RMC Officer Sues to Avoid Saluting, Toasting Queen?

[paracowboy]

Rifleman,
Please show where anyone said that???

I see what he means, though. However, the Bud-man is an accepted means of complaint, while whining to the media, or attempting to sue  : is not. I'm not sure if it could be considered a double-standard, but that's the way she goes.

 

[2 Cdo]

He went through all the proper redress chanels and got turned down.

Is it just me or is it that these days , people associate getting justice with "getting their way"....anything short of the desired outcome is an injustice ?

Unfortunately in our society today this seems to be the case. It reminds me of a situation a few years ago when a man and his wife were accidentally seated in a smoking section of a restaurant. (For the young ones on the board you were once allowed to actually smoke in buildings!) The manager apologized profusely, as it was the only table left and offered both the man and his wife dinner and drinks for free. This compromise was not good enough for this man and wanted the entire restaurant to quit smoking while he was there (plus the free meal and drinks). The manager refused and then kindly asked said person to leave.

This individual exhausted the chain of command and didn't get his way, so like a spoiled child running home with his ball decided to go outside the c of c and attempt to force his belief on the system. He is contemptable and is not worthy of wearing the uniform or being in command of anyone in the CF. Like the man in the restaurant he needs to be removed.

If he is so against the idea of the Queen and anything royal, do I have to salute this person if I see him? Actually, on second thought, maybe a few trips around RMC and saluting him at every opportunity to remind him of his commission, courtesy of the Queen!

 

[17thRecceSgt]

It just gives me a warm fuzzy feeling to know that some of our troops are fighting and dying and he has enough time on his hands to do this.
:

That says it all for me.

Sorta disheartening to even read about some kind of crap like this... :-\

Edit - Wow, there are only 9 guests reading this thread at this time.

 

[rifleman]

Rifleman,
Please show where anyone said that???

Here

+1.
Best post yet.

Fortunately, the CofC told him to give it up - unfortunately, he's proven to be very disloyal to all those officers above him (forget about the Queen or the C-in-C) by going to another venue.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

...and that venue is the COURTS.....the Ombudsman would be fair ball, thats why it exists.

 

[rifleman]

quote author=Bruce Monkhouse link=topic=52232/post-467604#msg467604 date=1161722729]
...and that venue is the COURTS.....the Ombudsman is fair ball, thats why it exists.
[/quote]

Yes and the courts exist too

 

[George Wallace]

...and that venue is the COURTS.....the Ombudsman would be fair ball, thats why it exists.

Otherwise known as 'the Crown'.

 

[niner domestic]

Already done Med (except I wrote to Principal Cowan), and my clerk is filing my intervenor status application as I write.  

 

[North Star]

You probably shoudn't have done that. Although his case is annoying, giving him a deluge of emails starts to get into harassment.

 

[Remius]

You probably shoudn't have done that. Although his case is annoying, giving him a deluge of emails starts to get into harassment.

+1

No need for that.  looks like the problem has been solved though.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Yes and the courts exist too

Please tell me you know what the difference is in comparing these things.........

 

[paracowboy]

I removed Med's post with Clown-shoe's personal e-mail, and his superior's. While it may be appropriate for our civvie members to complain (I'm not sure) to his boss, it's certainly not for Mil members. I don't like the idea of Mike getting caught up in a Harassment case.

Besides, anyone that attention-craving is certainly googling their own name regularly. He probably rushes right from his tiny little car, tripping over his over-sized shoes, to get to the closest computer. He's going to see exactly how most folks feel about his waste of CF money.

 

[MedCorps]

I would argue, (not that I have choice in the matter, as someone deleted my post) that the e-mail address is in the public domain (on the physics faculty webpage at RMC, internet site) and if you are a non-serving member of the public, that you have every right to contact the good Captain and support or  not support his very public plight.

If you are a serving member, the rules might be a little different, so I would use care.

Cheers,

MC

Edit to add the fact that the e-mail address is a Government of Canada e-mail address and not a personal account.  The citizens of Canada are paying for that e-mail address, they might as well use it. 
 

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Well now that one knows where to 'google' ...............This way Mike and the 'site' don't end up wearing it.

 

[Remius]

I would argue, (not that I have choice in the matter, as someone deleted my post) that the e-mail address is in the public domain (on the physics faculty webpage at RMC, internet site) and if you are a non-serving member of the public, that you have every right to contact the good Captain and support or  not support his very public plight.

If you are a serving member, the rules might be a little different, so I would use care.

Cheers,

MC



 

Maybe.  But it's not our job to go and make it any more public than it already is.  Joe civy can find that info without our help.  Plus I'd argue that that work e-mail although public is for work related purposes, not for our expressing our displeasure.

 

[rifleman]

Wow an cyber-space lynch-mob...

 

[17thRecceSgt]

Wow an cyber-space lynch-mob...

Well, the apparant disloyalty and the BS surrounding his statements would stir up some pitchforks and rope from the people who come here to converse.

Don't ya think?  ;D

I think BernDawg summed it up nicely though...+1.

 

[Michael OLeary]

I think that's enough for now.  If there's desire to evolve this into a credible debate on the ethics or legal aspects of the case, it may be reopened tomorrow following requests by interested parties to any Moderator.  Now that the mob's collective outrage has been expressed, that need is fullfilled.  Don't be surprised if your post disappears in a cleaning of the thread by the staff.

The following is also offered for review: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51970.0.html

 

[Bill Smy]

Glen McGregor, CanWestNews Service
Ottawa Citizen, Tuesday, October 24

OTTAWA - A Canadian Forces officer is suing Canada's top soldier over a ''degrading'' policy that requires members of the military to toast the Queen and salute during the anthem, God the Save the Queen.
Capt. Aralt Mac Giolla Chainnigh, an associate professor of physics at the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ont., wants a court to overturn the requirement for Forces members to publicly display their loyalty to the British monarchy.

''It's a situation of institutional harassment that members of Canadian Forces be obliged to toast the Queen of Canada at regimental dinners,'' says Mac Giolla Chainnigh, who also objects officers being required to show respect to the Union Jack. ''To fail to do so would be interpreted as disloyalty, which could carry up to nine years imprisonment.''

His objection is based on the premise that while Canadian law allows anyone to question the role of the monarchy in governing our country, officers have to shelve their beliefs and show loyalty to the Queen at events such as mess dinners, parades or Remembrance Day ceremonies, where they must salute for God Save The Queen.

''You might, as a military officer, wish to express your unity with those who served Canada during a particular war, but (not) ... the obligation to recognize a foreign monarch as having a situation of authority over the Canadian Armed Forces.''

He argues in his claim that the requirement to publicly express allegiance contrary to one's belief is degrading to an individual.

Mac Giolla Chainnigh - who legally changed his name from Harold Kenny to its Irish spelling - says he signed up for the Canadian Forces to serve Canada, not a foreign monarch. He was 16 years old when he enlisted and begrudgingly swore loyalty to the Queen.

The oath requires new members to swear they will be ''be faithful and bear true allegiance to her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada.''

The allegiance is paid to the Queen as head of state, not as head of the Canadian military. The Governor General, as the Queen's representative in Canada, is the commander-in chief of the Canadian Forces.

Mac Giolla Chainnigh has been fighting the policy within the military grievance system for the past five years. In May, the Canadian Forces Grievance Board rejected his complaint, saying his description of the toast to the Queen as ''royalist symbolism'' showed a fundamental lack of understanding of the way Canada is governed.

He appealed the decision to Gen. Rick Hillier, the chief of the defence staff, who rejected it in August, writing that he saw no reason why ''showing respect to our head of state is anything but proper and lawful.''

Earlier this month, Mac Giolla Chainnigh filed an application with the Federal Court to reverse Hillier's decision, naming Hillier, the grievance board, the federal government and others as respondents. None has yet filed a response.

 

[McG]

So going to the Ombudsmen after exhausting all avenues within the Chain of Command is disloyal too?

No.  The Ombudsman is one of the avenues in the CF, but . . .

He took the matter to the Grievance Board, and it was rejected,

Did he take his issue to the Ombudsman or did he go straight to lawsuite once the grievance process was complete?