Wow. Go away for a year and look what happens! Since I kicked off this thread......
I agree with a number of ERC's points:
E.R. Campbell said:
...There is a problem ... some members are being treated poorly, not given the respect that is their due and even assaulted by other members. That ought to be, must be, in my opinion, unacceptable to all of us: newly joined privates and major generals alike.... There is a problem ... some leaders are failing the troops under their command... ... the CDS has promised action; he must do that; he owes nothing less than action to the men and women under his command.The actions the CDS takes should make service life better for all, without, in any way, weakening the military ethos..
And (surprisingly, me being such a spineless, left of centre progressive liberal dissembler ;D) I agree fully with Thucydides:
1. One of the recommendations (if I am reading it correctly) suggests that a complaint can be laid without triggering a formal investigation. ..People cannot and should not ever be expected to respond to what is essentially hersay and innuendo.
2. My other fear is that the definition of sexual assault will be broadened so much that determining what took place will become largely subjective...how would anyone be able to sense what another person "felt" about a particular issue, unless that is clearly articulated.
...So my recommendation is not to create a totally new system, but to vigorously use the system we already have (including sending investigations to the NIS or the RCMP if the NIS is not available or suitable for some reason). Sexual assault is a crime, and we have a criminal justice system capable of dealing with it.
To state my bias, I am very happy to see any actual proven offender in this regard punished in the most exemplary manner possible, and then summarily booted out. While serving, I conducted two very unpleasant investigations into anti-female sexual harassment of the most disgusting sort, so I have no doubt that it has happened. It might still be happening. I really hope not: it would be sad and disappointing to think that we are slipping backwards, especially now that we have female soldiers who have died in combat like any male soldier. Such sickening behaviour would not honour them.
However, I am also worried, because I think I smell over-reaction. While my uniformed days are long behind me, I lived through the period in the 1990's when the CAF, in a desperate attempt to show that it took sexual harrassment and assault seriously, was creating a climate of fear. I lived through two boards of inquiry as one of the respondents to false claims of sexual harassment by a disgruntled female soldier: even though we knew it was BS, it was scary. As a result of that experience, for my remaining time in uniform I would never interview a female in my office without either having the door open or another person, female if possible, present. Maybe not right, but I felt safer. (Sounds a bit cowardly, I know...)
As Thucydides suggests, the very
WORST possible outcome would be if the CAF rushed about creating even more external "bolt-on" structures and systems, further weakening and hampering the chain of command (which was already being weakened and hampered when I was in).
If (if...) the chain of command has demonstrably failed, then bloody well hold those who have failed responsible, regardless of whether they are section 2ICs or Bde Commanders. I am assuming of course, that these failed leaders will be identified by due process, not by a secret inquisition. But for God's sake, let's not invent any more "helpful" organizations.
Soldiers are soldiers. We have female soldiers. We have gay soldiers. So what? Grow up and get over it, and don't treat people badly for things they can't change. Worry about whether or not people are
good soldiers.
But don't, please DON'T plunge the CAF into another time of scurrying over-reaction, panic, and witch-hunting. It won't help anybody.
Cheers