Sexual Assault & Sexual Misconduct in the CF

[Navy_Pete]

Here's the link to stats can; http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85f0033m/2010024/part-partie1-eng.htm#h2_9

They have it at 68 per 100k for women and 6 per 100k for men.  So either we have higher reporting or several times higher incidence then the general population, or a combination of the two.

Hard to say.  Also impossible to be objective about, but food for thought anyway.  Don't suspect we're any worse then the general population, but worth verifying.

Too bad it is coming from sensationalist journalism though; any good finding will just not get reported.

 

[ModlrMike]

It is important to realize that journalists require no maths nor science courses in pursuit of their degree, unlike science students who are required to take arts courses. Therefore the ability of a journalist to understand and interpret population statistics should be suspect at best.

 

[pontcanna]

Now it's a witch hunt.

So in other words, don't want to see it and offer an opinion?

 

[OldSolduer]

So in other words, don't want to see it and offer an opinion?

Excuse me?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

So in other words, don't want to see it and offer an opinion?

It is about the US Forces.  And zero idea on credibility of the makers.

Pass.

 

[Tibbson]

I'm surprised this story hasnt gotten the traction I feared it would or perhaos its too soon to tell.  The article itself, as others have noted, it based on faulty assumpions, misleading statistics and, in my opinion,  biased reporting.  We can all agree I'm sure that one SA is one too many but its certainly not the epidemic he makes it out to be.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>So in other words, don't want to see it and offer an opinion?

Don't want to waste the time.  I have a long reading and viewing list, and the modern propaganda that falls into the category of "film, documentary" is a waste of any thinking person's time.  I understand that there is bad behaviour among soldiers.  I also understand that civilians have been needlessly and incorrectly sensationalizing every twitch among soldiers since cuneiform was invented.

 

[FJAG]

According the CCC, there are four levels of sexual assault:

I think that you are misinterpreting what Brihard was saying and perhaps also reading too much into the Stats Canada item.

Brihard is quite correct when he says that sexual assault includes everything from non consensual groping of a sexual nature to full penetration intercourse.  He was subtly pointing out that Lightguns was wrong when he broke sexual assault into two categories - minor (groping etc) and major (full penetration). The offence described in s 271 in fact covers both situations and more.

What ss 272 and 273 do is create more serious offences where the sexual assault itself is committed under aggravating circumstances (i.e. a weapon is involved, maiming is involved etc). This is why each of these sections contains the phrase "in committing a sexual assault."

The Stats Canada item reflects administrative categorization levels for statistically purposes. The grab bag of "other sexual offences" in the Stats Canada item do not constitute a "fourth level of sexual assault" but is in fact a disparate variety of other categories or types of sexual offences.

I know its a fine point and I fault the Stats Canada item which is somewhat loose in its language. "Level" is a poor word to use and it doesn't appear in the legislation. I'm also not very fond of the phrase "Level 1 involves minor physical injuries or no injuries to the victim." I defie anyone to use this phrase to the victim of sexual assault. More importantly its a wrong statement. For example, a person may be raped at gunpoint and yet have suffered "no injuries" - its clearly a s 272 offence yet it also meets the Stats Canada Level 1 definition. What really creates a s 271 offence is the absence of any of the circumstances that are required to substantiate a charge of sexual assault under s 272 or s 273.

On the subject matter of this thread in general I just have one comment: writers (and their editors) write whatever they want to write. There's an axe to grind here and there is no news value in a story with the headline "Sexual Assaults rates in the CF are the same as in Canadian society as a whole." I expect neither realistic nor intelligible statistics nor fair reporting to come out of this. Is there more we should do to reduce incidents of sexual assault in the CF? You betcha. Do we, as a group, deserve to be pilloried or hung out to dry? No freakin' way. But we will be.

:cheers:

 

[Scott]

So in other words, don't want to see it and offer an opinion?

Don't troll.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Thanks, FJAG, for that very useful explanation.

 

[The Bread Guy]

This from the CDS on the series ....

Members of the Canadian Armed Forces Team,

By now, many of you will have read or heard about articles in 'Maclean's' and 'L'actualité' regarding allegations of sexual misconduct within the CAF. I'm certain you were as disturbed as I was at the characterization of the chain of command's role in the handling of allegations laid out in these articles. With this note I wish to make several things clear.

First, there can be no ambiguity regarding the characterization of sexual assault as a crime and a breach of the Code of Service Discipline, and I fully expect the chain of command to meet their obligations, legal and ethical, in the careful management of complaints of misconduct. This includes ensuring that complainants are provided appropriate support. It must be clear to everyone within the CAF that complainants are free to report any misconduct, and that they will be supported by their chain of command without fear of reprisal.

Next, as I said in my public statement, I do not accept from any quarter that this type of behaviour is part of our military culture. As uniformed members representing Canadian society, we must maintain the highest ethical and professional standards in all areas of our conduct. The onus is on all levels within the chain of command to ensure that we protect the dignity and safety of our entire Defence Team.

Finally, we have commenced a review of our policies and procedures to better ensure that we have everything in place to foster a healthy and safe workplace for all members, to reinforce the unfettered reporting of any incidents of misconduct, including sexual misconduct.

There is no doubt where our duty lies and I trust in all of you to ensure that we nurture a safe and secure workplace now and into the future. This is a leadership issue and I expect everyone to do their part in this, from the CDS to our newest recruits.

.... with a bit more from the CDS and the Minister:

Statement by General Tom Lawson, Chief of the Defence Staff

Sexual assault is a crime. It is an abhorrent and corrosive act that goes against the entirety of our military ethos. I do not accept from any quarter that this is merely a part of military culture; it is not. Sexual misconduct of any kind is not and will not be tolerated within the CAF, and this is a message that I reinforce throughout the chain of command. We will pursue any and all allegations of sexual misconduct and we will protect complainants from reprisals.

As military leaders it is our duty to set a standard of respect in the workplace, to nurture that culture with education and training, and to ensure mutual respect through the clear and unambiguous enforcement of the policies and rules that guard the workplace.

In view of recent surveys which have indicated positive trends in workplace culture, the article published today is disturbing. I have directed an immediate internal review of our workplace programmes and policies, and leadership engagement. Further to this, I will consider options for external review.

Statement by The Honourable Rob Nicholson, Minister of National Defence

I was deeply angered to learn of these alleged sexual assaults in the military.

Since 2006, our Government has continuously fought on behalf of victims and enhanced the laws in this country to combat sexual assault.

Sexual misconduct of all kinds will not be tolerated within the Canadian Armed Forces and I have asked the Chief of the Defence Staff to get to the bottom of these serious matters.

 

[Privateer]

Per CBC news:  http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ex-navy-medic-james-wilks-sentenced-to-30-months-for-bogus-breast-exams-1.2624623

Ex-navy medic James Wilks sentenced to 30 months for bogus breast exams


A military court has sentenced a retired navy medical technician to 30 months in prison.

Retired Petty Officer 2nd Class James Wilks was found guilty in November of 10 counts of sexual assault and 15 counts of breach of trust.

The court heard evidence that Wilks conducted unnecessary breast exams on women while conducting routine physicals.

The incidents happened between 2003 and 2009, while Wilks was stationed in Thunder Bay and London, Ont.

Wilks used the medical exams to see and touch the women's breasts, and let them think it was part of the examination, which was "totally dishonest," D'Auteuil said when delivering his verdict in November.

"The court found no reason to disbelieve any of these women."

There is a publication ban on the identities of the women.

In all, Wilks faced 16 charges of breach of trust and 10 sex assault counts. He was acquitted of a lone breach of trust charge.

 

[RCDtpr]

30 months for 10 sexual assault convictions.

The CF keeps touting how they take this stuff seriously....clearly.

Ridiculous sentence.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

My neighbour in the PMQ's was shot twice by another member. Shooter got 6 yrs. for what seems to me to have been attempted murder.

 

[brihard]

30 months for 10 sexual assault convictions.

The CF keeps touting how they take this stuff seriously....clearly.

Ridiculous sentence.

Not surprising, and about par for the course for something of this nature. There's nothing uniquely 'CF' about this sentence. I expect the court will also have considered his total loss of a the remainder of a good lifelong career as a mitigating factor on the sentencing. He's sentenced to 30 months in jail (of which he'll serve maybe 20), but he's hooped for life. The pension implications alone are tremendous.

 

[Occam]

The pension implications alone are tremendous.

What pension implications?  He'll still get his pension, unless something changed recently.

 

[brihard]

What pension implications?  He'll still get his pension, unless something changed recently.

He was at 26 years service at 51 years old when he was first convicted. Up to another 9 years accrual, and whatever promotions he might have seen in that time. Not a small deal by any means.

 

[Towards_the_gap]

Shooter got 6 yrs. for what seems to me to have been attempted murder.

Did he have to retake his PWT3 at least?

 

[The Bread Guy]

An update:

A former Canadian Forces medical technician who was sentenced to 30 months in jail after being convicted of sexual assault and breach of trust will remain free while he appeals the verdict in his case.

Retired petty officer second class James Wilks was found guilty of 10 counts of sexual assault and 15 counts of breach of trust.

(....)

A military judge (yesterday) sentenced Wilks to 30 months in jail.

Wilks immediately appealed the verdict.

The judge this afternoon ruled Wilks could be released until his appeal is heard — a process that could take months.

The judge imposed a set of conditions, including that Wilks must keep the peace and surrender his passport.

 

[RCDtpr]

Not surprising, and about par for the course for something of this nature. There's nothing uniquely 'CF' about this sentence. I expect the court will also have considered his total loss of a the remainder of a good lifelong career as a mitigating factor on the sentencing. He's sentenced to 30 months in jail (of which he'll serve maybe 20), but he's hooped for life. The pension implications alone are tremendous.

I agree and disagree.  Civvie side he would probably get a similar sentence, however he would have also had quite a bit of pre trial (in my experience at least).  Unless I missed it somewhere it doesn't seem like he spent anything more than a bail hearing in pre trial custody....and even then I didn't notice that, I'm just assuming.

Couple with the fact you see that Toronto doctor recently get 10 for groping 21 patients.  21/2 = 10.5.  So that doc got exactly double the sex assault convictions this guy did.

10 years = 120 months.  So this medic gets not even half the sentence.  I know the Toronto case the patients were sedated, however in this case it wasn't much different as the guy used the fact he knew the women wanted the job to keep them from defending themselves and both he and the doctor were in a position of trust.

I stand by my opinion that the CF dropped the ball hard on this one.....especially in light of that article in macleans.