• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Sexual Assault & Sexual Misconduct in the CF

Jungle said:
This extract caught my attention:
Five a day, everyday ?? That's close to 1900 every year... I know this stuff happens, like it happens in society, but I seriously doubt it happens in those numbers.

I was just about to quote the same comment.  5 a day sounds like total bullshit. 
 
Every day, five individuals in the Canadian military community become victims of sexual assault, according to statistics obtained through Canada’s Access to Information Act.
The numbers show military police have received between 134 and 201 complaints of sexual assaults every year since 2000, which averages out to 178 per year.


Now, I'm no freakin' math genius......
 
Jungle said:
This extract caught my attention:
Five a day, everyday ?? That's close to 1900 every year... I know this stuff happens, like it happens in society, but I seriously doubt it happens in those numbers.

And that would be only what's been reported. I guess that, in total, everyone in the military would be assaulted within a ten year period using their figures ::)

I'm not trying to minimize or cast doubt on anyone that's come forward. I appreciate their bravery to end this type of crime.

However, you would have to rethink MacLeans motives for the article, if straight out of the gate they appear to be sensationalistic about it and inflate their numbers for shock value

That's just a gut feel though. I'll have to read the whole thing before I convince myself of their motives.
 
pbi said:
CBC.ca is carrying a take-up of a piece by Macleans (haven't read it yet) which alleges that the extent of sexual assault in the CAF has reached "epidemic" proportions:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/maclean-s-alleges-disturbing-levels-of-sexual-assault-in-canadian-military-1.2621333

The CBC piece mentions exactly TWO cases: one in Wainwright (the CO) and one in Pet (Cpl Gallagher). How is this an "epidemic"?

Has anybody seen the Macleans piece yet?

Perhaps now that the war is over, it will be easier to take digs at the CF?  This has certainly been a big issue in the US, perhaps inventing a crisis out of two incidents the CBC is trying to get more people to tune in and thereby recoup lost advertising dollars [/conspiracy]
 
Hatchet Man said:
Perhaps now that the war is over, it will be easier to take digs at the CF?  This has certainly been a big issue in the US, perhaps inventing a crisis out of two incidents the CBC is trying to get more people to tune in and thereby recoup lost advertising dollars [/conspiracy]

CBC has always taken shots at the military and tends more often to denigrate us. They have never really been onside with us.

They only appear patriotic when it suits them, or it means more revenue. However, if they think the revenues will be higher for demonizing us than praising us, they'll send the pitchfork and torch crowd after us I a heartbeat. They're pretty good at lying until it becomes truth and stretching out perceived bad shit until no one knows what the original initiator was. Flogging a dead horse was perfected at the CBC.
 
The other thing is perception..............according to some people I probably "sexually assaulted" about 25 women while waiting for my Daughter at a Hamilton mall tonight. ::)
 
recceguy said:
CBC has always taken shots at the military and tends more often to denigrate us. They have never really been onside with us.

They only appear patriotic when it suits them, or it means more revenue. However, if they think the revenues will be higher for demonizing us than praising us, they'll send the pitchfork and torch crowd after us I a heartbeat. They're pretty good at lying until it becomes truth and stretching out perceived bad crap until no one knows what the original initiator was. Flogging a dead horse was perfected at the CBC.

I feel the same way. It was all roses and champagne.....now it's a kick in the nether regions....some thanks eh?

The timing is somewhat suspect....three weeks or so until 9 May. Kinda takes the shine off the National Day of Honour.

While I detest sexual violence of any sort I am left  to wonder if anyone in Canada really "supports the troops".
 
ObedientiaZelum said:
I was just about to quote the same comment.  5 a day sounds like total bullshit.

Well, you need to remember that sexual assault can encompass anything from what was called rape years ago to someone being gropped at a mess dinner.  Both incidents are crimes and both are important and troubling matters to the victims and deserve to be thoroughly investigated and prosecuted but I think we can all agree there is a difference in severity.  Statistically however both are considered sexual assault ("any form of unwanted sexual contact" Sec 271 of the Criminal Code and Sec 272 or 273 if a weapon is involved or someone is disfigured) so depending how someone wanted to spin the stats.....

As others have pointed out though, sounds like its open season on the CF again.  When interviewed by CBC the author of the article claims 5 sexual assaults a day in the CF and then casually mentions that figure is a based on Stats Can trends or a "guesstimate".  The other CBC video clips show the loaded questions to CF brass by other reporters jumping into the feeding frenzy and it all takes off after that.
 
Schindler's Lift said:
Well, you need to remember that sexual assault can encompass anything from what was called rape years ago to someone being gropped at a mess dinner.  Both incidents are crimes and both are important and troubling matters to the victims and deserve to be thoroughly investigated and prosecuted but I think we can all agree there is a difference in severity.  Statistically however both are considered sexual assault ("any form of unwanted sexual contact" Sec 271 of the Criminal Code and Sec 272 or 273 if a weapon is involved or someone is disfigured) so depending how someone wanted to spin the stats.....

As others have pointed out though, sounds like its open season on the CF again.

While I don't disagree with you, even still the numbers are suspect.  I honestly believe this has more to do with the major problems that are occuring in the US military, which has torpedoed the careers of several high ranking members.  The war is done, the gloves are off and the CBC want to (attempt to) stick it to the Conservatives (for not giving them more money) by insuating they have a military that is run amok with sexual deviants, and they have shirked their responsibilty to deal with it.
 
CBC is reporting what is in l'Actualité, and soon to be in Macleans.  From what I understand, they looked at reported assaults, which average 178 per year.  Certain sources posit that only one in ten assaults is reported.  Therefore, they apply math: if 178 assaults represent one in ten, therefore there are 1780 per year, which comes out to just under five per day.

 
dapaterson said:
CBC is reporting what is in l'Actualité, and soon to be in Macleans.  From what I understand, they looked at reported assaults, which average 178 per year.  Certain sources posit that only one in ten assaults is reported.  Therefore, they apply math: if 178 assaults represent one in ten, therefore there are 1780 per year, which comes out to just under five per day.

I have no issue with the accuracy of the 178 since it is verifiable however the rest is conjecture being passed off as fact and it slants the entire article from there.
 
recceguy said:
However, you would have to rethink MacLeans motives for the article, if straight out of the gate they appear to be sensationalistic about it and inflate their numbers for shock value

It would not be the first time a news source utilized shock value to ensure people would want to read their story.
 
The Ottawa Citizen is reporting that the Chief of Defence Staff launches review after ‘disturbing’ sex assault allegations. The key to the story is, I think, in the last paragraph: "Sexual assaults in the armed forces have been a high-profile problem in the U.S. In December, President Barack Obama ordered U.S. military leaders to conduct a one-year review of efforts to eliminate sexual assaults in the military."

If there is a problem in the US then it stands to reason that there must be one here .... right?

The Ottawa Citizen article also explains that L’actualité, the magazine actually breaking the story, multiplied the 178 annual average actual complaints by 10 because "experts agree that hundreds of other cases are ignored" and "given that fewer than one in 10 sexual assaults are disclosed to authorities, as estimated by Statistics Canada, that adds up to 1,780 incidents a year in the military, the article concludes, or five per day."

 
dapaterson said:
CBC is reporting what is in l'Actualité, and soon to be in Macleans.  From what I understand, they looked at reported assaults, which average 178 per year.  Certain sources posit that only one in ten assaults is reported.  Therefore, they apply math: if 178 assaults represent one in ten, therefore there are 1780 per year, which comes out to just under five per day.
If that's the arithmetic, then the correct lead would have to be "Experts say there may be as many as five sexual assaults a day in the CAF".

Oh wait, not as sensational ....
 
Looking at the comments Mercier makes in the interview extracts, I have a feeling, like ER and others, that this is a conflation of what may be a small (but still serious) issue in the CAF with what is probably a larger (and certainly much noisier) problem in the US.

I'm not sure that it's fair to paint the CBC as "totally anti-military": there has been plenty of good reportage by the CBC of events in Afghanistan and elsewhere. I'll certainly grant that they have their strain of anti-militarists, but it's more likely, as some have suggested, that this is a way of embarassing the current govt which early on wrapped itself in the banner of pro-military sentiment. (We've discussed THAT elsewhere on this ste...)

Macleans can scarcely be called a "left-wing" or anti-military publication if you look objectively at what they've published over the years. Don't forget that it was Macleans who offended the Muslim community in this country with a depiction of Islamic culture a few years ago.

All of that aside, I am very, very skeptical of these figures, and of how they were arrived at. It will be interesting to see. If they are true, then the CAF has slipped, badly and has some housecleaning to do. It sounds like another leadership failure in the making.

If, on the other hand, these figures are BS extrapolations or "guesstimates", which I highly suspect, a false image of the CAF is going to emerge that may clash badly with attempts to maintain public support, including support for wounded veterans.
 
I wonder if the stats of military police investigations   into sexual assault take into account false allegations.
 
ObedientiaZelum said:
I wonder if the stats of military police investigations   into sexual assault take into account false allegations.
I am not all that confident in anything the Military Police investigate. Sorry if I tick any MPs off here, but the quality of the investigations I've seen are....somewhat mediocre.
 
The MP investigations I have seen have not been ideal. Most have not had enough real crimes to investigate to have sufficient experience. Made worse by the fact that some in uniform still think such behavior is acceptable. The 5 a day undercuts the seriousness of actual rape though. Perhaps we should be a little more vocal with the assholes who talk about degrading and hurting women like it is a sport. Worth thinking about.
 
Nemo888 said:
The MP investigations I have seen have not been ideal. Most have not had enough real crimes to investigate to have sufficient experience. Made worse by the fact that some in uniform still think such behavior is acceptable. The 5 a day undercuts the seriousness of actual rape though. Perhaps we should be a little more vocal with the assholes who talk about degrading and hurting women like it is a sport. Worth thinking about.

FANTASTIC!

You now equate all of these incidents as "rape".  Unfortunately, Sexual Assault constitutes many lesser forms than just "rape".  Some can be as innocent as poor choice of words in a conversation.  Some may even be FALSE claims filed by one person in a vindictive manner against another person.  Nor are all these Sexual Assaults restricted to that being of men against women.  They could be just the opposite; women against men, or perhaps same sex.

Absolutely BRILLIANT post on your part.  :facepalm:
 
Back
Top