Penticton Reservist (?): "It's time to end Afghanistan war"

[JesseWZ]

There are STILL people that believe 9/11 conspiracy theories?
Sigh.

 

[gate_guard]

dapaterson,
Would the fact that he chose to identify himself as a member of the CF have some bearing? If he chooses to identify himself as a member of the CF, then carry out actions that are in violation of CF rules, regs, and military law, one would think that he opens himself up to prosecution.  This fella's actions would seem to place him in the 60(1)(c)(iii) category.

By comparison in the policing world, an off-duty police officer can place himself on-duty at any time by only identifying himself as such.

 

[PuckChaser]

Talk about your strategic Corporal....

Its hard to believe that his SSM has not gotten wind of this yet. Maybe someone floating around here could send a polite "SSM to SSM" email with a few weblinks and start ball rolling for his punting.

 

[George Wallace]

Assuming the information in the Toronto Star is correct, the Code of Service Discipline may or may not be applicable in this instance.  Per the National Defence Act (and reflected in QR&O chapter 102):

That being said, other administrative measures (as mentionned in my earlier post) may apply.

Those being said, would it not be implied by his using name and rank as well as a "Member" of the CF, that he is "Serving".  That is the impression he has left on the General Public and MSM.  Therefore, he should be considered accountable under the NDA for his acts.   A member of the CF, even without the indication of being a member of the CF, can still be held accountable for their actions under the NDA, as can former members.  This will, of course, depend on the severity of their transgressions.  This guy published his name, rank and, although not his unit, that he was a member of the CF.  He has also established a series of letters to the Editor along the same vein which can now be considered an  agenda on his part.  

 

[Redeye]

Talk about your strategic Corporal....

Its hard to believe that his SSM has not gotten wind of this yet. Maybe someone floating around here could send a polite "SSM to SSM" email with a few weblinks and start ball rolling for his punting.

I'm pretty sure that's been done.  He is in for a world of hurt very shortly.

 

[dapaterson]

If none of the conditions under the NDA are met, the member is not subject to the CSD.  Full stop.  Lawyers may try some odd angle to approach it, but there has even been one Reservist who chose not to show up for his court-martial, was arrested, charged with not showing up, and acquitted for not appearing because the court determined it lacked the requisite jurisdiction.

In this instance  (let me preface by stating I am not a lawyer) while there does appear to be a military nexus (the individual identified themself as a CF member), there does not appear to be sufficient information to prove the member was subject to the CSD at the time.  I'm certain some military lawyers are discussing the case and examining approaches, but barring a picture of the individual in uniform writing the letter, or evidence that they composed and sent the email from a DWAN computer located on a miltiary facility, it would be difficult to provide the requisite proof required to charged them under the CSD.

However, there are certain provisions in the NDA outside the CSD that could be applicable.  For example, NDA article 301 reads in part

301. Every person who

(a) wilfully obstructs, impedes or otherwise interferes with any other person in the execution of any duty that under this Act or regulations, the other person is required to perform,

(b) counsels any other person not to perform any duty that, under this Act or regulations, the other person is required to perform,

(c) does an act to the detriment of any other person in consequence of the other person having performed a duty that, under this Act or regulations, the other person is required to perform,

(d) interferes with or impedes, directly or indirectly, the recruiting of the Canadian Forces,

...

is guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars or to imprisonment for any term not exceeding twelve months or to both.

It might be plausible to seek a civil court prosecution for the above, subject to the restrictions spelled out in articles 286 & 287.  However, as prosecutions under Part VII of the NDA ("OFFENCES TRIABLE BY CIVIL COURTS") are few and far between I'm not sanguine about this possibility.

At the very least it may lead to some interesting military law jurisprudence.

 

[aesop081]

The next media article about this story will read "Soldier disciplined for speaking out against the war" , with the expected spin.........

 

[OldSolduer]

Before this gets really stupid, the media needs to know why we have policies and procedures. IF this comes before the media and they make a big deal of it, the CDS and MND need to remind the country in person via TV, radio, print etc, why we have policies etc.
A good example would be if a foreign power invaded Canada and some knob in the Reserves said he wasn't going to fight the invader.....what then?

 

[Loachman]

Regardless of our feelings, there is a constitutionally-guaranteed right to freedom of opinion and expression that trumps any QR&O, CFAO, or DAOD.

He may be charged, and he may be convicted, but, should he appeal, he is likely to win based upon the Charter.

I predict, therefore, that he will either not be charged, and, if he is, is convicted, and appeals, that charges are dropped simply to keep the quoted refs on the books to keep others quiet. They will certainly not remain should this proceed to the Supreme Court.

Administrative measures taken may similarly fail.

 

[GDawg]

Loachman, I fear that you may be correct. This Paul fellow probably doesn't have the wherewithal to appeal on his own, but he will be immediately adopted by "peace" advocacy groups as their new messiah. 

Then again, the MSM may very well not even notice.

 

[chris_log]

Regardless of our feelings, there is a constitutionally-guaranteed right to freedom of opinion and expression that trumps any QR&O, CFAO, or DAOD.

He may be charged, and he may be convicted, but, should he appeal, he is likely to win based upon the Charter.

I predict, therefore, that he will either not be charged, and, if he is, is convicted, and appeals, that charges are dropped simply to keep the quoted refs on the books to keep others quiet. They will certainly not remain should this proceed to the Supreme Court.

Administrative measures taken may similarly fail.

True, but he will probably be drummed out of his unit under pressure from his 'buddies'.

Believe it or not though, there ARE people in the CF against foreign interventions, missions etc. They joined with the belief that they would 'defend Canada' and were simply ignorant when they joined. How they remained in is beyond me, but the only real surprise to me is that it took this long for a serving member to pipe up. 

 

[GDawg]

True, but he will probably be drummed out of his unit under pressure from his 'buddies'.

Believe it or not though, there ARE people in the CF against foreign interventions, missions etc. They joined with the belief that they would 'defend Canada' and were simply ignorant when they joined. How they remained in is beyond me, but the only real surprise to me is that it took this long for a serving member to pipe up. 

I've run into only 2 guys like that in 7 odd years of being a reservist, and the beauty of our system is that they don't have to deploy. If he deployed his opinion might be relevant, but of course if he deployed he would realize the things he is talking about never happened (asides from the unfortunate incident where the LAV engaged a suspicious car).

Of course the CF has clear policies on what a member can and cannot talk to the media about, and all members should be aware of them as per their training. Does the CF differentiate between a solicited interview with the media and an unsolicited letter to the editor?

I submitted a letter to the editor about a year back that knocked a certain politician for holding press conferences to bash the mission that were timed to correspond with repatriation ceremonies and it was published by several newspapers. I didn't mention which party I felt was acting in poor taste (You probably only need one guess).

Is there a policy specifically regarding, or prohibiting serving members from writing letters to the editor?

 

[Loachman]

Loachman, I fear that you may be correct.

I can pretty much guarantee it, from personal experience.

Piper - Yes, the same "clear policies" apply to letters as well as interviews, but, as I said, would be struck down by a Charter challenge - if the CF allowed the proceedings to get beyond an appeal.

 

[dapaterson]

Is there a policy specifically regarding, or prohibiting serving members from writing letters to the editor?

QR&O 19.36 would apply here:

19.36 – DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION OR OPINION
 


(1) For the purposes of this article, the adjective "military" shall be construed as relating not only to the Canadian Forces but also to the armed forces of any country.

(2) Subject to article 19.375 (Communications to News Agencies), no officer or non-commissioned member shall without permission obtained under article 19.37 (Permission to Communicate Information):
 
(a) publish in any form whatever or communicate directly or indirectly or otherwise disclose to an unauthorized person official information or the contents of an unpublished or classified official document or the contents thereof;
   
(b) use that information or document for a private purpose;

(c) publish in any form whatever any military information or the member’s views on any military subject to unauthorized persons;
 
(d) deliver publicly, or record for public delivery, either directly or through the medium of radio or television, a lecture, discourse or answers to questions relating to a military subject;
   
(e) prepare a paper or write a script on any military subject for delivery or transmission to the public;
   
(f) publish the member’s opinions on any military question that is under consideration by superior authorities;

(g) take part in public in a discussion relating to orders, regulations or instructions issued by the member’s superiors;
   
(h) disclose to an unauthorized person, without the authority of the department, agency or other body concerned, any information acquired in an official capacity while seconded, attached or loaned to that department, agency or other body;
   
(i) furnish to any person, not otherwise authorized to receive them, official reports, correspondence or other documents, or copies thereof; or
   
(j) publish in writing or deliver any lecture, address or broadcast in any dealing with a subject of a controversial nature affecting other departments of the public service or pertaining to public policy.
   
(3) This article does not apply to a writing, lecture, address or broadcast confined exclusively to members of the Canadian Forces.
 
(M)(25 May 2000 effective 15 June 2000)
 

In fact, other parts of QR&O volume 1 chapter 19 may also apply - see http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/qr_o/vol1/tofc19_e.asp

 

[chris_log]

Piper - Yes, the same "clear policies" apply to letters as well as interviews, but, as I said, would be struck down by a Charter challenge - if the CF allowed the proceedings to get beyond an appeal.

Oh I agree with you totally, anything that happens to him in any kind of administrative, disciplinary or legal manner will probably be met by a Charter challenge (and victory). But, what I can see happening is that he gets forced out of his unit under pressure from his fellow soldiers. I would argue that would be the best outcome, the CF does not look like it is 'suppressing' it's member's views or violating charter rights to freedom of expression and the member is unceremoniously removed from the CF. No negative press for us, and no more press for him (at least insomuch as he can present himself as a CF member which somehow, it seems, lends credibility to his views to the anti-war rabble).

 

[Osotogari]

As a reservist, if I'm not signed in and don't identify myself as a member of the military what's to stop me from expressing my informed opinion to a newspaper editor or a radio talk show?  If there is a problem then in my case I'm afraid it's years too late.



All I can say for this specific incident is that if it hasn't happened already, there's going to be a dentist in Penticton putting together some brand new bridgework sometime very soon.

 

[Nauticus]

I have no problem with people being anti-war. It's a stance, and they have every right to support that.

However, my problem lies with outright lying to support their stance, and making judgements based on what they have ever done. He claims to be in the Forces, and it would be great if he was. However, I don't think he can rightly judge what is going on in Afghanistan unless he has actually served in Afghanistan. I have not served (yet), so I could never even think about judging those who have.

 

[gwp]

As a reservist, if I'm not signed in and don't identify myself as a member of the military what's to stop me from expressing my informed opinion to a newspaper editor or a radio talk show?  If there is a problem then in my case I'm afraid it's years too late.

Nothing as long as you don't identify yourself as a member of the CF or are not so well known that it is known that you are a member of the CF. Further, not being "on duty" doesn't matter much as while the CSD only determines how one is handled not whether one is disciplined or not. As has been stated there are administrative procedures that do not involve CM.

The reason this is important is: 
"Political neutrality of the CF and its members is a seldom-discussed, but fundamental, principle of our constitutional democracy. Preventing the CF from becoming politicized is essential to its status as subordinate t the civil authority and to public confidence in the CF. Public expression of personal opinion on defence or related policy would create the perception of drawing CF members into the political process and undermining public confidence in the loyalty and impartiality of the CF to the Government of Canada. It is, consequently, the duty of all CF members to give loyal and impartial support to the Government of Canada - regardless of the political organization that forms the government. In practice, this means publicly explaining -- but not defending or attacking - defence or related policy. It is the responsibility of the relevant Minister to defend defence or related policy" Quote from the Senate Report on the Canadian Forces

 

[Cloud Cover]

I can pretty much guarantee it, from personal experience.

Piper - Yes, the same "clear policies" apply to letters as well as interviews, but, as I said, would be struck down by a Charter challenge - if the CF allowed the proceedings to get beyond an appeal.

Not so fast.  The courts have long recognized that (1) the Charter will apply to QRO and CFAO's but (2) the military has special requirements relating to matters of discipline. Where matters of discrimination have been raised, the courts have not tolerated traditional military thinking very well. Where matters of discipline collide with rights such as freedom of expression/freedom of speech/freedom of association, the courts will be far more open to a reasonable arguments from the military. One thing is for certain, if the military does nothing about this, then far worse disciipline problems could arise. This guy has set himself up to be an easy legal target, and a fairly competent lawyer at DND could proceed and win.  

 

[X Royal]

When I seen the article this morning I thought "here comes a active thread".
If it turns out the letter was from an active member of the Forces he should be severely dealt with.
My only problem with this thread is that some posters have used it as a vehicle to slam a political party and it's leader without any reason to believe they had anything to do with the article. Yes this board's members generally tend to lean in a certain political direction, but to use this thread as a basis for attack on a political party and its views is stepping out of line in respect to the topic of the thread.