The Merged Thread on Gay/ Homosexual Topics and the CF.

[geo]

Ummm... to the question of "why did it take so long"

Person mighta kept it bottled up inside for umpteen years - eating away inside.
With help from family and friends, learning to live with yourself, it all come out.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Is 'why come forward now' really an issue?

She could either have an honest reason for waiting 25 years or she could see a get rich plan and just ant money.

While the latter may be slimey, if the CF DID shit the bed, should they be made to pay regardless of someones motives?

I don't like the fact that the CF can pay for sex changes however how it was explained to me (CF medical pan must provide the same level as OHIP etc..) it made sence.

 

[vonGarvin]

For people to criticise this woman for coming forward at any time, to me, is a bit rash, to say the least.  Yes, it was illegal for homosexuals to join the forces at one time.  One could argue that she broke the law; however, that law has since been rescinded, "struck down", as it were for being unconstitutional.  I do have issue with a monetary amount attached to any lawsuit, because (a) 1.5 million would not be punitive against the government and (b) I don't think that 1.5 million dollars will heal the wounds she has.  I don't have an answer to this, and I hate offering problems with no solutions, but there it is.

 

[OldSolduer]

Because homosexuality was considered illegal, immoral etc, homosexuals were prone to be blackmailed by the agents of the USSR into giving up state secrets etc.
It may sound ludicrous now, BUT it wasn't then.

 

[geo]

Homosexuality was illegal.... but so is/was harrassment, rape & blackmail.
I would contend that, although on the books as illegal, homosexuality was if fact immoral to that's day's society.
Harrassment, rape & blackmail woulda been illegal.

 

[OldSolduer]

geo once again you hit the nail on the head. It was considered immoral and a threat to unit cohesion. Therefore gay and lesbians were outed once discovered.
As one colonel put it:

"Hear about it at Morning PT and gone by coffee break"

 

[Blackadder1916]

To add some perspective to this discussion, perhaps a review of some dates would be handy.

This woman joined the CF in or shortly before 1982 after which she was sexually assaulted (and again in 1983).
Was posted to Bagotville in 1994.
The restrictions on homosexuals serving in the CF were lifted in 1992.
Homosexuality was decriminalized (removed from the Criminal Code) when the omnibus Criminal Law Amendment Act was passed in May 1969.

While homosexuality was contrary to CF regulations, it was not a specific offense under the Code of Service Discipline (and never was) when this woman joined the CF.  It was dealt with more along the lines of an abnormal psychiatric condition, though you would probably not find many medical officers in the 80s who would be totally comfortable with judging it a medical problem.  We don't consider someone suffering from mental illness to have an "illegal" condition but the CF sometimes releases them just the same as we did with homosexuals.  Of course back in the 80s, when this woman joined, the perception of homosexuality was considerably different.  It is very easy to use the excuse of "security risk" as the primary reason to exclude PALs (Personnel with an Alternate Lifestyle, that was the acronym used by the section in D Pers A circa mid 80s who dealt with such releases).  However, the common theme back then in our objections to permitting PALs was that it would be "disruptive to unit cohesion and military efficiency".

But that should have no bearing on the allegations of this woman who served the majority of her career following the lifting of those restrictions (though she was still allegedly harassed and discriminated against).

As it has been mentioned about the SIU and their hunt for homosexuals, it always seemed that they took an inordinate interest in "abnormal sexual practices".  I've had a few friends/acquaintances who served in the SIU, it was always easy to get their goat by calling them the "f****t hunters" a nickname originally told to me by someone in the SIU.  On one occasion (early 80s), an SIU investigator asked me some questions about a former neighbour in PMQs with whom I had some problems (his damned dogs used to keep crapping in my yard and chewing my TV cable).  He was getting his security clearance upgraded and because of some correspondence from me to base housing about his dogs, it came to the SIU's attention that I didn't particularly like him.  When concluding the interview, the investigator asked me if I thought my former neighbour was gay (he used another term back then) since he was a single parent.  I was surprised by the question, but replied that I really didn't know or care what his sexual practices were, I was only concerned about his dogs.  The SIU type then said that they were required to ask that question about everyone they are doing a security check on.  In 1992, when gay and lesbian members were finally permitted to openly serve, I asked a friend who was with the local SIU Det what he thought about it and how it would effect his operations, he said that it was about time and now they could devote more resources to actual threats.

 

[TCBF]

- Blackadder 1916,

Thank-you for that detailed and informative post (I wish I could write more of those!).

 

[Slim]

I asked a friend who was with the local SIU Det what he thought about it and how it would effect his operations, he said that it was about time and now they could devote more resources to actual threats.

How times do change...

I get the impression that we sometimes focus on our friends for the wrong reasons when we should be focused on the real threats.

I don't swing that way but have no problem with those who do, as long as its not shoved at me...

Glad those days are gone.

Slim

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

  :boring:   Wake me when she decides to sue for a public acknowledgement and an apology from those whom allegedly did this rather than $1.5 million. :boring:

 

[armyvern]

  :boring:   Wake me when she decides to sue for a public acknowledgement and an apology from those whom allegedly did this rather than $1.5 million. :boring:

Sometimes ... that is what lawsuits are settled for.

Unfortunately, one can't sue for "an apology" - even if it's all they want.

 

[Harley Sailor]

  :boring:   Wake me when she decides to sue for a public acknowledgement and an apology from those whom allegedly did this rather than $1.5 million. :boring:

I agree... If it is about the harm done then go after the people who did the harm... If it is about the money than go after the people who did the harm... By going after the company you worked for just proves you are going after who you can get money out of... I was part of the CF back when it happened and I had nothing to do with harming her... The same for the rest of us here, I would hope...

 

[armyvern]

I agree... If it is about the harm done then go after the people who did the harm... If it is about the money than go after the people who did the harm... By going after the company you worked for just proves you are going after who you can get money out of... I was part of the CF back when it happened and I had nothing to do with harming her... The same for the rest of us here, I would hope...

How do you know the CF didn't?

She was gay. It wasn't condoned.

She was sexually assaulted. Perhaps she reported it and the CF did nothing? That was NORMAL way back in those days. Shitloads of men and women have been harassed in this outfit - and we've been sued for it before; why do you think that SHARP came about? Because it was the CFs habit to ignore some of these kinds of things. And, often - the "harassment" of them was done under the guise of "officialdom" - such as the SIU being required to ask anyone making a complaint about a CF member whether they may have been "gay" (as detailed in an earlier post). Employers ARE responsible for what happens within their workplace - especially so if they are aware and turn a blind eye. Perhaps that's the case?There are people whove been sexually assaulted who are entirely fucked up for life in this world because of that incident - even if it was handled through law and dealt with. In this case, no one knows the details and facts ... yet. Just because YOU personaly didn't "know" or "cause" doesn't mean that your employer was innocent in the matter. THAT will be determined with the outcome of the lawsuit.

And, how the heck do you know that she did NOT ask for an apology which fell on deaf ears and led to the lawsuit?

The headline was good, but until the details of the lawsuit come out ... no one here knows exactly why the "CF" is named. Time will tell.

 

[Harley Sailor]

So she knowingly was in the CF when she knew being gay was not allowd and complains when she gets harassed.  That sounds like standing in the middle of the road and complaining when you get hit by a car.  So who do you sue, the person driving the car or the owner of the road.

SHARP training, now there was a waste of a couple a good days.  Yes, I was required to do it more then once because it didn't seem to take the first time.

"Perhaps she reported it and the CF did nothing" and maybe that was because at the time the thinking was that it was no big deal.  I agree that a lot of what was the norm is now unexceptable, but a lot was exceptable until human rights entered the CF.

I say again what I have said all along "judge actions in the eyes of the time they happened"  Compensation should also be given with respect to the time it happened and 25 years ago $1.5 million would be unheard of for a little bit of harassment.

 

[PMedMoe]

So she knowingly was in the CF when she knew being gay was not allowd and complains when she gets harassed.  That sounds like standing in the middle of the road and complaining when you get hit by a car.  So who do you sue, the person driving the car or the owner of the road.

There is a big difference between being "harassed" and sexually assaulted.

As has been said many times in this thread, being gay might not have been allowed but neither is/was harassment.

 

[Harley Sailor]

There is a big difference between being "harassed" and sexually assaulted.

That is so true.  If it was truly sexual assault then there should have been enough evidence to lay charges right away.  Was there a charge laid and the assault is just another example to make her point?  Who knows, I know I sure don't.

 

[Harley Sailor]

As has been said many times in this thread, being gay might not have been allowed but neither is/was harassment.

As for harassment, it might have been illegal, but it sure as heck WAS allowed in a lot of units.  That is why so many people have VA penisions for it now.

 

[armyvern]

That is so true.  If it was truly sexual assault then there should have been enough evidence to lay charges right away.  Was there a charge laid and the assault is just another example to make her point?  Who knows, I know I sure don't.

Just as the whole hell of a lot of people got VAC pensions for the harrassment that occured way back when it was commonplace ...

What if the Assault was reported and the CF did nothing because "well, she's gay - she was asking for it?" Is it the CFs problem then? Guess what ... just like harassment - complaints of sexual assualt occurances made by females were often swept under the carpet and not actioned.

For someone who admittedly doesn't know the details and facts --- you are pretty quick to condemn her.

Time will tell.

 

[Harley Sailor]

For someone who admittedly doesn't know the details and facts --- you are pretty quick to condemn her.

Time will tell.

You are so right, I am quick to condemn.

Not for laying the law suit, but as I said before, for waiting so long and for asking for $1.5 Million.  If it meant that much why wait so long and why ask so much.  Even if she only got $1000 it would say yes you were right and we are sorry.  A $100,000 would do the same and not show greed.

 

[garb811]

Because it was the CFs habit to ignore some of these kinds of things. And, often - the "harassment" of them was done under the guise of "officialdom" - such as the SIU being required to ask anyone making a complaint about a CF member whether they may have been "gay" (as detailed in an earlier post).

The SIU conducting inquiries as to someone's sexual orientation IAW currently policies and procedures was no more "harassment" than MP conducting an investigation into misuse of a DND computer to surf pr0n contrary to the acceptable use policy today.  Additionally, members of the SIU were not "required" to ask if a CF member about whom a complaint had been made was gay unless the complaint was in relation to the member's sexuality.  Other topics in relation to sexuality investigated by the SIU were extra marital affairs, transvestism, incest, bestiality, exhibitionism, voyeurism, yadayadaya..., in short, anything which someone could conceivably want to keep "secret" which could be used as a lever to gain their cooperation.