Post New Topic  
my profile | register | search | faq | forum home
    next newest topic
»  The War Diary   » General Discussions   » Current Affairs   » Soldier Fights Sex Ban: Peacekeeper Charged With Sexual Encounter Overseas

UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Soldier Fights Sex Ban: Peacekeeper Charged With Sexual Encounter Overseas
the patriot
Veteran Member
Member # 144

Member Rated:

posted 16 November 2021 11:36     Profile for the patriot   Email the patriot     Send New Private Message     Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Thursday, November 16, 2021

Soldier fights sex ban
Peacekeeper charged with sexual encounter overseas
By PAUL COWAN -- Edmonton Sun

EDMONTON -- A city peacekeeper is citing the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to help him beat a charge of disobeying orders by having sex in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Cpl. J.N. Montgomery is arguing at a court martial being held at the Edmonton Garrison that the order forbidding peacekeepers from sexual activity in Bosnia-Herzegovina violates the charter's guarantees of freedom of expression, life, liberty and security of person.

But one of the chief of defence staff's most senior advisers on discipline, Chief Warrant Officer Maurice Dessurault, said lifting the sex ban at bases in Bosnia would be a nightmare.

"From the aspect of discipline and morale it would be a disaster - as much for the Canadian Forces as for the personnel involved," said Dessurault through a French interpreter.

"Sexual activity can create jealousy and the climate that creates could lead to violence."

He added this was especially likely on a "closed" base in potentially hostile territory where one gender considerably outnumbered the other.

Dessurault also argued the sex ban kept things stable on the home front.

He said if the sex ban was lifted, then spouses back in Canada would be worried about a "permissive atmosphere."

Dessurault said he agreed with the ban including married couples serving on the same base, even if their sexual activities were discreet.

"There cannot be double standards," he said. "The only time married couples could have sex according to the order was when they were on leave together outside Bosnia-Herzegovina or Croatia."

Dessurault said it was his feeling sexual activity in the field undermined "unit cohesion, discipline and morale."

His statement prompted a volley from defence lawyer Maj. Michael Gibson.

"In a past era the Canadian Forces had an official policy that discriminated against homosexuals. That has now changed, and the arguments which justified that policy were the same as you have just used," said Gibson.

"Yes," replied Dessurault.

Earlier, Department of National Defence director of military deployment policy, Karol Wenek, told judge Col. Guy Brais that guidelines on sexual activity respected the "natural right" of military personnel to form sexual relationships.

"Except when they threaten operational effectiveness, discipline and unit cohesion," added Wenek.

He said commanding officers had to be allowed to use their judgment on what threatened operational effectiveness.

Capt. Greg Strome said there were six married couples at the camp where the alleged offence took place, Camp Black Bear at Velika Kladusa, but none were allowed to live together on base.

The hearing continues today. Montgomery denies the charge of engaging in sexual activity.

**************************************************

-the patriot-


Posts: 192 | From: The Great White North | Registered: Jun 2000
Michael Dorosh
Veteran Member
Member # 63

Member Rated:

posted 16 November 2021 23:31     Profile for Michael Dorosh   Author's Homepage   Email Michael Dorosh     Send New Private Message     Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
This article contradicts itself - it says Montgomery is using the Charter to fight the charge of engaging in sexual activity, and then it says Montgomery is denying the charge.

Which is it?


Posts: 135 | From: Calgary, Alberta | Registered: Aug 2000
garb811
Veteran Member
Member # 116

Member Rated:

posted 16 November 2021 23:52     Profile for garb811     Send New Private Message     Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Both.

In the first instance they're saying that the charge should be thrown out due to the fact it is an invalid charge which violates his Charter Rights. Guilt or innocence has no bearing if that is the case since even if he did have sex while deployed, it was his Right to do so. If the judge agrees with this reasoning it's immaterial if he actually did or not since the charge would be dismissed without further action.

In the second instance they are stating that, if the judge rules the charge doesn't violate his Charter Rights and it was indeed a lawful order not to engage in sexual activities while deployed, he didn't engage in these activites.

Common mistake for people to make is to think that a Charter challenge is the same as entering a plea.


Posts: 31 | From: | Registered: Jun 2000
Michael Dorosh
Veteran Member
Member # 63

Member Rated:

posted 17 November 2021 01:07     Profile for Michael Dorosh   Author's Homepage   Email Michael Dorosh     Send New Private Message     Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Barracks room lawyer, eh? ;-)

Seriously, thanks for the info. That makes things clear.

I always thought a soldier agreed to give up some of his Charter rights whilst endeavouring to defend the rights of others. Kind of goes with the territory.


Posts: 135 | From: Calgary, Alberta | Registered: Aug 2000
Shabadoo
Veteran Member
Member # 87

Rate Member

posted 17 November 2021 19:57     Profile for Shabadoo   Email Shabadoo     Send New Private Message     Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Not in todays army. All orders are aparently open for interpretation. Charming how the CFCWO is only "one of" those responsible for dress and dicipline. Also I found the "Yes" comment interesting, does he imply that homosexuals are also "not allowed"? Or is he simply stating that "an order is an order". Food for discussion.
Posts: 23 | From: Canada | Registered: Oct 2000
garb811
Veteran Member
Member # 116

Member Rated:

posted 17 November 2021 20:59     Profile for garb811     Send New Private Message     Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Nope, not a barrack room lawyer. Take a look at a MOC list and then the last three digits. ;-)
Posts: 31 | From: | Registered: Jun 2000
Michael Dorosh
Veteran Member
Member # 63

Member Rated:

posted 17 November 2021 21:14     Profile for Michael Dorosh   Author's Homepage   Email Michael Dorosh     Send New Private Message     Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Sorry garb, I just figured that was the last three of your SN....
Posts: 135 | From: Calgary, Alberta | Registered: Aug 2000
TwoCanuck

Member # 0

Rate Member

posted 19 November 2021 03:43     Profile for TwoCanuck   Email TwoCanuck     Send New Private Message     Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
For our 811 friend, I know it because I lived the tin thing for a few coffee breaks, get a life.

As for the credo about giving up a bit of your personal rights to serve, shake your head jaws. I was a soldier first and if ever someone told me or anyone I was responsible for that they had to surrender or placate their rights as Gauranteed in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I was the first to stand up and champion the cause.

Yes I was very ready to sacrifice my life or order men/women into battle for a just cause, but buddy, treat me like a human first. I can live in a trench with water up to my arm pits. I may be wet, but I will do my job, but don't order me to have to like it.

As for the barrack room layers and meatheads, I seem to recall that there were and still are those of the 811 persuasion that think, even MP's waive their personal rights to carry a badge.

As with this particular case, it is but another example of that dangerous pendulum called Canadian apathy. We have no common ground, just wild paradoxs and decisions made to give the impression that some form of order or justice has been served.

Reality happens, we are human, to say shit happens is but to deny the very fabric that makes us human. When will the leadership do a collective gasp and realize that there is a whole great big world outside of those windows on 101 Colonel-By Dr, masked with a heavey veil of JAG advice.


Posts: | From: | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
garb811
Veteran Member
Member # 116

Member Rated:

posted 23 November 2021 23:45     Profile for garb811     Send New Private Message     Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
TwoCanuck: Why should I get a life? All I did was explain the difference between a plea and a Charter Challenge. I didn't make comment as to my thoughts on this particular instance nor did I make any statement about people waiving their rights by either joining or becoming a MP. Apparently you might be the one in need of doing what you suggested I do.


Posts: 31 | From: | Registered: Jun 2000

All times are ET  

Post New Topic   Close Topic    Move Topic      next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | CdnArmy.ca | Privacy Statement

2001 CdnArmy.ca. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
Ultimate Bulletin BoardTM 6.1.0.beta-0.1