Eye In The Sky said:
I think you're downplaying what this Commissioned Officer did. She is, if what the story says is factual, likely (and hopefully, IMO) looking at an AR for both alcohol misconduct/misuse and sexual misconduct. Should the AR recommendation be release? I don't know, and never will, because I don't know her entire CAF career history. The people who need to know will know and I'll have to be satisfied they took all info into account.
Let's turn the situation around some; let's say, the Officer who was guilty was a man, and the female he touched more than once was your daughter. Would you think/feel the same?
Using conduct at a bar downtown as a measuring stick for conduct in the CAF, from Officers especially...is that the benchmark we want to go with?
Not downplaying it one bit. My personal opinion is all are equal before the law. Which is supposed to be one of the cornerstones of our legal system. If we wanted her removed from the service, the mechanism to do that is through the court martial and sentencing. Dismissal is a punishment that can be given. My pal Rob Semrau was sentenced to dismissal and demoted two ranks for one count of disgraceful conduct. Her position would be one of the factors considered.
What exactly is the difference between a 23 year old ASlt and a 23 year old Corporal anyways?
A piece of paper and the fact one most likely spent 4 or 5 years at one of our Nations great institutions of higher learning. Known for such events as binge drinking, experimentation with narcotics and sexual experimentation.
The fact we subscribe to this Caste System still is kind of dumb tbh. I also think it's very Un-Canadian but that's for another discussion. She is an Officer yes, but just because someone holds some sort of rank or title doesn't somehow make them infallible.
Also, your logic that an officer should be treated differently than a non-commissioned is flawed. I'll explain why:
The same people that say "if this was a troop they would be getting the book thrown at them" are the ones who would loudly decree "they are only a corporal so that means they should be punished less". It's "Rules for thee but not for me" only inversed.
Sexual misconduct isn't a crime btw, it's a term that is used to describe behaviours we have defined as unacceptable for whatever reason, whether it's cultural, spiritual, etc. These beliefs change and evolve over time. Being a homosexual used to be considered sexual misconduct btw.
As I said, we are in a weird period right now. People have more "freedom" than ever but we are arguably more censored than ever. I can self-identify as a Cat, be totally useless at my actual job and I can show up and get paid, but heaven forbid I make a poorly worded remark to the wrong person or drink a little too much and make an *** of myself.
I am not saying what she did was right, I am saying a little perspective and analysis from people would be nice.
What also needs to be a consideration is "can this person be rehabilitated?" If the answer is yes then the next question is "can this person still be a valuable contributor to the Canadian Armed Forces?" If the answer is again yes, then steps need to be taken to make that happen.
What we seem to be moving slowly towards is an American style criminal justice industry. We need to give people who screw up the tools to still be valuable contributors to society otherwise we just end up with larger social problems and a certain proportion of our population that is institutionally criminalized. You know, like what occurred with the Residential School System.