• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

CDN/US Covid-related political discussion

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,682
Points
1,040
Sailed with an NTOG guys who was a Viking... Long hair, shaved sides, massive beard
Having fun with that one, when it was pointed out to someone that they can't give religious accomodations for beards and allow people to wear an SCBA for firefighting without violating Canadian health and safety laws and CAF policy. Good times.
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,298
Points
1,260
Having fun with that one, when it was pointed out to someone that they can't give religious accomodations for beards and allow people to wear an SCBA for firefighting without violating Canadian health and safety laws and CAF policy. Good times.

It's NTOG they are like CLDs. They can pretty much do as they please, because silkies and CrossFit bro...
 

Humphrey Bogart

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
4,957
Points
1,360
Hey your speaking in code again. I have zero idea what you're talking about. NTOG? CLD???

Pass the red crayons FFS ;)
NTOG: basically Navy SOF (at least that's what they think 😁)

CLD: Navy Clearance Divers 😁
 

Blackadder1916

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,177
Points
1,160
You weren't kidding. Damn.

Do you think he raises any valid points?

If he took off the suit and didn't boast of his service (as is required), would he be any different than any of the others shouting "freedom"? Would his actions even be brought to the attention of these forums? Is he raising any points (valid or otherwise) that haven't already been raised and, depending on the listener's point of view, either dismissed out of hand or accepted as gospel. At this stage, he's just entertainment - embarrassing entertainment, to be sure for the CAF - but entertainment nonetheless.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
3,686
Points
1,060
He is an idiot. He went political and you don't do that wearing a uniform like that.

Regardless of what you believe, you can't make statements in a uniform like that. Get out and exercise you're freedoms but don't do it while in uniform.
I don't think anyone disagrees that this was a stupid move and something that shouldn't be done. Maybe whether he had any points or not is immaterial.

I recall LCol Taylor blasting the CAF in a resignation letter. I recall her being lauded as a hero for it both in person and online. (I'm certainly stand behind her comments, though I've seen people charged for much less).


Genuine question, completely different situation?
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
7,160
Points
1,090
I don't think anyone disagrees that this was a stupid move and something that shouldn't be done. Maybe whether he had any points or not is immaterial.

I recall LCol Taylor blasting the CAF in a resignation letter. I recall her being lauded as a hero for it both in person and online. (I'm certainly stand behind her comments, though I've seen people charged for much less).


Genuine question, completely different situation?

Yes.

At the time of her release, LCol Taylor was a member of the Reserve Force, not the Reg Force, and, to my recollection, did not issue the letter to the public; rather, she sent it to her CoC (and certain others she knew and respected in the military) and it was later leaked to the media, not by her.

NDA 60 dictates who is subject to the CSD, and when. Simplified, for the Reg F, it's always; for the Res F, there are a set of conditions, one of which must be satisfied.

So a few examples: a Res F member in uniform? Subject to the CSD (60(c)(ii)). Present on a base? Subject to the CSD (60(c)(viii)). Standing on Parliament Hill, watching the changing of the guard? Subject to the CSD (60(c)(x)).

So even if this Artillery major is Res F, not Reg F, by presenting himself in uniform he has created the conditions necessary to be subject to the CSD.

And NDA 60(2), which I allude to above, states, again simplified, that if you were subject to the CSD when you committed an act, you remain liable to be charged, dealt with and tried for that offence, even if you're no longer covered by the CSD at the time charges are laid and the trial proceeds.
 

Happy Guy

Member
Reaction score
186
Points
580
Having watched this man and read the newspaper articles I keep thinking why do he do that? What set of circumstances / conditions led him to believe that he had to blatantly disregard the well known regulations governing our conduct while in uniform? What I mean is that the majority of us accepted the Gov't imposed restrictions and the medical advice from the health community, with the knowledge that Pandemic will transition to endemic and our lives will be returning back to a new normal. There will be probably an annual voluntary combined COVID/Flu vaccine in the future.

Conspiracy theories aside. Why do he do this? He knew the consequences. What did he hope to achieve? Did he believe that he could convince many people? Are the institutions that we have placed our faith in and/or worked for become so unreliable and / or untrustworthy? Has our trust in the political, medical, law enforcement, religious institutions, and the fifth estate eroded that much? Is cynicism the new cornerstone of our belief?
 
Top