"Canadian Forces warns members affiliated with radical groups"

[ballz]

Unless, maybe, your employer is government.  Yes?

No... it's about *legal* protection from the government. Aka a law can't be created that would make it illegal for you to express yourself. Aka the police can't search you without a warrant. If the government is your employer and it fires you, that is not a "legal" consequence of your actions (like being imprisoned would be), that's a social consequence (which the Charter doesn't protect you against).

From an employment perspective, the government is tied to the same regulations as everyone else.

EDIT: Key piece for CAF members here.... it is not the government's employment policies that limit CAF members... its the National Defence Act, a piece of legislation, that ultimately limits us and makes x, y, or z, a chargeable offense. See Section 1 of the Charter, or "the limitations clause," for why the NDA has not been ruled as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

"1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

In other words...

"When the government has limited an individual's right*, there is an onus upon the Crown to show, on the balance of probabilities, firstly, that the limitation was prescribed by law namely, that the law is attuned to the values of accessibility and intelligibility; and secondly, that it is justified in a free and democratic society, which means that it must have a justifiable purpose and must be proportional."

*like the NDA does in some instances, for example it limits our freedom of association in some ways.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_1_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms#Text

 

[gryphonv]

Have to remember, these group are the same types who protested Bill C51, organize demonstrations while wearing Guy Fawkes Masks, were part of the Occupy movement, among many other discressions that fall under public Mischief.

Its quite obvious our laws regarding such things don't have sharp enough teeth.

 

[Kat Stevens]

So the same group of Mi'gmaq now are even more empowered and are planning a 'Removing Cornwallis' Event.

https://www.facebook.com/events/1904629933090599/?acontext=%7B%22ref%22%3A%2222%22%2C%22feed_story_type%22%3A%2222%22%2C%22action_history%22%3A%22null%22%7D&pnref=story

Also in a few of the social media posts they are also seeking donations to their cause through e transfers.

I'm actually curious if they go so far and destroy public property for their cause. I wonder how many of their Supporters on Social Media is going to support them then.

All of them. Public violence and vandalism are part of the acceptable tactics playbook of social activists of all stripes. Smashing this statue will somehow undo all the ills that have befallen FN on the east coat since Cabot came on a two week fishing trip way back when.

 

[Underway]

Few things from the thread.

Being identified as a status Indian is a complicated process that differs depending on province and your local First Nations.  Some First Nations have the treaty ability to decide who is and isn't a member of their Band.  It also relates to family who were status and how far back you go.  Also status was originally granted due to census takers visiting reserves.  If you were around then you got status.  If you weren't you didn't.  This meant historical weirdness that included visiting "white people" or missionaries getting status, while prominent community members who were out hunting and such did not get status.

Also there are plenty of different ethnic groups within First Nations communities.  Some were blonde haired and green eyed (Many Metis), some have complections that wouldn't  be far off the Mediterranean or Eastern European..  It's not just a european thing.  This is all to say that you don't have to "look like" a First Nations to be one.  You could have two generations of marrying into other bloodlines (friend of mine looks first nations like his father who's mother is Sask first nations, his brother looks exactly like his Ukranian mother.  The both have status.).

Moral of the story.  Skin colour and "look" have absolutely nothing to do with your status as First Nations.

Second thing.  The persons in question are probably being investigated by the MP's to see if there are any Code of Service violations.  After that its over to the Divisional system for administrative action if necessary.  My bet is that it will be C&P and that's the end of it.  If we accept people with drug addiction problems, I'm sure they can take a sensitivity course or more importantly some remedial counseling about taking actions that embarrass the CAF in public.

Third thing. Where are you getting that an officer can't threaten their subordinates?  I think this needs to be expanded upon.  Supervisor cursing you out for being a bag of hammers and threatening you with extra duties (sorry training) if you don't sort your crap out happens all the time.  I've done those extra duties (XO to me... so do you want evens or odds Mr. Underway...).

 

[gryphonv]

Few things from the thread.

Being identified as a status Indian is a complicated process that differs depending on province and your local First Nations.  Some First Nations have the treaty ability to decide who is and isn't a member of their Band.  It also relates to family who were status and how far back you go.  Also status was originally granted due to census takers visiting reserves.  If you were around then you got status.  If you weren't you didn't.  This meant historical weirdness that included visiting "white people" or missionaries getting status, while prominent community members who were out hunting and such did not get status.

Also there are plenty of different ethnic groups within First Nations communities.  Some were blonde haired and green eyed (Many Metis), some have complections that wouldn't  be far off the Mediterranean or Eastern European..  It's not just a european thing.  This is all to say that you don't have to "look like" a First Nations to be one.  You could have two generations of marrying into other bloodlines (friend of mine looks first nations like his father who's mother is Sask first nations, his brother looks exactly like his Ukranian mother.  The both have status.).

Moral of the story.  Skin colour and "look" have absolutely nothing to do with your status as First Nations.

Second thing.  The persons in question are currently being investigated by the MP's to see if there are any Code of Service violations.  After that its over to the Divisional system for administrative action if necessary.  My bet is that it will be C&P and that's the end of it.  If we accept people with drug addiction problems, I'm sure they can take a sensitivity course or more importantly some remedial counseling about taking actions that embarrass the CAF in public.

Third thing. Where are you getting that an officer can't threaten their subordinates?  I think this needs to be expanded upon.  Supervisor cursing you out for being a bag of hammers and threatening you with extra duties (sorry training) if you don't sort your crap out happens all the time.  I've done those extra duties (XO to me... so do you want evens or odds Mr. Underway...).

I have to agree with the skin color thing. I'm Metis with  Mi'kmaq (I always pronouced it MicMac) roots. I'm pasty white with blue eyes.

One thing I have to disagree on is though a threat of extra duties is one thing, threatening to expose someone as racist is quite a different matter all together, and goes into the territory of giving a person doubt to their personal health and safety.

Also contacting a person through non military channels with regards to military context is a big unsat especially WRT them facing possible punishments. . There is a reason why facebook can't be used as a recall list. If there really was an officer or any other member for that matter giving threats through social media, I do hope they are exposed internally through the military. As it is beyond their scope of power.

Also to the Sub Lt who participated in releasing personal details of the 5 men, there is no exception for military members on committing crimes in Canada. It don't matter if some of the details were public before that, adding to it makes matters worse, and still illegal. One thing you may have noticed, any official correspondence from the military haven't listed the names of the Men, even though they are already public knowledge.

 

[McG]

Ack & agree on the majority of your post. I would go farther in one area and note that the Supreme Court has not simply never found the NDA to be unconstitutional; it has in fact specifically found that the NDA is constitutional.

But, I am still confused here: 

No... [the Charter of Rights is] about *legal* protection from the government. Aka a law can't be created that would make it illegal for you to express yourself. Aka the police can't search you without a warrant. If the government is your employer and it fires you, that is not a "legal" consequence of your actions (like being imprisoned would be), that's a social consequence (which the Charter doesn't protect you against).

So, the government can't impede freedoms of association or speech through legislation, but it is okay to do so by non-legislated regulations?

 

[The Bread Guy]

... The Sub Lt who used his social media accounts to release the names of the individuals on the SJW webpages is extremely disturbing ...

Just catching up and spotted this - ouch!

 

[gryphonv]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VelZdp5DEAg

Gavin McInnes is now involved. This is getting more interesting by the moment.

 

[Underway]

One thing I have to disagree on is though a threat of extra duties is one thing, threatening to expose someone as racist is quite a different matter all together, and goes into the territory of giving a person doubt to their personal health and safety.

Just to be clear, I asked that the point I was referring to be expanded upon.  Which you did quite well.  There are few  places for persons outside of your chain of command to contact with you with threats or complaints outside of an immediate correction or safety issue (ie: fix your shirt its untucked... don't stand there you could get hurt). 

However I have seen this many times and when the divisional staff get hold of that info there usually is quite the ahem... discussion between the officers involved (Who the *&&$#@ do you think you are pulling this crap with my people.  You have a problem you contact me first!).

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

One thing you may have noticed, any official correspondence from the military haven't listed the names of the Men, even though they are already public knowledge.

I did notice. And it's probably  (in my mind) one of the few things that was done right in this case.

What I did notice also, however, is that the Admiral claims that, together with his Fifth Division counterpart (another two maple leaves, or whatever MGens wear these days - I haven't look since last week, so I am not sure), he personally met and gave the five members a "one way" conversation.

I can understand the MP's being involved in determining wether or not infractions, criminal or the NDA/CSD, have been committed here. But, can anyone tell me just what absolutely heinous action against the fabric of humanity these poor seamen and soldiers have committed that warrants involvement, from the start and at the first level, by not only someone else than their own commanding officer, but by a superior commanding officer at least three degrees above?

Wether the Admiral likes it or not, these seamen and soldiers have rights, including one to due process - even in administrative action - and were I their actual commanding officer, I can tell you that the admiral would have had me right in his face for jumping over me and dealing with MY personnel. Some people referred to the Hydro One employee situation above, and one mentioned that many of his co-worker made statements and interventions in his favour that help make the final decision.

Who is going to stand up for these seamen and soldier and their (possibly - I don't know but assume that absent contrary information it is the case) good conduct otherwise? In a direct one way talk from the admiral to lonely (and probably scared stiff) seamen and soldier, was there anyone there with them on their side? And who would have the guts to take their defence straight before the highest authority on the East Coast?

If that is the type of Navy we have become, I am glad I am retired.

But, I am still confused here:  So, the government can't impede freedoms of association or speech through legislation, but it is okay to do so by non-legislated regulations?

Actually, MCG, you are citing on an important distinction, as Ballz position is an oversimplification.

The Supreme Court has found some sections of the NDA to be in conformity with the Charter, and has annulled some others - the whole redesign of the disciplinary process both for summary trials and court martial results from the prior system being found unconstitutional under the Charter.

As for the application to government only, not private parties, it is more complicated than what Ballz makes it to be. If you are interested, check out the Dolphin Delivery case ( [1986] 2 SCR 573. But it is irrelevant in the present case. They fully expressed themselves, as they have the right to, and there is no protection (at least in Canada, yet, contrary to many other nations such as Germany) when in public against being photographed or recorded and using same without consent.

But your main point is of interest. While the Charter, for our purpose here,  does not apply to common law, which includes the law of contract, and in such cases the Government is like any other employers, the Military is in a distinct category, as a very large part of our so called "contract" is actually made of laws and regulations (NDA, QR&O's, etc.), and these laws and regulations are subject to the Charter and the constitution. To the extent that this what is used to "punish" a deportment that constitute the exercise of a Charter right there may be a remedy for a member of the CAF. I say may because I am unaware of such case being brought before any court at this point in time.
 

 

[gryphonv]

Just to be clear, I asked that the point I was referring to be expanded upon.  Which you did quite well.  There are few  places for persons outside of your chain of command to contact with you with threats or complaints outside of an immediate correction or safety issue (ie: fix your shirt its untucked... don't stand there you could get hurt). 

However I have seen this many times and when the divisional staff get hold of that info there usually is quite the ahem... discussion between the officers involved (Who the *&&$#@ do you think you are pulling this crap with my people.  You have a problem you contact me first!).

I apologize as I overlooked the

I think this needs to be expanded upon

.

I hope you are right that they only end up with C & P, but somehow I think they are going to be burned at the stake. I have a few friends who are still serving in halifax,  and it seems the witch hunt is in full force, and there are many service members, at least the vocal ones, wanting blood.

I think in the end its going to be hard for these guys to get a fair shake. A proper punishment, instead of a Socially Appeasing one. I really think its going to end with these members being forced out of the military, either through a 5f or even a 1a. The military seems to already have set precedence in bending over backwards to befriend the extremist views of the SJWs. Like someone said earlier, they will not be suprised if the Navy hangs a few sailors to save face.

 

[ballz]

But, I am still confused here:  So, the government can't impede freedoms of association or speech through legislation, but it is okay to do so by non-legislated regulations?

I am not a lawyer, so take this for an "over a beer" explanation from my own personal understanding / reading.

No, they can't use "un-legislated" regulations to limit someone's freedom, all government "regulations" ultimately come from legislation. Legislation gives the executive branch the authority to do things (like create it's own policies.... they have to be within the scope / constraints of that legislation). If the executive government is found to be violating someone's charter rights through their application of the legislation, then the legislative branch needs to step in and fix the executive's application, or the Supreme Court needs to rule that the legislation is unconstitutional and order that the legislation be changed. That's our "three branches of government" approach with checks and balances working in theory.

However, for what we are talking about... disciplining someone for their off-duty contact.... this is *not* treading on their freedom of speech/expression, it is the other party exercising it's own freedom of association. Individuals and corporations both enjoy this right. Within the existing employment legislation, employers are allowed to do this.. if they weren't allowed (aka they would face legal repercussions for doing so) then the government would be violating the employer's freedom of association. And so they should be allowed... if my employee wants to be a shitty human being, that's his business, the government should stay out of it..... but if I don't want to employ him, that's mine, the government should stay out of it.

The government in this case is just a corporation that is an employer and exercising it's own freedom of association. Now, if the government were charging, convicting, and imprisoning it's employees for off-duty freedom of expression, then that would be violating that individuals freedom.

These two freedoms (expression and association) in particular are yin and yang in my mind. One really doesn't work without the other.

We've also crossed into the legal discussion about whether the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to corporations which is quite an interesting topic.

 

[ballz]

As for the application to government only, not private parties, it is more complicated than what Ballz makes it to be. If you are interested, check out the Dolphin Delivery case ( [1986] 2 SCR 573. But it is irrelevant in the present case. They fully expressed themselves, as they have the right to, and there is no protection (at least in Canada, yet, contrary to many other nations such as Germany) when in public against being photographed or recorded and using same without consent.

But the argument being made by some on this thread (not necessarily MCG) is that there is protection because of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. And there is... there is *legal* protection. There is no protection from social consequences (aka being fired).

But your main point is of interest. While the Charter, for our purpose here,  does not apply to common law, which includes the law of contract, and in such cases the Government is like any other employers, the Military is in a distinct category, as a very large part of our so called "contract" is actually made of laws and regulations (NDA, QR&O's, etc.), and these laws and regulations are subject to the Charter and the constitution. To the extent that this what is used to "punish" a deportment that constitute the exercise of a Charter right there may be a remedy for a member of the CAF. I say may because I am unaware of such case being brought before any court at this point in time.

There is an important distinction between discipline and administrative measures here. I'd think that using the disciplinary system against these folks might actually be unconstitutional... those are legal repercussions for using your freedom of expression.... but using remedial measures / conducting an administrative review to see if they should be released would not...

 

[George Wallace]

......... The military seems to already have set precedence in bending over backwards to befriend the extremist views of the SJWs. Like someone said earlier, they will not be suprised if the Navy hangs a few sailors to save face.

I highly doubt that the Navy or the CAF will in any way save face in the end.  They will become a public embarrassment for a few days, and then the Public will once again forget about the military.  That is one of two things about the Canadian Public, besides believing that everything on internet is true, they soon forget.

 

[Private_John_Winger]

When I first heard about "Racist Canadian military troops disrupting first nations religious ceremony" I cringed, memories of the "Somalia Affair" coming to mind. Then I watched the video.

As is often the case, the CBC narrative didn't really align with the facts of the case. These troops are being pilloried both in the media and by their own command staff for some pretty innocuous behaviour. That's just plain wrong.

I recognize that, as some members on this board have pointed out, members of the military are held to a higher standard than other members of the public. That's fair and had those guys marched down to the park waving swastikas and hurling racist epithets I'd be one of the first calling for their heads. But that's not what happened. If you watch the video, all these guys did was wander over and politely challenge the participants on some of their more extreme assertions for ten minutes before walking away. They brought with them a flag which a generation of Canadian military personnel fought and died  under to defeat the real Nazis, and after being subjected to a fair bit of verbal abuse which included racist comments from the black protestor on the scene, they turned and walked away.

How is that prejudicial to good order and discipline? People on this thread are getting bogged down with sophistic arguments about the Charter and military regulations. How about the basic right to free expression which has its roots in 800 years of common-law dating back to the Magna Carta? People don't surrender those kind of fundamental rights when they join the military.

On some mischevious level, I kind of hope that the system does try to make an example of these guys. Gavin McInnes has already started a "Save the Five" campaign with which he hopes to turn them into Alt-Right martyrs:         

https://www.therebel.media/save-the-five

Seeing the whole affair turn into a viral embarrassment for the military would be a just lesson for some of those in the chain of command who seem so quick to dispense with the fundamental freedoms the institution claims to defend when they prove inconvenient. But I don't want to see these guys lose their careers either.

I suspect that won't happen though. More likely the poor guys will be bullied, threatened and ground down by the system until they are forced to attend some Maoist struggle-session where they'll be "re-educated" and forced to apologize. It's quite creepy when you think about it. And totally unfair. But at least they'll keep their jobs.

 

[George Wallace]

And now a different view:

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

Head of Canada's Indigenous veterans group hopes Proud Boys don't lose their CAF jobs
'They just showed up there with a flag. They didn't beat up on anybody,' Richard Blackwolf says
CBC NEWS
By John Paul Tasker, CBC News Posted: Jul 05, 2017 6:45 PM ET Last Updated: Jul 05, 2017 7:00 PM ET

The head of Canada's national Indigenous veterans organization hopes the Canadian Armed Forces members who confronted activists at an Indigenous ceremony in Halifax can stay in the military even if they were "silly" to engage in such a confrontation.

"The whole military has become politicized, we're living in a politically correct era and they [the CAF members] should have realized that this thing would be a media event," Richard Blackwolf, the national president of the Canadian Aboriginal Veterans and Serving Members Association (CAV), said in an interview with CBC News.

"But, hopefully, it won't affect their overall careers. I mean they just showed up there with a flag. They didn't beat up on anybody, it's not like that."

Blackwolf, a 77-year old Métis who served in the Navy for 13 years, said the activists assembled at the statue of Edward Cornwallis in Halifax are "point one per cent-ers" who do not adequately represent the country's Indigenous peoples.

"I saw several races down there [at the statute], it's just a hodgepodge of activists, they're not productive people at all," Blackwolf said.

Chief Grizzly Mamma, an Indigenous woman originally from B.C., shaved her head on the steps of the statue of the controversial British military officer on Canada Day to symbolize the violence First Nations people faced under colonial rule.

"These point one per cent-ers, they did some silly stuff, because they know what the hot-button issues for the media are. They're the bottom feeders."

Gen. Jonathan Vance, Canada's top general, has taken a different tack and said in a statement to CBC News Tuesday night that "their future in the the military is certainly in doubt."

"What happened in Halifax over the weekend is deplorable, and Canadians should rest assured my senior leadership is seized of the matter," Vance said. "The members involved will be removed from training and duties while we conduct an investigation and review the circumstances."

'This is just gobbledygook'

Chief Grizzly Mamma, and a group of some 50 others, were confronted by five men who said the whole affair was "disrespectful" to Cornwallis, the city's founder. These men, who are members of the Proud Boys, a so-called "Western chauvinist" organization that is associated with the far right, were later revealed to be part of the armed forces.

The tense but nonviolent confrontation lasted for about 10 minutes, as the men took issue with assertions from organizers that they were interrupting a sacred rite on Mi'kmaq territory.

"This is Canada," one of the men said, his comments captured on a cellphone video posted on social media. "It might have been Mi'kmaq territory."

Rebecca Moore, the woman who organized Canada Day event, and a member of Pictou Landing First Nation in Nova Scotia, said people were praying to their ancestors for lives lost since the beginning of colonization.

After the confrontation, Moore told CBC Nova Scotia she wants the Canadian Armed Forces to acknowledge their operations are on unceded Mi'kmaq lands, urging them to improve education among its members on First Nations issues.

Blackwolf said demonstrations like this one simply give Indigenous people a bad name.

"This Chief Grizzly Mamma ... I mean real Native people don't have names like that," Blackwolf said. "This is just gobbledygook. The [servicemen] were silly enough to go there under those circumstances, they should have known better."

'We have stabbed our servicemen in the back'

Gavin McInnes, a co-founder of Proud Boys, who has been the source of controversy for inflammatory — and anti-Semitic — remarks, defended the members of his men's club.

"I think we have stabbed our servicemen in the back, we should be ashamed of ourselves," he said in an interview with CBC's Power & Politics. "They didn't do anything ... they tried to have a civil discussion."

He said his group is not restricted to whites, adding two of the CAF members in question actually have Indigenous ancestry, and one of them is gay.

Blackwolf said he hoped the standoff doesn't have an impact on his organization's efforts to drive recruitment among Indigenous youth.

He said a career in the military is very rewarding, and there is a proud history of First Nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples serving the armed forces.
People who identify as Indigenous make up 2.5 per cent of the regular force and primary reserve force.

Daniel Le Bouthillier, a spokesperson for the Canadian Forces, said Indigenous peoples are "core members of the defence team and deserve to be celebrated as such."

"The defence team works hard to foster a diverse, inclusive organization and will continue these efforts to ensure a respectful, dignified environment for all Canadians," he said in a statement.

Richard Blackwolf joined the Royal Canadian Navy at 18, completing basic training on the HMCS Cornwallis. (Facebook)

With files from the CBC's Elizabeth McMillan and Anjuli Patil, and The Canadian Press

More on LINK.

 

[gryphonv]

And now a different view:

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

More on LINK.

Probably the most honest and accurate overview of things. I'm glad it was him saying this and not some 'White' person. He hit off on a lot of points, may others were too afraid of saying so.

 

[The Bread Guy]

I hate Illinois Nazis:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ukFAvYP3UU

I was thinking something more like ...

 

[Lightguns]

So the same group of Mi'gmaq now are even more empowered and are planning a 'Removing Cornwallis' Event.

https://www.facebook.com/events/1904629933090599/?acontext=%7B%22ref%22%3A%2222%22%2C%22feed_story_type%22%3A%2222%22%2C%22action_history%22%3A%22null%22%7D&pnref=story

Also in a few of the social media posts they are also seeking donations to their cause through e transfers.

I'm actually curious if they go so far and destroy public property for their cause. I wonder how many of their Supporters on Social Media is going to support them then.

That's good, it just makes them look like the point one percenters they are.  Who cares about a silly statue, it's not a hill I would die on.  That damn statue is the funniest part of this whole event.  It's marble, nothing more.  If you fight inanimate objects, you will always lose. 

 

[The Bread Guy]

... If you fight inanimate objects, you will always lose.

That's true, but it sounds like they're also fighting a narrative - that's a different fight.

Meanwhile, for the record, this from the CDS ...

“I detest any action by a Canadian Armed Forces member that is intended to show disrespect towards the very people and cultures we value in Canada. We are the nation's protectors, and any member of the Canadian Armed Forces who is not prepared to be the defender we need them to be will face severe consequences, including release from the forces.

“What happened in Halifax over the weekend is deplorable, and Canadians should rest assured my senior leadership is seized of the matter. The members involved will be removed from training and duties while we conduct an investigation and review the circumstances. Their future in the military is certainly in doubt.

“On behalf of the Canadian Armed Forces, I apologize to Indigenous Peoples for the behaviour of a few, who certainly do not represent the broader group of proud women and men who serve our country. I expect better.”