• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Sexual Misconduct Allegations in The CAF

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
960
Points
910
There is a difference between people having coercive, harmful relationships and everyone knowing about it and doing nothing, and others who are unfaithful to their partners.

Unless the partner's - and if applicable the family's - well-being is excluded from the calculation, such relationships always have the potential to be harmful (and, human emotions being what they are, in most cases will be).

Strain due to an infidelity which meets none of the objective no-go criteria can still cause harm. I can make up worst-case scenarios, too. Capt X is seeing Capt Y's spouse, and Capt Y knows and is not happy about it. Capt Y deploys. Because of the problem at home, Capt Y is inattentive at a critical time and people die. If beforehand all the CoC had was rumour and Capt Y strongly desired the employment/opportunity for career advancement, what could have been the grounds for denying it to Capt Y?

I understand the privacy issue and am sympathetic. Deterrents and enforcement must be strong if invasion of privacy is out of bounds. Enforcers may not turn a blind eye even to unofficial or non-actionable information. Once a possible issue is raised, it must be settled.
 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
564
Points
910
That's me. I won't even ask for meal claims when I work out of town.

Have you ever dealt with a subordinate or peer at work who was sexually assaulted or harassed? Or targeted for reprisals after reporting an incident?
Yes yes and yes.
 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
564
Points
910
Unless the partner's - and if applicable the family's - well-being is excluded from the calculation, such relationships always have the potential to be harmful (and, human emotions being what they are, in most cases will be).

Strain due to an infidelity which meets none of the objective no-go criteria can still cause harm. I can make up worst-case scenarios, too. Capt X is seeing Capt Y's spouse, and Capt Y knows and is not happy about it. Capt Y deploys. Because of the problem at home, Capt Y is inattentive at a critical time and people die. If beforehand all the CoC had was rumour and Capt Y strongly desired the employment/opportunity for career advancement, what could have been the grounds for denying it to Capt Y?

I understand the privacy issue and am sympathetic. Deterrents and enforcement must be strong if invasion of privacy is out of bounds. Enforcers may not turn a blind eye even to unofficial or non-actionable information. Once a possible issue is raised, it must be settled.
It seems like dealing with individuals situations on a case per case basis is far better than a blanket policy that isn't applicable in every situation.

:unsure:
 

Bruce Monkhouse

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
877
Points
1,040
It seems like dealing with individuals situations on a case per case basis is far better than a blanket policy that isn't applicable in every situation.

:unsure:
And how do we pick the person who heads that Star Chamber?? Oh wait, that's pretty close to what's been failing for a long time it appears....
 

Mills Bomb

New Member
Reaction score
28
Points
330
A bit confused about the comments on cheating.

The issue seems to be about superior officers including several CDS taking advantage of lower ranking female members and even the MND turning a blind eye to the evidence when presented right in front of him, I didn't see any news stories about the CAF or Feds going after relatively common cheaters (Unless I missed something?).

With all due respect, if we're having trouble ridding ourselves of high ranking sexual predators taking advantage of other employees in isolated places such as ships how would we possibly hold cheaters accountable?
 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
564
Points
910
A bit confused about the comments on cheating.

The issue seems to be about superior officers including several CDS taking advantage of lower ranking female members and even the MND turning a blind eye to the evidence when presented right in front of him, I didn't see any news stories about the CAF or Feds going after relatively common cheaters (Unless I missed something?).

With all due respect, if we're having trouble ridding ourselves of high ranking sexual predators taking advantage of other employees in isolated places such as ships how would we possibly hold cheaters accountable?
I agree.

Someone is trying to equate the two.

As for your latter point, magic.
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
960
Points
910
People with offensive sexual behaviours tend to escalate. "Cheating" doesn't have to lead to abuse of authority, but a person looking for more options may eventually add it to the menu. Most problems are easiest to solve while they are small.
 

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
650
Points
1,060
To be honest, the cheating part isn't something in itself we should really care about. Wanna fool around on your wife/husband/Significant Other? Go for it, they'll hold you more accountable than the CAF ever could. We definitely shouldn't be putting adultery rules on the books.

The issue for me is the fact that Coates did this with a US contractor while on an OUTCAN posting, embarrassing the government and the CAF. That should have been enough for at least a NDA129, and the CDS running an admin review to tell him his service has been completed and he should retire.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,285
Points
1,060
To be honest, the cheating part isn't something in itself we should really care about. Wanna fool around on your wife/husband/Significant Other? Go for it, they'll hold you more accountable than the CAF ever could. We definitely shouldn't be putting adultery rules on the books.

The issue for me is the fact that Coates did this with a US contractor while on an OUTCAN posting, embarrassing the government and the CAF. That should have been enough for at least a NDA129, and the CDS running an admin review to tell him his service has been completed and he should retire.

If someone is going to be deceitful with their legal partner I'm willing to bet they'll be deceitful with their chain of command. They've got a history of covering their tracks and looking out for themselves.

It also opens them up to blackmail and as you say being an embarrassment for Canada.

Lastly there is the balance of power. Even if someone isn't in anothers chain of command you know what happens if you discipline the colonel or generals side piece.
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
1,819
Points
910
To be honest, the cheating part isn't something in itself we should really care about. Wanna fool around on your wife/husband/Significant Other? Go for it, they'll hold you more accountable than the CAF ever could. We definitely shouldn't be putting adultery rules on the books.

The issue for me is the fact that Coates did this with a US contractor while on an OUTCAN posting, embarrassing the government and the CAF. That should have been enough for at least a NDA129, and the CDS running an admin review to tell him his service has been completed and he should retire.
I am of this thought:

If one cannot honour their marriage vows, what hope do we have that they will honour the words in their commissioning scroll?

I am reticent to let the government into people’s bedrooms (just about the only thing upon which Trudeau the Elder and I agree), but honestly, if you are too stupid or dishonest to make to make a honest and clean break with a partner before you start up with some one else, what else are you going to lie about?

edit: Jarn beat me to it!
 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
564
Points
910
I just want everyone to close their eyes and picture in their minds eye a group of soldiers trying to come up with evidence that a soldier on their down time is messing around with a stripper behind their spouses back.
 

Staff Weenie

Full Member
Reaction score
18
Points
280
I didn’t want this to pass unnoticed. Phenomenal point, and one that threat actors can and wild definitely exploit. Someone might do a lot to protect their marriage, child custody, and half their pension.
And the Soviets and Cubans were notorious for using 'Honey Pot' traps on Western Officers. I could see Russia and China doing it now.
 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
564
Points
910
I'm also curious as to how soldiers investigating cheating soldiers will have any more luck than the spouses. 🤣
 
Top