Veteran groups seek to influence the 2015 vote

[Occam]

Everyone with an axe to grind in this election is telling you how to vote George. So what? They aren't at the polling place plying you with booze or threats as was not uncommon in elections long past (and if they do that, they'll be arrested, as it should be). If they try to disenfranchise you by underhanded means (robocalls, rides to the wrong polling place) they should be taken to task (or if they form a party, get elected, and try to disenfranchise you by passing laws - see what I did there?), but otherwise they're just another voice in the chorus.

I sympathize with the "they don't speak for me" sentiment. I felt that way years ago about the RCL.

Well said.

And to avoid this being simply a "+1" comment, I still feel the RCL doesn't speak for me - and that's unlikely to change.

 

[PuckChaser]

My problem is not with their ABC stance; they're entitled to whatever position they choose to adopt. My problem is their contention that this is being done on my behalf. It's not. Very early on this specific veteran's group was co-opted by PSAC and the NDP and used for purely partisan purposes; you could all but see the marionette strings. I sense the same manipulation at work now.

Absolutely. This would be just as shameful if they were ABL or ABN, and attempted to look like a united front of veterans.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I wouldn't be too sure of that.  I may be retired from the CF, but I can assure you that I'm more familiar with the first two issues you mentioned than I ever was in uniform, and that's all I can say about that.  ;D

Hey Occam
I re-read my post. I apologize if I came off as an asshole or attacking you.

What I meant by that retired comment was that I'm guessing your life (assuming here) won't be directly affected, as in placed in danger, if a political party bones us with shitty equipment, ROEs or anything like that. If I'm wrong it's on me.

You're certain of the demographic makeup of the group?  I'm in the group, and I can't even give you that.  The people speaking publicly on the issue are extremely familiar with veterans issues, and speaking to the topic of why veterans (and those who support veterans) should be unhappy with the level of performance of the current government.  I can tell you firsthand there's at least one member who previously voted blue (several times) and it's not happening again.  The campaigning would be going on regardless of which party was in power, if the quality of performance were the same.

These people are platforming on the treatment of vets by the government which I'm not disagreeing is shitty. The government really cares about us when there is a war going on and especially when the public loves us. That interest goes away when the war is over and people aren't so excited about Red Fridays and yellow Ribbons. Groups like ABC lashing out against the conservatives aren't taking into consideration the health of our armed forces. 

Maybe I'm in the wrong here but I feel trying to use ones military service to sway public opinion on anything is pretty shitty. ABC and groups like them have narrow arcs with what they are fighting, there's bigger issues. 

He's a veteran.  I agree the beret is askew, but is it really necessary for that to be the issue?  With all the other issues at hand, his beret is a topic of discussion?

Yes because he's using it as a symbol of his veteran status. He can wear whatever he wants. He wants to make sure everyone knows he was int he army, he could at least put effort into wearing it properly. After all thats what we do in the military. It's hypocritical in my books.

 

[Jarnhamar]

  The fact that there are over 11,000 members of the ABC-Veteran Facebook group says to me that the message is resounding with a lot of people.

Of course it does. It pits all party followers against one party. The same party all those other parties want to dispose of.
If you had anyone but liberals they would have a lot of likes too, especially so if they were the king of the castle.

 

[Occam]

My problem is not with their ABC stance; they're entitled to whatever position they choose to adopt. My problem is their contention that this is being done on my behalf. It's not. Very early on this specific veteran's group was co-opted by PSAC and the NDP and used for purely partisan purposes; you could all but see the marionette strings. I sense the same manipulation at work now.

Right on the ABC-Veterans page, under "About":  "The Canadian Veterans ABC Campaign 2015 is not associated in anyway with any other veterans groups. We stand alone in our venture to defeat the conservative party in the upcoming 2015 Canadian federal election"...so I'm not sure what "specific veteran's group" you're referring to.

And again with the "they don't represent me" bit.  They haven't claimed that they do represent you, or all veterans.  I'm more than willing to take a look at anything that can be produced that proves otherwise.

 

[Occam]

Hey Occam
I re-read my post. I apologize if I came off as an ******* or attacking you.

What I meant by that retired comment was that I'm guessing your life (assuming here) won't be directly affected, as in placed in danger, if a political party bones us with shitty equipment, ROEs or anything like that. If I'm wrong it's on me.

No offence taken; I have a pretty thick skin.  The answer is no, my life won't be directly affected.  I do have a vested interest (more so than John Q. Public) in making sure the guys in uniform do get the right equipment, though.

These people are platforming on the treatment of vets by the government which I'm not disagreeing is shitty. The government really cares about us when there is a war going on and especially when the public loves us. That interest goes away when the war is over and people aren't so excited about Red Fridays and yellow Ribbons. Groups like ABC lashing out against the conservatives aren't taking into consideration the health of our armed forces. 

No arguments here, but unless I've misunderstood the part in yellow, you're claiming that an ABC campaign that was successful in ousting the Conservatives would be detrimental to the CAF?  I would argue exactly the opposite, and the ABC campaign very much takes into consideration the desire for a well-equipped, well-trained and capable CAF.

Maybe I'm in the wrong here but I feel trying to use ones military service to sway public opinion on anything is pretty shitty. ABC and groups like them have narrow arcs with what they are fighting, there's bigger issues.

Why is it shitty?  There's a reason why we say that we're our own best recruiters - nobody else can speak to what CAF members go through better than CAF members, or former CAF members.  Like I see here quite frequently, support for the CAF is a mile wide and an inch deep - and sometimes I don't even think it would be that deep if it weren't for retired members being able to speak out about what their careers were like, and why we need a strong CAF.  I agree ABC has narrow arcs; that's why it'd be very unlikely to see anyone from the ABC campaign hollering about environmental issues, or native issues.  But on the other hand, the ABC campaign isn't trying to sway anyone away from the Conservatives because of their stance on the environment - they're being transparent.

Yes because he's using it as a symbol of his veteran status. He can wear whatever he wants. He wants to make sure everyone knows he was int he army, he could at least put effort into wearing it properly. After all thats what we do in the military. It's hypocritical in my books.

Both you and I and 700,000 other people know his beret looks like it's inflated to 30 PSI.  In the grand scheme of things, I think its importance is being overstated.  YMMV.

 

[Altair]

I like that veterans are getting involved. This goverment wraps itself on the flag, gets photo ops with serving members all the while nickel and diming them and taking them to court fighting about benifits.

This evens out the playing field some.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

It is, under the Canada Elections Act, S.166(1)c:

"166. (1) No person shall

(a) post or display in, or on the exterior surface of, a polling place any campaign literature or other material that could be taken as an indication of support for or opposition to a political party that is listed on the ballot under the name of a candidate or the election of a candidate;

(b) while in a polling station, wear any emblem, flag, banner or other thing that indicates that the person supports or opposes any candidate or political party that is listed on the ballot under the name of a candidate, or the political or other opinions entertained, or supposed to be entertained, by the candidate or party; and

(c) in a polling station or in any place where voting at an election is taking place, influence electors to vote or refrain from voting or vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate."

Hohne Ranges, early '70s. We were filling out our ballot in a tent on the range. One particular MCpl was being very vocal about who he was voting for and why, while trashing the other parties. He was basically told to shut up or he would be charged under the NDA and the Elections Act. He stopped talking, about parties and voting, in a hurry. Although the arguing about his civil rights afterwards, brought him a number of extras.

 

[Danjanou]

....(As an aside, this photo garnered lots of positive comments in the ABC group...and only one reference to his beret)

And a lot more derision and ridicule both for his stance and his dress and deportment on several dozen Veterans groups and pages elsewhere on Face book and other social media  outlets whose membership numbers are probably more representative of the total Veteran population in this country than the ABC/CVA site.

So it would be an offence to walk into a polling station with any campaign button on your person.

Yup a point I once made in a downtown Toronto polling station several years back, and noticed most of the staff manning the polling station wearing them. I was told it was okay because the staff were wearing NDP buttons.  Attempting to point out the relevant parts of the election act quoted elsewhere in this thread was entertaining to say the least.  :

Right on the ABC-Veterans page, under "About":  "The Canadian Veterans ABC Campaign 2015 is not associated in anyway with any other veterans groups. We stand alone in our venture to defeat the conservative party in the upcoming 2015 Canadian federal election"...so I'm not sure what "specific veteran's group" you're referring to.

Both Mike Blais Ron Clarke of the ABC and the CVA have admitted to receiving cash from the PSAC,  Blais I believe received $3,000.00 and Clarke $25,000.00 They've also receives support in kind ( office space etc) from the NDP… yeah not affiliated

Sorry this clown and his fellow travellers in no way represent me or my interests/concerns.

 

[Occam]

And a lot more derision and ridicule both for his stance and his dress and deportment on several dozen Veterans groups and pages elsewhere on Face book and other social media  outlets whose membership numbers are probably more representative of the total Veteran population in this country than the ABC/CVA site.

Not that I've seen, though obviously I'm not a member of every veteran-related group...but I'm in quite a few of the bigger ones.

Both Mike Blais Ron Clarke of the ABC and the CVA have admitted to receiving cash from the PSAC,  Blais I believe received $3,000.00 and Clarke $25,000.00 They've also receives support in kind ( office space etc) from the NDP… yeah not affiliated

Sorry this clown and his fellow travellers in no way represent me or my interests/concerns.

Ah, someone dared to say it.

Mike Blais has nothing to do with the ABC campaign.  Ron Clarke, I believe, speaks to the press in support of the ABC campaign.

Mike Blais received $2000 (not $3000) from the Union of Veterans' Affairs Employees (UVAE), which is a component of PSAC.  The funds were for the express purpose of transporting VAC employees of the the closed VAC offices to the location of the press conference held concerning their closure.  Full disclosure of this information was made.  Parm Gill tried to make an issue of it at a meeting of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs in an attempt to discredit.  Blais did not receive in-kind office space from the NDP; he was allowed to charge his disability scooter in Peter Stoffer's office on the Hill, and to catch brief rest periods there between meetings - another distortion of fact by a small group of people with an axe to grind.  Blais and the CVA have nothing to do with the ABC-Veterans campaign.

I can't speak to any money given to Ron Clarke, but if you're inferring that Clarke is giving union-donated money to ABC-Veterans, that's a pretty serious allegation.

ABC-Veterans is run by Tom Beaver, as disclosed on the Elections.ca website listing registered third parties.  Note that you will not find either Mike Blais' or Ron Clarke's name on that listing.

Hate to burst your bubble - ABC-Veterans may be a lot of things, but it's not propped up by unions, a political party, or any veterans groups.

 

[Strike]

From his own mouth on FB...


And he has been part of the movement for some time, even if someone else registered the organization, as both the images and link can attest to.  The fact that union money is involved just puts a bad taste in my mouth.

As for the threat of veterans being present as polling stations on Election Day, that reeks of intimidation, and is something that the CAF has worked to prevent from happening in other countries when they vote.  I can't believe anyone would ever think this is in any way okay in Canada?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/cape-breton-veterans-want-voters-to-think-anyone-but-harper-1.3193469

 

[Occam]

I've been saying "ABC" since last year.  Does that mean I can claim founder status?  :  Part of the campaign is irrelevant.  Right now, there are 11,956 people who are part of the campaign.  Some of them might be union members.  Some might be RCMP.  Some might even be serving CAF members.

I'm still not seeing where this supposed union money is coming from.  The only union money to speak of was donated over three years ago, pushing four, and was to an organization that has nothing to do with the ABC campaign.

I read the comment made about veterans at polling stations, and I don't agree with it either.  My bet is that it's either a fire & brimstone speech gone awry, or he doesn't understand the law.  I do plan on asking about it.

 

[Blackadder1916]

As for the threat of veterans being present as polling stations on Election Day, that reeks of intimidation, and is something that the CAF has worked to prevent from happening in other countries when they vote.  I can't believe anyone would ever think this is in any way okay in Canada?

Actually, it reeks of old time politicking.  While it may not be seen often in this day and age, there is nothing new about individuals standing outside a polling place to get in a last reminder of their political message before a voter casts a ballot.  It falls into the same category as calls on election day to remind voters to vote (and by the way - consider "numbnuts" when you do) or offers of transport to polling stations.  To compare what these veterans promise with shenanigans seen in some of the shitholes where the CAF has served (including some of these clowns) is somewhat disingenuous.  If there is any "intimidation" in the ABC Veterans' campaign it is a standard garden variety and generally accepted political intimidation that any voters' group can direct at a governing party with whom they have a grievance.

I haven't followed the antics of this group (or ones similar).  I didn't need to be told that a politician (any politician) is an opportunist and would praise me on one hand for my service while at the same time ignore me because it fit their agenda.  However, what seems to bug most about these people is the obstreperous manner in which they have launched their campaign.  It is unusual in Canada (at least for us old Cold War types) to be very publically vocal (in a group) about a political issue.  We spent careers during which our "outraged" political opinions were either kept close to home or (for those in higher echelons) were cause for public resignation (though that usually only reverberated in the military community).  Now, along come a group who are seemingly loud and obnoxious, unruly and rowdy - "unmilitary" - it's not the DS solution.  Well, they don't have to abide by the DS solution, which for many years was the quiet (ineffective?) campaign? of the Legion.  I seem to recall a comment during phase training that you "can't argue tactics" especially if effective (though the DS still dinged you if you failed to follow the conventional methods).  As for these guys, they don't have to follow the conventional methods of other groups.  Their  tactics are working, they are getting some publicity which is the aim.  Whether it is effective can only be determined after the ballots are counted.  There is no DS other than Elections Canada and so far they seem to be abiding by the rules.

Oh, by the way, the beret on the ex-RCR (?) in the red t-shirt - I had an RSM decades and decades ago who wore his beret in a similar fashion (alright, I'm exaggerating . . . but not by much - he would occasionally catch me mimicking his stance and beret - I've done a few extras in my time.)

 

[George Wallace]

Does that mean I can claim founder status?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/cape-breton-veterans-want-voters-to-think-anyone-but-harper-1.3193469

It clearly states that:

Army veteran Ron Clarke of North Sydney decided to start the ABC campaign last year, with the intention of mobilizing veterans after an election call.

Right there in Black and White.

 

[Occam]

Right there in Black and White.

And I said I started saying last year too.  Tom Beaver put his name on the official paperwork.  What does Clarke being a part of the campaign have to do with the price of tea in China?  He's a spokesman for the campaign, just like almost 12,000 other people are.

You're picking flysh*t out of pepper.  Really.  This is what I was talking about in regards to a small group of people with an axe to grind trying to link the campaign to anything they don't personally like in an effort to smear the whole thing.  You're dividing veterans, and that's being part of the problem, not of the solution.

 

[Strike]

We're dividing veterans?

Any group that supports (or shows lack of support) for one political party over any other is the one doing the dividing, because it is telling those veterans who may still consider voting for the non-favoured group that they are not welcome in that club.

And it's not nitpicking. Clarke didn't say that he decided to vocalize his ABC beliefs or use any other wording that would make it seem like an individual effort. The article says he decided to start the campaign.

Definition of campaign as a verb: work in an organized and active way toward a particular goal, typically a political or social one.
And as a noun: an organized course of action to achieve a particular goal.
That certainly doesn't give the impression of one person acting, but more like organizing and encouraging a group of people.

Your reply seems more like nitpicking, whereas the rest of us are taking the FB posts and news articles at face value.

Oh, and the claim of union funds comes straight from Clarke's own FB post from June. I seriously doubt he would bring up any sponsorship that was given 3 years ago (which by your reasoning, ABC didn't exist so I don't even know why you brought up that comment) which was likely spent some time ago.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

And I said I started saying last year too.  Tom Beaver put his name on the official paperwork.  What does Clarke being a part of the campaign have to do with the price of tea in China?  He's a spokesman for the campaign, just like almost 12,000 other people are.

You're picking flysh*t out of pepper.  Really.  This is what I was talking about in regards to a small group of people with an axe to grind trying to link the campaign to anything they don't personally like in an effort to smear the whole thing.  You're dividing veterans, and that's being part of the problem, not of the solution.

Guess you should have copyrighted your idea.

 

[Occam]

Guess you should have copyrighted your idea.

Oh, I'm kicking my own ass over missing out on Velcro and Post-it Notes too, trust me. 

 

[Happy Guy]

I have been following the news with regards the antics of the ABC groups and I must admit that while it got my attention I find their tactics distasteful and vulgar.  Being an old guy (I joined in 1978) and firm believer in some traditions - keep yourself respectable looking, always maintain your dignity in public, be stoic and be politically neutral.  The noisy and at times rowdy behaviour of these spokespeople for veterans really offends me.

To the ABC groups,
Yes, please air your complaints about the NVC and inadequate medical treatment of veterans but do not display such contempt for beret, cap badge and medals as you wear them during your protests.  Do not wear your "uniform" in front of the voting stations.  To do so, in my opinion, will undermine the dignity of the military attire that you choose to wear.  Yes, I am still serving.  I have deployed overseas.  I have been injured while in uniform but not to the grievous extent as some of my comrads.  I too have honourably served my country that I love to the best of ability and heart, but don't you bloody dare think that you represent me.

I will vote for the political candidate in my riding that I think best represents the needs of MY RIDING and my country.

 

[Occam]

We're dividing veterans?

Any group that supports (or shows lack of support) for one political party over any other is the one doing the dividing, because it is telling those veterans who may still consider voting for the non-favoured group that they are not welcome in that club.

I seriously doubt anyone is losing sleep over not being a member of that club.  If you like the campaign, you join it.  If you don't, you move on.  Seems pretty simple to me.

The dividing veterans part comes from the fact that we're 58 posts into the discussion on a mostly military/veteran occupied forum, discussing a group of other veterans (as many as 12,000, but obviously somewhere less due to some of them being civilians), and yet the topic of the thread remains "ABC Veteran clowns".  Nice to know that we're all one big happy family!  The ABC campaign isn't calling you any names for choosing to not subscribe to the ABC campaign.  Doesn't bother me any (the clowns reference), but it's a pretty good example.

And it's not nitpicking. Clarke didn't say that he decided to vocalize his ABC beliefs or use any other wording that would make it seem like an individual effort. The article says he decided to start the campaign.

Definition of campaign as a verb: work in an organized and active way toward a particular goal, typically a political or social one.
And as a noun: an organized course of action to achieve a particular goal.
That certainly doesn't give the impression of one person acting, but more like organizing and encouraging a group of people.

Your reply seems more like nitpicking, whereas the rest of us are taking the FB posts and news articles at face value.

Okay, take this at face value - http://canadianelectionatlas.blogspot.ca/2011/06/conservative-change-08-11.html

There's a reference to an ABC campaign in the 2008 election.  Seems Mr. Clarke wasn't the brainchild after all.  Now I ask you - what does that change, now that you know that?

Oh, and the claim of union funds comes straight from Clarke's own FB post from June. I seriously doubt he would bring up any sponsorship that was given 3 years ago (which by your reasoning, ABC didn't exist so I don't even know why you brought up that comment) which was likely spent some time ago.

You'll have to refresh my memory if it's been posted already (I don't see it, but I do see Danjanou claiming he saw something about $25K), but which FB post from Clarke in June referred to union funds?  The union funds I referred to were over three years ago, from UVAE to CVA for a specific purpose, and I highly doubt UVAE had the foresight to donate funds almost four years before an ABC Veterans campaign.

I think the problem is that people have gotten a little too much sixth and seventh-hand information, and the story's gotten more distorted every time it gets told.  How about we stick to what we know and can be proven?  The ABC campaign is not affiliated with any other veterans group or union.  If having Clarke or Blais as a member of ABC adds up to an affiliation with another veterans group, then I guess I'm affiliated with Mötley Crüe then by virtue of being a member of their FB group.  I'll be sure to say hi from everybody here to Vince, Tommy, Mick and Nikki at the show on Sunday night.