Bikers son snubbed by Military

[aesop081]

It was not completely unheard of in the early/mid 70's(most likely before than also) of giving someone a choice of 5 years in jail or 5 years in the military. I personally know of one case who was a biker.

Are we in the 70s now ?

 

[The_Falcon]

"Would you let known Canadian terrorists' kids join? Highly doubt "
Nope I probably wouldn't because while it's probably hippocritical, personally I believe the son of a biker has considerable different motivation towards joining the military than the son of a known terrorist.

Yeah real big difference in motivation  :  One wants to get weapons and the like to kill each other and increase their illegal business, the other just wants to kill us period.  In that respect, why not let the biker's kid join. 

 

[Jarnhamar]

Now you're talking.
Lets just not make the kid responsible for transporting weapons right?

Has there actually been many cases in the past of bikers attempting to use connections within the military to commit crime??

 

[The_Falcon]

Now you're talking.
Lets just not make the kid responsible for transporting weapons right?

Has there actually been many cases in the past of bikers attempting to use connections within the military to commit crime??

Yes, nothing specific comes to mind right now, but I remember watching on the news when a biker club was raided out in Quebec, a few years ago, among the items siezed were CF weapons and pyro (smoke grenades and some arty sims).  Also my current CSM mentioned a few things at the start of the training year wrt to posting info on the net and how OMG's have attempted to use that info.

 

[rustysoap]

Now you're talking.
Lets just not make the kid responsible for transporting weapons right?

Has there actually been many cases in the past of bikers attempting to use connections within the military to commit crime??

Probably a little over the top, but in American Gangster (based on true story) Frank Lucas used his cousin stationed in vietname to import heroiin by smuggling them in the caskets of dead soldiers travelling on US military aircrafts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Lucas_%28drug_lord%29

Not quite a biker gang, but still organized crime.

I fully agree though, that the kid shouldn't pay for his father's crimes, it's not always "like father, like son"

 

[Osotogari]

I have jacked up kids for showing up for PT in support wear.  Last year I even turfed a potential recruit from our armory for the same reason.  All we need is for some moron at the Toronto Star to convince himself that the CF is rife with OMG associates and we'll be right back to where we were in 1995.  I'm glad CSIS showed a flash of competence on this one.

Has there actually been many cases in the past of bikers attempting to use connections within the military to commit crime??

I believe something to that effect went down in southern Ontario in the 80s.  A large undercover operation stopped it.  Also, if we find a troop testing positive for coke, meth, or steroids, who do you think distributed it?

For a while I hung out at a popular blues bar in Edmonton in the days before the local OMGs around here patched over to HA.  I wasn't shy about being in the military, and I found that over time I found that these guys were warming up to me.  I was never sure whether or not they wanted access to equipment or weapons or if it was some sort of recruiting process or if they just found me fascinating to talk to.  If nothing else they were very manipulative and once I found out what these people were really about and especially once I read Yves Lavigne's book I stopped associating with them.  

I would guess that a simple search revealed this young man's pedigree and that was enough for some alarm bells.  Since OMGs are into all the usual organized crime stuff like drugs and guns, they would be interested in other things like NVGs and other flashy kit that they can use against their rivals and to run counter-surveillance on police.      

 

[blacktriangle]

This thread sticks out in my mind:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/18335/post-93139.html

I've also heard stories of the 'one peice at a time' method to stealing weapons...  :

 

[GUNS]

CSIS have to provide the answerer's if this gets to the Human Rights Commission, not the CF.

This guy may not mirror his father's past exploits, but the food in his stomach, cloths on his back and the roof over his head was from his father's illegal actions.  I guess he is "Guilty by association".

 

[ModlrMike]

How is this a human rights issue? One has the right to apply... not the right to be accepted.

 

[slowmode]

CSIS have to provide the answerer's if this gets to the Human Rights Commission, not the CF.

This guy may not mirror his father's past exploits, but the food in his stomach, cloths on his back and the roof over his head was from his father's illegal actions.  I guess he is "Guilty by association".

  THis isent really a Human Rights Issue I believe, There is no where saying the CF has to accept anyone. Or CSIS in that matter.

 

[Blackadder1916]

How is this a human rights issue? One has the right to apply... not the right to be accepted.

From Treasury Board of Canada Secretariart Personnel Security Standard
6. Review and redress

6.1 General
Departments should establish an internal screening review process to review all relevant information and negative recommendations before reliability status or a security clearance is denied or revoked.

Individuals must be informed in writing of their rights of access to review or redress mechanisms where a decision to deny or revoke reliability status or a security clearance has been reached. The authorized officer denying reliability status should consult the security office regarding the redress mechanisms available in each case in order to fully inform the individual concerned.

6.2 Reliability status
Employees who wish to challenge a negative decision based on the results of a reliability check may do so through current grievance procedures in accordance with Sections 91 and 92 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act. Departments, other than the Canadian Forces component of the Department of National Defence, must ensure that reliability check grievances proceed directly to the final level of the grievance procedure.

Individuals from outside the Public Service, such as applicants and contractors, may complain to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Public Service Commission's Investigations Directorate or the Federal Court, Trial Division, according to the specifics of each case.

6.3 Security clearance
The Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act establishes the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC) as the formal review body in cases concerning denial of a security clearance. Pursuant to Section 42 of the CSIS Act, this right of review is available to outside candidates, employees and those contracting directly with the government who are denied a security clearance by a deputy head.

Deputy Heads who disagree with a security clearance recommendation made by SIRC must consult with the Privy Council Office (PCO) in reviewing the issue. Deputy Heads must also inform the Chairperson of SIRC of their final decision in writing. Consultation with PCO must take place prior to any action to release, demote or dismiss an individual, notwithstanding the fact that the authority to deny a security clearance remains with the Deputy Head. This requirement is intended to ensure the thorough review of the initial reasons for denying, revoking or suspending a security clearance in those cases where the SIRC recommends granting or reinstating the clearance.

Any individual denied a security clearance may also file a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. If a minister advises the Commission that the basis of the denial relates to the security of Canada, the Commission may either dismiss the complaint or refer the matter to SIRC for investigation before proceeding. As well, individuals may appeal to the Federal Court following the denial of a security clearance.

 

[Kevin Pascal]

Complaining to the Human Rights commission is certainly anyones right if they feel that their rights have been violated. I have to agree with many others in the thread that have already said that this persons rights were not violated. If he was rejected because of his race, marital status or sexual orientation he would have a case. He simply has not met the standard of reliability that is required to join. The CF has exercised their right not to accept any applicant who has failed to pass the required reliability check.

 

[rustysoap]

Complaining to the Human Rights commission is certainly anyones right if they feel that their rights have been violated. I have to agree with many others in the thread that have already said that this persons rights were not violated. If he was rejected because of his race, marital status or sexual orientation he would have a case. He simply has not met the standard of reliability that is required to join. The CF has exercised their right not to accept any applicant who has failed to pass the required reliability check.

That's very true, being denied because of who you family is, is not a human rights issue. In fact, I'd say it's borderline with the other end of the spectrum, being accepted because of who your family is. It's not violating anything, it's just unfortunate circumstances. Granted this guy had no choice as to what his father did or the environment he was born into. In cases like these, I think putting the person's character under a microscope would be better rather than just flat-out denying because of lineage. But then again, that might be a side of the story, as someone mentioned earlier, that we're not told. Maybe they did do a hardcore character reference check and still wasn't good enough. one may never know

 

[Blackadder1916]

This also from the Personnel Security Standard may be the basis for the denial of his reliability/security clearance.

Individuals are denied a security clearance if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the following conditions apply:

 As it relates to loyalty, the individual is engaged, or may engage, in activities that constitute a threat to the security of Canada within the meaning of the CSIS Act.

 Reliability as it relates to loyalty, because of personal beliefs, features of character, association with persons or groups considered a security threat, or family or other close ties to persons living in oppressive or hostile countries, the individual may act or may be induced to act in a way that constitutes a "threat to the security of Canada"; or they may disclose, may be induced to disclose, or may cause to be disclosed in an unauthorized way, classified information.

 

[1feral1]

We are only hearing the one side of the story.

I am sure there is a bonified reason he was refused. For that reason, I am happy to have such organisations vette any applicant throughally, regardless of who they are, or who their Dads are.

Make sense? No PC or touchy-feeliness please!!! (gag)

My 2 cents.

Wes

 

[the 48th regulator]

Funny,


We had a brother from the regiment, who's father was a senior member of Satan's Choice.

Very few of us knew, and he was completely opposite of the typical "Family member of a Biker".

To this day, no one would know, and he has been in for close to 20 years, been to the Stan "multiple" times, and never so much as got his nose runny in the military.

meh, I can see where CSIS is coming from, but is there more to the story??

dileas

tess

 

[exspy]

Gentlemen,

If I may explain the role of CSIS (aka the Service) in the CF security clearance system so that persons will stop saying that 'CSIS' denied this applicant a security clearance.  Again, there is no opsec or persec issues involved in my explanation.

About a dozen years ago the CF stopped doing their own clearances and contracted with the Service to have them undertake this responsibility.  The Service was already responsible for providing clearances to the Public Service.  Along with a background investigation the Service also coordinates the responses required from other agencies.  As an example, if the applicant lived in another country for a number of years the Service would request and receive the response from the allied service involved and incorporate it into the applicant's clearance.  Likewise it requests the required criminal clearance from the RCMP for inclusion.

After completion the report, without any recommendations from the Service whatsoever, is passed to the Deputy Minister for the federal department involved.  It is the responsibility of every Deputy Minister to either grant or deny security clearances within his department.  The Service provides the information only.  So if, as in this case, a security clearance is denied then that was the decision of the DM and not the Service.  The DM is not under any obligation to approve or deny an applicant based solely on the Service's information.  Other factors may provide mitigation.

For this reason the applicant's only avenue of appeal is to the Deputy Minister of the DND.  The applicant may appeal to SIRC (why not, everybody else does) but the Service didn't deny him anything.

Hope this clarifies the process.

Dan.

 

[ixium]

Was the guys father in a prison for killing someone, the 48th regulator?

What do the hell's angels call it? 1%'ers? Only 1% of biker gang members actually have a criminal record?

 

[The_Falcon]

Funny,


We had a brother from the regiment, who's father was a senior member of Satan's Choice.

Very few of us knew, and he was completely opposite of the typical "Family member of a Biker".

To this day, no one would know, and he has been in for close to 20 years, been to the Stan "multiple" times, and never so much as got his nose runny in the military.

meh, I can see where CSIS is coming from, but is there more to the story??

dileas

tess

Probably, it is the Toronto Star afterall,  and they have their bent when it comes to things involving the military (anyone else notice the irrelevant quips about the quebec lawers, or the jab about the current mission in Astan right at the end).  Perhaps its like I stated and this character didn't distance himself enough from his father and his fathers associates, or he may have done some things, innocuous things they may have been on their behalf, and that was all it took to be denied.  WRT to who you are referring too (and now my mind is racing to try and figure out who you are talking about), perhaps he (has) distanced himself enough from his father/family that there are no immediate concerns.  

In either case this story is a little too slanted in favour of this person, to make me suspect, that there is more to it (the denial), than just family ties.

 

[The_Falcon]

Was the guys father in a prison for killing someone, the 48th regulator?

What do the hell's angels call it? 1%'ers? Only 1% of biker gang members actually have a criminal record?

He is not in prison, he is jail awaiting trail on charges of murder.