• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Army investigating members allegedly involved in 'abhorrent' Facebook group, Canada's top soldier says

Allan

Allan

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Messages
55,205
Reaction score
84,256
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
When these guys are identified they should face a general court martial. There's no place for extremism in the armed forces.

The Canadian Army is investigating members who allegedly shared what the country's top soldier called "abhorrent" content within a private Facebook group.

According to a statement from Lt.-Gen. Mike Wright, the "Blue Hackle Mafia" group featured "racist, misogynistic, homophobic and antisemitic comments and images."
Click to expand...

 
Had to read quite a bit to get what group they were part of. For awhile I thought maybe it was a poutine lovers group. Very controversial.

Indeed, one shouldn't participate in such things. If you see that stuff and you stay, guilty by association. Part of the mob.

Of course I believe they have free speech rights, and in that sense they are being respected because nobody's employers would put up with this. They're not going to be prosecuted. Just maybe rightfully fired.
 
ASHES said:
Of course I believe they have free speech rights, and in that sense they are being respected because nobody's employers would put up with this. They're not going to be prosecuted. Just maybe rightfully fired.
Click to expand...
Yup. If I ever posted something like that online my company would kick me to the curb.
 
How contraversial can Canadians get?
Maybe they forgot to appoligise 20 times for something they didn't even do?

The scoundrels.

Seriously though, I'd expect most armed forces to have some standards for service personel while online.
 
Peter said:
How contraversial can Canadians get?
Maybe they forgot to appoligise 20 times for something they didn't even do?

The scoundrels.

Seriously though, I'd expect most armed forces to have some standards for service personel while online.
Click to expand...

How contraversial can Canadians get?

Easy there sausage eater.

First off its controversial not contraversial, English I guess is not your first language.

You speak French? Not likely....well more than half of Canadians understand French AND English and 30 per cent of us speak BOTH. We're not a 'colony' anymore and never really like the queen; we tolerated her boring, lugubrious monologues as a means of establishing (quietly) that we're, god no, Americans!

We do not consider controversy to be something to shoot for, no....but we don't avoid it either. As I need to often point out our passion is ice hockey, a game Brits aren't able to understand let alone skate on ice AND shoot a puck. One which belies our "passion for peace" and allows us to beat the shit out of our critics. Send your best...if they can learn to skate.

We keep our opinions to ourselves as we are surrounded by rudeness to the south and from across the Atlantic. We don't tell Europeans how to run a country and ignore their opinions about how to 'get her done' now.
 
Allan said:
When these guys are identified they should face a general court martial. There's no place for extremism in the armed forces.

Click to expand...
Allan et al.:

Should "abhorrent" postings in a private Facebook group done by anonymous posters be considered a criminal offense, even if such posts contain racist, misogynistic, homophobic and antisemitic comments and images? If those comments don't rise to the level of hate speech by advocating violence against others and if the posts are made anonymously and did not bring dishonour on the CAF and if no Government of Canada property was used to make or view such posts, then where is the illegality? Yes, it's disgusting prejudice but is it a crime? The CAF is a branch of the Canadian Government and therefore this is a case of the Government of Canada punishing objectionable free speech. Dismissal for exercising profoundly bad professional judgement, yes, but criminal prosecution may go too far. I am alarmed at the rapidly increasing and illiberal trend to suppress what someone might construe as objectional speech by the means of increasingly draconian laws and regulations, a process which is happening in Europe and North America. Is this a part of that worrying trend? We train soldiers to kill and destroy without hesitation under the shield of national protection of "interests", but criminally prosecute them for potty mouths and uttering objectionable speech? There seems to be a big moral/ethical disconnect embedded in such a policy, no? The practice of arms in military service is neither diplomatic nor subtle unless you're a commanding officer dropped into a politically precarious position by unwise politicians (think Romeo Dallaire in Rwanda). To expect other-ranks to parse the subtleties of being conditioned to kill and destroy without second thought on the one hand while simultaneously demanding that they remain polite and civil on the other seems hypocritical to me. This is a symptom of the rot of many peace-time armies.

Be well and be safe.
Evilroddy.
 
Fearandloathing said:
How contraversial can Canadians get?

Easy there sausage eater.

First off its controversial not contraversial, English I guess is not your first language.

You speak French? Not likely....well more than half of Canadians understand French AND English and 30 per cent of us speak BOTH. We're not a 'colony' anymore and never really like the queen; we tolerated her boring, lugubrious monologues as a means of establishing (quietly) that we're, god no, Americans!

We do not consider controversy to be something to shoot for, no....but we don't avoid it either. As I need to often point out our passion is ice hockey, a game Brits aren't able to understand let alone skate on ice AND shoot a puck. One which belies our "passion for peace" and allows us to beat the shit out of our critics. Send your best...if they can learn to skate.

We keep our opinions to ourselves as we are surrounded by rudeness to the south and from across the Atlantic. We don't tell Europeans how to run a country and ignore their opinions about how to 'get her done' now.
Click to expand...
You keep your opinions to yourselves? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣. That’s one of your best. Certainly not true here on DP.
 
Evilroddy said:
Allan et al.:

Should "abhorrent" postings in a private Facebook group done by anonymous posters be considered a criminal offense, even if such posts contain racist, misogynistic, homophobic and antisemitic comments and images? If those comments don't rise to the level of hate speech by advocating violence against others and if the posts are made anonymously and did not bring dishonour on the CAF and if no Government of Canada property was used to make or view such posts, then where is the illegality? Yes, it's disgusting prejudice but is it a crime? The CAF is a branch of the Canadian Government and therefore this is a case of the Government of Canada punishing objectionable free speech. Dismissal for exercising profoundly bad professional judgement, yes, but criminal prosecution may go too far. I am alarmed at the rapidly increasing and illiberal trend to suppress what someone might construe as objectional speech by the means of increasingly draconian laws and regulations, a process which is happening in Europe and North America. Is this a part of that worrying trend? We train soldiers to kill and destroy without hesitation under the shield of national protection of "interests", but criminally prosecute them for potty mouths and uttering objectionable speech? There seems to be a big moral/ethical disconnect embedded in such a policy, no? The practice of arms in military service is neither diplomatic nor subtle unless you're a commanding officer dropped into a politically precarious position by unwise politicians (think Romeo Dallaire in Rwanda). To expect other-ranks to parse the subtleties of being conditioned to kill and destroy without second thought on the one hand while simultaneously demanding that they remain polite and civil on the other seems hypocritical to me. This is a symptom of the rot of many peace-time armies.

Be well and be safe.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

Every member of the CAF agreed to abide by the Code of Service Discipline in the National Defence Act. It is explicitly stated that behaviour of persons subject to the Code of Service Discipline applies even when not on duty, in uniform, or on a defence establishment.

Holding those that agreed to be held to a standard is not a symptom of rot, it's the exact opposite of that in my opinion. I expect soldiers to follow lawful orders, and that may mean killing an enemy combatant, but that does not mean they are conditioned to kill without second thought.

I also expect those soldiers to be looked after when they are harmed either physically or mentally for doing the job we demand of them. They should be held to a higher standard as well as treated to a higher standard after their service.
 
CANON said:
Every member of the CAF agreed to abide by the Code of Service Discipline in the National Defence Act. It is explicitly stated that behaviour of persons subject to the Code of Service Discipline applies even when not on duty, in uniform, or on a defence establishment.
Click to expand...
Canon:

Does that require a court martial or can a summary judgement suffice for discharging a CAF soldier who breaks the CoSD? I am not objecting to firing these folks. I am concerned that solving such problems with criminal charges, trials and ultimately possible criminal penalties is profoundly illiberal and may be abused both in the CAF and in the civilian justice system by governments which want to suppress unpopular or inconvenient speech.
CANON said:
Holding those that agreed to be held to a standard is not a symptom of rot, it's the exact opposite of that in my opinion. I expect soldiers to follow lawful orders, and that may mean killing an enemy combatant, but that does not mean they are conditioned to kill without second thought.
Click to expand...
Discharge those who through stupidity or moral deficiency cannot live up to the code which they have sworn to follow. No problem with that. But criminalising such stupid behaviour and using criminal penalties as remedies strikes me as a dangerous and unnecessary legal escalation by the state against albeit unwise citizens. Such creeping criminalisation, which can be easily be abused with greater and greater frequency and intensity as the state becomes more and more intolerant of dissenting or odious speech is a threat to a liberal society. I spent forty plus years in veterans' hospitals visiting and talking with veterans of WWI, WWII and the Korean Conflict. It was very common conclusion voiced by these veterans that concerns other than conditioning soldiers to fight as hard and as smartly as possible through perilous Battle Drill and through ruthless combat experience was all that mattered in their experience. They didn't give a damn about being what we call today as politically correct and they often declared that they would do anything they needed to do to keep themselves and their comrades alive while defeating the enemy by any and all means. Many of them held profoundly deep prejudices against all sorts of people and groups which was not limited to their enemies. Many bragged or quietly admitted that they had and would commit war crimes if they believed it would keep them alive and demoralise their enemies. Many of these chaps had a very dim view of peace time soldiers and officers and their preoccupations with distractions rather than focusing on how best to kill the most enemies with the least loss of their own comrades was daft. These view were common among infantry, gunners, tankers and sappers/combat engineers. The airmen and the sailors were less bloody-minded compared to the army chaps but they too were unimpressed with peacetime priorities such as politeness and "notional aircraft or ships' when no real ones were available for training.
CANON said:
I also expect those soldiers to be looked after when they are harmed either physically or mentally for doing the job we demand of them. They should be held to a higher standard as well as treated to a higher standard after their service.
Click to expand...
I absolutely agree with you here for those who have served and suffered from that service be they men or women who served in peace or in war. The men I talked to were not a homogenous group but many of them were quite willing to speak frankly and impoliticly about many things we discussed. Some were gentlemen and some were right bastards but most were normal human beings with all sorts of contradictions; but all were frank and did not hold back in conversation or simply refused to talk about their experiences and opinions on the service of arms.

Be well and be safe.
Evilroddy.
 
ASHES said:
Had to read quite a bit to get what group they were part of. For awhile I thought maybe it was a poutine lovers group. Very controversial.

Indeed, one shouldn't participate in such things. If you see that stuff and you stay, guilty by association. Part of the mob.

Of course I believe they have free speech rights, and in that sense they are being respected because nobody's employers would put up with this. They're not going to be prosecuted. Just maybe rightfully fired.
Click to expand...
The Military do not have the same protections under the Charter as others Canadians do, and for good reason
Racism was rampant when I was serving from 76 to 2000

Only 1 Royal Commission in Canadian history was shut down by Chretien when it was close to identifying the Senior Officers responsible for the Somalia debacle of sending the Airborne there

Approx 2 years prior someone put a few rounds thru the Airbornes RSMs office
The dysfunction was covered up
And yes I had friends deployed on that mission
I so met Kyle Brown after I retired and working security

The screaming of the Somalian was well heard within the camp

 
JANFU said:
The Military do not have the same protections under the Charter as others Canadians do, and for good reason
Racism was rampant when I was serving from 76 to 2000

Only 1 Royal Commission in Canadian history was shut down by Chretien when it was close to identifying the Senior Officers responsible for the Somalia debacle of sending the Airborne there

Approx 2 years prior someone put a few rounds thru the Airbornes RSMs office
The dysfunction was covered up
And yes I had friends deployed on that mission
I so met Kyle Brown after I retired and working security

The screaming of the Somalian was well heard within the camp

Click to expand...
Yes of course, I spoke with an American perspective, and forgot my place.
 
Allan said:
Yikes!

They need to get a handle on this.
Click to expand...
BUT, will they or merely do what they usually do and what the most recent example being the RCMP has done. Sweep it under the carpet and put down a brown linoleum overlay from the 1940's. "There, all fixed. :mad:

systemic problems
 
ASHES said:
Yes of course, I spoke with an American perspective, and forgot my place.
Click to expand...
ASHES:

Forgot your place? Hell no! Your place, should you want to hold it, is to post your opinions, to make Canadians confront their complacency and their preconceptions and to force us all to actually think about what we all might otherwise take for granted. You're doing Canadians a service by challenging them and not treading where you shouldn't. Your place is Canada and your mandate is to question and voice your positions as you see them. "Forgot your place.", be damned. No self-censorship based on a person's place please. Yes, that even applies to annoying cat videos, which are fair game.

Do not pigeon-hole and censor yourself, please.
We value your wisdom and your questions.
Evilroddy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom