.

By removing the current system and creating one separate from the CoC, we can potentially remove those optics from the situation and get on with our primary roles, having removed a point of criticism.

Or we can keep doing things the way we have, striving to improve upon the intangibles of the current, and have one of these reports slamming us every couple of years because someone somewhere feels the system wronged them.

Maybe the question comes down to do we care more about how effective we are, or the optics?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Big part of the problem, indeed.  To be more specific, if more ALL leaders consistently applied the rules/systems that are currently in place, even if it's hard to do, you don't get outsiders making new rules up.  Such rules don't get put into place because of the 99.9% of those wanting to do the job right.  They get into place because some may not want to make the hard decision (or aren't supported in doing so).

All all fairness, though, the CF isn't the ONLY big group of people who struggle with bosses/leaders/managers being reluctant to have "hard" conversations and perservere and be consistent in their handling of problem employees.

FTFY.

We also have tools to deal with problem leaders.  RMs, ARs, release items etc.

So use them.  I have at my level.  :2c:

 

[exgunnertdo]

Sadly, there is still a culture that prevents people from reporting, or saying or doing something if they see something. Because of this report, people are talking. Last week I heard of two separate incidents. One, in which people didn't speak up because they feared it would hurt their careers (Class B contracts being cancelled, and/or PERs being lowered). I can't say that they would have been wrong, knowing the individual involved. Sometimes personal survival (keeping your job) is more important than making the system better.

Another situation, something extremely degrading in general (not against one specific person, but of a similar concept to pinups hanging in the office - something around, but not directed at anyone in particular, some women might have thought it was funny, but it really was not), and 100 or more people did/said nothing.

I've always thought that I'd be strong enough to say something. I have had to call a few people on minor things here and there, thankfully I'm in the category of people that doesn't fully believe this report could be true. But I guess I was wrong - hearing some of the stories I've heard in the past few days, there is still a problem with people not being able to speak up. Policies are there. But if you're still afraid of losing a job, or not being promoted, the policy doesn't help you a whole lot.

It's really easy to say that we have the policies, but when women who I consider to be strong felt powerless to report someone who is supposed to be one of the ones applying the rules, I don't think we've finished. We talk like the leaders all know what is right. They don't.

 

[OldSolduer]

Good post exgunner.

The people of Canada who decide to join the CAF do not do so to be abused, sexually or otherwise. They are someone's son, daughter, niece, nephew, grandchild and in some cases moms and dads.

This is not a subject I want to speak of tonight at dismissal parade...but it has to be said and people need to get the message at all rank levels.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Sadly, there is still a culture that prevents people from reporting, or saying or doing something if they see something. Because of this report, people are talking. Last week I heard of two separate incidents. One, in which people didn't speak up because they feared it would hurt their careers (Class B contracts being cancelled, and/or PERs being lowered). I can't say that they would have been wrong, knowing the individual involved. Sometimes personal survival (keeping your job) is more important than making the system better.

Another situation, something extremely degrading in general (not against one specific person, but of a similar concept to pinups hanging in the office - something around, but not directed at anyone in particular, some women might have thought it was funny, but it really was not), and 100 or more people did/said nothing.

I've always thought that I'd be strong enough to say something. I have had to call a few people on minor things here and there, thankfully I'm in the category of people that doesn't fully believe this report could be true. But I guess I was wrong - hearing some of the stories I've heard in the past few days, there is still a problem with people not being able to speak up. Policies are there. But if you're still afraid of losing a job, or not being promoted, the policy doesn't help you a whole lot.

It's really easy to say that we have the policies, but when women who I consider to be strong felt powerless to report someone who is supposed to be one of the ones applying the rules, I don't think we've finished. We talk like the leaders all know what is right. They don't.

This reticence to speak out applies to other kinds of abuse/ bullying too, and is a common feature (sadly) of many large, hierarchical, bureaucratic organizations. We've all seen/ experienced it at one time or another, and it's not always a 'sexual misconduct' issue.

As a result, to deal with this reality in a proactive manner, many business run ongoing audits based on confidential interviews between randomly selected staff and objective 3rd parties to surface issues, and then conduct further investigations and deal with them as required.

In the 'olden days', in the military, this used to be the Padre net - amongst others...

 

[Tibbson]

I mean them having the ability to make a complaint in the future.  Given the turmoil that is already going on with all that SA entails, nobody should be forced to make a "do it now or never" decision, particularly in the case of a date/spousal SA.  I'd be interested in the case law you're citing here, for PD purposes, have the citation handy?

I don't have it at hand but I will certainly dig it up.

Not all SA are investigated by CFNIS anymore, so called "low level" SAs are routinely referred back to the Guardhouses, particularly in places that have a dedicated GIS.  In those instances, the charge laying authority IS the CO and they are not compelled to justify their decision to anyone. 

Thats been a big complaint of mine for some time.  The CFNIS mandate clearly states they are responsible for all SA investigations and that has never changed.  What had changed was the internal policy to refer the low level cases back to a guardhouse.  I won't comment on why that was done but I've never agreed with it.

Ref your comment about you not really caring if MP learn about the outcome of summary trials or not, is a pretty asinine statement from a Snr MP.  We have a computerized database in which we are routinely identifying persons as "subject", "suspect" and "charged/accused".  If we are a professional police service we should be very aware of the need to maintain the accuracy of our database, if for no other reason than when we do it for our own investigative purposes or get a local indices check from another police agency we are able to state the actual outcome for all of those people we are classifying as "charged/accused".  Right now they end up in limbo with no way for the Guardhouses to actually track them. 

Considering that summary trial offences are essentially on par with simple tickets in the civilian system, and they don't get listed on CPIC, I don't really think it matters if they are tracked in SAMPIS.  If its elevated to a CM proceedings then thats a bit different.  Add to that the fact the new document retention policy is going to see SAMPIS info purged after 7 years (most civilian police departments don't have the capabiity or the desire to store such info indefinitely) I see even less of a reason to track the outcome of summary offence matters.  The CF has conduct sheets for that and all the front line MP needs to know is that Bloggins was the subject of some summary offence incident so they know what they may be dealing with during any subsequent calls.  As far as what info DOES make it to CPIC, that is something we have no control over and it's dictated by the RCMPs CPIC policies.  Up until the last major round of NDA revisions not even our CM convictions were listed on CPIC but thankfully thats changed.

 

[Robert0288]

All all fairness, though, the CF isn't the ONLY big group of people who struggle with bosses/leaders/managers being reluctant to have "hard" conversations and perservere and be consistent in their handling of problem employees.

Yep.

 

[OldSolduer]

All all fairness, though, the CF isn't the ONLY big group of people who struggle with bosses/leaders/managers being reluctant to have "hard" conversations and perservere and be consistent in their handling of problem employees.

Correct. BUT - the CAF is a high visibility organization funded by taxpayer dollars.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Big part of the problem, indeed.  To be more specific, if more ALL leaders consistently applied the rules/systems that are currently in place, even if it's hard to do, you don't get outsiders making new rules up.

FTFY.

Good point.

Correct. BUT - the CAF is a high visibility organization funded by taxpayer dollars.

100% agreed, especially in being held to a higher standard (like cops, for example).  I was just trying to make the point that the CF isn't the only (not just government) organization where some leaders/managers don't seem to want to do the hard, but right thing.

 

[OldSolduer]

FTFY.
Good point.
100% agreed, especially in being held to a higher standard (like cops, for example).  I was just trying to make the point that the CF isn't the only (not just government) organization where some leaders/managers don't seem to want to do the hard, but right thing.

Understood.

 

[OldSolduer]

I've read about half the report and it does not flatter us. It particularly, at some points, singles out the NCO corps as being a huge part of the problem. It does not excuse the officers either.

If the general public were to read it, they may come away with the impression we are half wit sexual predators.

 

[Alberta Bound]

Just remember that when / if you get to having an outside / independent organization investigating these issues that criticism of the CF won't suddenly disappear. What you will also see is the same persons / groups who criticize now will continue to do so. It just gives them two or more groups to be mad at.

The RCMP used to do their own internal investigations. Now the bigger, more public ones have been taken over by the Public Complaints Commission and Provincial Agencies. Now we have more groups involved with multiple overlapping investigations and slightly different rules.

I found that in the old days the RCMP in most cases went after their membership very hard in some cases for public image. Now the independent groups don't do this and do their investigations just like any other investigative body which is nice.

But our chronic clients say that ASIRT (AB) and the PCC arent impartial and still complain cover up. As a manager the multiple investigations just make keeping it all straight, separate and updated almost a full time task. On a couple files I had a Public Complaint, Statutory Investigation, Internal Review, Code of Conduct and a Fatality Inquiry. Five different groups doing each. And the family always still calls us and in some cases we spent hours convincing people to talk to all these investigators as they didn't trust them.

The grass isn't greener.

 

[Ostrozac]

in some cases we spent hours convincing people to talk to all these investigators as they didn't trust them.

That's also been my experience with outside investigators in the CF. Even on relatively simple files, it can be an uphill battle for members to cooperate, even when they want to, even with MP investigators from outside the unit, who are at least military personnel. The investigators don't understand the unit roles and pace, the acronyms and jargon need to be explained, and sometimes they are completely unsuited to the file. War story time -- I was once involved as a witness in a mishandling of classified materials. An MP came over to my unit to interview me -- the MP didn't have an appropriate security clearance, so I couldn't tell him very much at all about the incident. It was frustrating for both of us, and I wasn't even trying to hide anything or cover things up. Contrast this to an investigation ordered by a CO, where the investigating officer is from the unit in question and should have a least a bit of a background on the situation.

This hypothetical outside agency that will investigate sexual complaints -- are they going to fly investigators out to Kurdistan, to ships at sea, and to CFS Alert? And expect witnesses to explain their jobs at the same time that they are under investigation? I don't see it working very well at all.

I'm a big fan of enabling the Commanding Officer to deal with issues of discipline, but I'm also in favour of relieving said CO's that just don't get it. If there's a unit, or a schoolhouse, or a ship that has developed a culture of sexual harassment then I'd much rather see that one CO go up for court-martial rather than a hundred witchhunts that are unlikely to result in charges laid.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I'd much rather see that one CO go up for court-martial rather than a hundred witchhunts that are unlikely to result in charges laid.

But that might leave you with 99 witches. Sometimes it's better to deal with the whole coven, no?

 

[cupper]

This hypothetical outside agency that will investigate sexual complaints -- are they going to fly investigators out to Kurdistan, to ships at sea, and to CFS Alert? And expect witnesses to explain their jobs at the same time that they are under investigation? I don't see it working very well at all.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the outside agency as described by Mme Justice doesn't actually do any investigation according to the description of it's scope of responsibility.

Create an independent center for accountability for sexual assault and harassment outside of the CAF with the responsibility for receiving reports of inappropriate sexual conduct, as well as prevention, coordination and monitoring of training, victim support, monitoring of accountability, and research, and to act as a central authority for the collection of data.

CASAH should be responsible for receiving reports of both sexual harassment and sexual assault, and victims should have control over whether the report will or will not trigger an investigation. In either event, the victim should be entitled to receive assistance and support. Further, CASAH should be tasked with prevention, victim support, monitoring of accountability (including follow-up on complaints of both sexual harassment and sexual assault), and conducting research. CASAH should also act as a central authority for the collection of data with respect to sexual and harassment and assault, including the number of reports made, complaints filed and charges laid, the status of investigative procedures, and the outcome of complaints by year, unit and environment. CASAH should produce annual reports.
As discussed below, the ERA further recommends that CASAH be involved in the development and implementation of policies and procedures related to inappropriate sexual conduct, and to the development and implementation of training.
Victims should also retain the option of reporting to the chain of command if they prefer. Not all victims may be comfortable using the same channel for reporting, and it is important to provide victims with a range of options.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I am sure somewhere in the CF Military Admin Law manual it says everyone is entitled to due process, disclosure, etc.

So what happens if someone reports me but doesn't want to officially lodge a formal complaint? 

Some of this seems amateur in construct and without consideration for our admin laws.

 

[cupper]

Just as a counter point, The Pentagon still has problems addressing the sexual assault issue as well. It seems that instances of retaliation against members who report assaults is still a problem.

Instances of sexual assault among troops decrease, report suggests

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/instances-of-sexual-assault-among-troops-decrease-report-suggests/2015/05/01/2298afba-f022-11e4-a55f-38924fca94f9_story.html

Instances of sexual assault among U.S. service members have fallen over the past year, a new report suggested Friday, but Pentagon officials said more work remains to be done on preventing retaliation against those who report abuse.

Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter, presenting his department’s assessment of sexual assault for fiscal 2014, said the military had made strides in discouraging abuse across the armed forces.

A Pentagon-commissioned study by the private RAND Corp. found that an estimated 18,900 service members, including 10,400 men and 8,500 women, were subjected to some kind of unwanted sexual contact, a drop of 27 percent from fiscal 2012. Unwanted sexual conduct is a term that covers a wide variety of actions.

The RAND assessment, which was based on a survey of service members, also introduced a new measurement for tracking assaults — rather than unwanted sexual contact — which will make it easier to prosecute them. Using this terminology, RAND found that an estimated 20,300 out of a total of 1.3 million service members were victims of sexual assault in 2014.

“That’s clearly far, far too many,” Carter told reporters at the Pentagon. “Even though sexual assault is a disgrace in any form and happens far too often across our country, it’s a particular challenge for us here.”

In 2014, the Pentagon received 6,131 reports of sexual assault, a jump of 11 percent from 2013, a change that officials believe signals improved confidence in the military’s ability to respond properly to such allegations.

Much of the data presented Friday was contained in a December 2014 report to the White House, but this week’s report provides additional details that paint a mixed picture of abuse in the military.

Accounts of widespread assault within the ranks and officials’ failures in holding perpetrators accountable have emerged as a major issue for Pentagon leaders in recent years. Carter, who took office in February, said the military’s ability to learn from mistakes would help it move toward eradicating sexual assault.

For the first time, the annual study examined how male service members experience assault. It found they were more likely to experience repeated abuse by more than one person and were more likely to view the aggression as hazing instead of sexual acts.

The report also suggested that 22 percent of active-duty women and 7 percent of active-duty men experienced sexual harassment.

“In short, the report makes it crystal clear that we have to do more,” Carter said.

To address such problems, Carter has ordered steps to alter the military’s “organizational culture” and to provide the tailored care that men or women might require if they become victims of abuse.

He has also asked officials to develop a strategy for preventing retaliation against those who report sexual assaults and other crimes. Studies show that many female service members who report sexual assaults have experienced some kind of social or professional retaliation.

“No man or woman who serves in the United States military should ever be sexually assaulted. Nor should they experience reprisals for reporting such crimes,” Carter said.

 

[OldSolduer]

IF an outside agency were to be formed, how many of you are willing to bet the CEO would be a Col (retired) Bloggins?

 

[Robert0288]

Or at least a ret. BGen.  Who else would be able to deal with the jargon being used?