Chief Stoker said:
You know back in the day before social media, smart phones and what not those members would have probably been given a stern talking to at worse and carried on. In the late 70's, early 80's the mess decks would have been cleared and march on mass to the park and took care of business. Things have certainly changed.
Back in the days, Chief, these things would not even have happened at all. This whole thing is 100% a social media era creation.
Before social media, the group that organized the (cough! cough! ceremony) statue protest would not even have been able or willing to take the time and effort required to organize the event, and had they been, no one else would have known outside of their circle except perhaps the press if they advised it in advance of their plan. And then, the likelihood that the press would bother showing up would have been very low, the event would have been reported on after the fact. Moreover, without prior knowledge, there would have been no counter-protest, save by some passerbys, and such counter protesters would not have been outed as CAF members, or anything else. Etc. etc.
So this is 100% modern days social media based tactics that did not occur before.
That does not excuse either the Admiral nor the CDS for their inappropriate behaviour and position taking.
You said earlier that the Admiral was "in an incredibly difficult situation". I call bull on this. Social medias have been around long enough for ALL senior appointees in the CAF to know how to handle media inquiries in such circumstances where lowly underlings may or may not have done something wrong. I don't know how often I've had to instruct clients on that myself, but the "rule" is simple: Only after you have been made aware of all the actual facts and if, and only if, the consequences of these facts are appropriately at your level can you express a position AFTER you have reached a decision that belongs to you. Otherwise: Shut the heck up!
On the very first day, when the admiral and the CDS hung these guys in public on the basis of
only a small video clip and a limited situation presented to them in a shorthand and biased fashion by the press, they should have known (otherwise, they have greatly incompetent PA people) to only state something to the following effect:
"The Canadian Armed Forces are subject to the laws of Canada like every body else. We also have rules that deal with groups, associations or organizations that our member may or may not associate with and rules on opinions and views that members may or may not publicly express. Most of those rules and regulations are public and you are free to consult them.
The situation you are bringing to my attention has been (or will be, if not done yet) reported to the proper investigative bodies who will investigate and determine if criminal or disciplinary charges are warranted or not under our Code of Service Discipline. Also, the proper authorities in the member's chain of command ( my comment here: that BTW would be their actual CO, not two, three or even four bloody levels above) have been seized of the matter and will review the facts and determine if administrative action against these members is warranted under the circumstances.
You may be sure that neither the CAF not I condone any association or expression of view by our members that is not permitted by our laws, rules and regulations."
Easy, peasy! And as they say, problem solved, regardless of how "weak" you think such response is.
It's when you actually take a position without knowing all the facts that you get in trouble: They did, and they got themselves in trouble.
:
