It appears that the Canadian Forces have been having some difficulty with their issued equipment.
Particularly the zippers on their pants.
Particularly the zippers on their pants.
Oh Dear
- Thread starter Tecumsehsbones
- Start date
When trying to pull the zipper down or when trying to pull the zipper back up? Please clarify?
I think the OP is alluding to this:
Former supreme court justice Louise Arbour’s long-awaited report on sexual misconduct in the Canadian military is as thorough, serious and wide-reaching as anyone could’ve hoped for. It’s 700 pages long, with 48 substantial recommendations that, if implemented, will upturn the Canadian Armed Forces’ (CAF) justice system, military colleges and hermetic culture.
At a Monday afternoon press conference to unveil her report, Arbour didn’t mince words. She laid out the severity of the situation, critiqued both CAF and politicians’ slow dawdle toward obvious solutions and firmly said “meaningful change will rest on the political will and the determination of civilians who oversee the Canadian Armed Forces.”
If Arbour herself had the power to implement the report’s 48 recommendations, most notably removing all sexual assault investigations from the military justice system, I’d be willing to bet on the side of real change. Unfortunately, she doesn’t.
That power now rests in the hands of national defence minister Anita Anand and, ultimately, the Prime Minister’s Office. With a reputation for micromanaging even small decisions by cabinet ministers, the PMO is unlikely to cede control on an issue as large and politically fraught as this.
Yet the PMO’s track record on the military sexual misconduct file is troubling, to say the least. The debacle with ex-defence chief Jonathan Vance, who was convicted of obstruction of justice in connection to a relationship he had with a subordinate, revealed a PMO only concerned with women’s rights up until the point that protecting them may result in bad publicity.
apple.news
Feminism is convenient to Justin Trudeau’s Liberals as a wedge issue, but his administration falls consistently short when it comes to backing up its big talk with action, whether on the military sexual misconduct file or access to reproductive health care.
It’s tempting to think that, maybe, this time will be different. That the Vance case’s widespread bad press would be enough to motivate the headline-sensitive PMO. The problem is, there’s always going to be a glossier, easier-spun issue than fixing sexual misconduct in the military. Like the talking dogs in Pixar’s Up that lose focus the moment they spot a squirrel, Trudeau’s government can’t resist hopping from trending topic to trending topic.
This is already happening. On the same day as the Arbour report’s release, Trudeau won’t be talking about sexual misconduct in the military, but access to firearms in the wake of the Texas mass shooting. Later Monday afternoon, he will attend an in-person press conference to announce an expected handgun ban. This speaks volumes about his government’s real commitment to fixing the military and protecting women.
To be clear, I don’t think it was necessary for him to attend Arbour’s presser with Anand. As national defence minister, Anand should be more than able to acquit herself without Trudeau’s direct supervision. However, scheduling and headlining a competing press conference — one that piggybacks on an American tragedy to reopen yet another wedge issue that’s mostly settled in Canada — actively undermines Arbour and Anand’s efforts.
If Trudeau really wanted to address the root causes of mass murders, he’d focus less on tinkering with Canadian gun control laws most experts agree are perfectly sufficient and focus more on the role misogyny plays in these crimes time and time again. Before the massacre, the Uvalde shooter frequently threatened and harassed teen girls online. The Nova Scotia gunman had a history of domestic violence.
A culture that accepts harassment, assaults and threats against women as normal and fails to punish their perpetrators is one that inevitably sees some of those offenders go on to commit horrific crimes. Where better to start fixing a sick culture that mixes misogyny with violence than the military? Where better to start holding those who commit crimes against women accountable?
This should be today’s message from Trudeau, but instead he’ll redirect public and political attention toward a handgun ban that will do little, if anything, to stop mass shootings. He’ll drive eyeballs and attention away from women’s rights at home to cynically capitalize on an American problem.
As strong as Arbour’s report is, and as serious as Anand may be about changing the military, it’ll matter little if the PMO loses focus. If today’s events are any indication, it doesn’t take much for Trudeau to put sexual misconduct on the backburner when a more attractive wedge issue walks on by.
Former supreme court justice Louise Arbour’s long-awaited report on sexual misconduct in the Canadian military is as thorough, serious and wide-reaching as anyone could’ve hoped for. It’s 700 pages long, with 48 substantial recommendations that, if implemented, will upturn the Canadian Armed Forces’ (CAF) justice system, military colleges and hermetic culture.
At a Monday afternoon press conference to unveil her report, Arbour didn’t mince words. She laid out the severity of the situation, critiqued both CAF and politicians’ slow dawdle toward obvious solutions and firmly said “meaningful change will rest on the political will and the determination of civilians who oversee the Canadian Armed Forces.”
If Arbour herself had the power to implement the report’s 48 recommendations, most notably removing all sexual assault investigations from the military justice system, I’d be willing to bet on the side of real change. Unfortunately, she doesn’t.
That power now rests in the hands of national defence minister Anita Anand and, ultimately, the Prime Minister’s Office. With a reputation for micromanaging even small decisions by cabinet ministers, the PMO is unlikely to cede control on an issue as large and politically fraught as this.
Yet the PMO’s track record on the military sexual misconduct file is troubling, to say the least. The debacle with ex-defence chief Jonathan Vance, who was convicted of obstruction of justice in connection to a relationship he had with a subordinate, revealed a PMO only concerned with women’s rights up until the point that protecting them may result in bad publicity.
Sabrina Maddeaux: Military failed to protect women from sexual assault and Trudeau couldn't care less — National Post
Feminism is nothing more than a convenient wedge issue for the prime minister
Feminism is convenient to Justin Trudeau’s Liberals as a wedge issue, but his administration falls consistently short when it comes to backing up its big talk with action, whether on the military sexual misconduct file or access to reproductive health care.
It’s tempting to think that, maybe, this time will be different. That the Vance case’s widespread bad press would be enough to motivate the headline-sensitive PMO. The problem is, there’s always going to be a glossier, easier-spun issue than fixing sexual misconduct in the military. Like the talking dogs in Pixar’s Up that lose focus the moment they spot a squirrel, Trudeau’s government can’t resist hopping from trending topic to trending topic.
This is already happening. On the same day as the Arbour report’s release, Trudeau won’t be talking about sexual misconduct in the military, but access to firearms in the wake of the Texas mass shooting. Later Monday afternoon, he will attend an in-person press conference to announce an expected handgun ban. This speaks volumes about his government’s real commitment to fixing the military and protecting women.
To be clear, I don’t think it was necessary for him to attend Arbour’s presser with Anand. As national defence minister, Anand should be more than able to acquit herself without Trudeau’s direct supervision. However, scheduling and headlining a competing press conference — one that piggybacks on an American tragedy to reopen yet another wedge issue that’s mostly settled in Canada — actively undermines Arbour and Anand’s efforts.
If Trudeau really wanted to address the root causes of mass murders, he’d focus less on tinkering with Canadian gun control laws most experts agree are perfectly sufficient and focus more on the role misogyny plays in these crimes time and time again. Before the massacre, the Uvalde shooter frequently threatened and harassed teen girls online. The Nova Scotia gunman had a history of domestic violence.
A culture that accepts harassment, assaults and threats against women as normal and fails to punish their perpetrators is one that inevitably sees some of those offenders go on to commit horrific crimes. Where better to start fixing a sick culture that mixes misogyny with violence than the military? Where better to start holding those who commit crimes against women accountable?
This should be today’s message from Trudeau, but instead he’ll redirect public and political attention toward a handgun ban that will do little, if anything, to stop mass shootings. He’ll drive eyeballs and attention away from women’s rights at home to cynically capitalize on an American problem.
As strong as Arbour’s report is, and as serious as Anand may be about changing the military, it’ll matter little if the PMO loses focus. If today’s events are any indication, it doesn’t take much for Trudeau to put sexual misconduct on the backburner when a more attractive wedge issue walks on by.
If Trudeau is a feminist, or even cares about anybody but himself, then I'm Duck Dogers in the 24th and a half century.
Hard to put one by you.I think the OP is alluding to this:
Former supreme court justice Louise Arbour’s long-awaited report on sexual misconduct in the Canadian military is as thorough, serious and wide-reaching as anyone could’ve hoped for. It’s 700 pages long, with 48 substantial recommendations that, if implemented, will upturn the Canadian Armed Forces’ (CAF) justice system, military colleges and hermetic culture.
At a Monday afternoon press conference to unveil her report, Arbour didn’t mince words. She laid out the severity of the situation, critiqued both CAF and politicians’ slow dawdle toward obvious solutions and firmly said “meaningful change will rest on the political will and the determination of civilians who oversee the Canadian Armed Forces.”
If Arbour herself had the power to implement the report’s 48 recommendations, most notably removing all sexual assault investigations from the military justice system, I’d be willing to bet on the side of real change. Unfortunately, she doesn’t.
That power now rests in the hands of national defence minister Anita Anand and, ultimately, the Prime Minister’s Office. With a reputation for micromanaging even small decisions by cabinet ministers, the PMO is unlikely to cede control on an issue as large and politically fraught as this.
Yet the PMO’s track record on the military sexual misconduct file is troubling, to say the least. The debacle with ex-defence chief Jonathan Vance, who was convicted of obstruction of justice in connection to a relationship he had with a subordinate, revealed a PMO only concerned with women’s rights up until the point that protecting them may result in bad publicity.
Sabrina Maddeaux: Military failed to protect women from sexual assault and Trudeau couldn't care less — National Post
Feminism is nothing more than a convenient wedge issue for the prime minister
Feminism is convenient to Justin Trudeau’s Liberals as a wedge issue, but his administration falls consistently short when it comes to backing up its big talk with action, whether on the military sexual misconduct file or access to reproductive health care.
It’s tempting to think that, maybe, this time will be different. That the Vance case’s widespread bad press would be enough to motivate the headline-sensitive PMO. The problem is, there’s always going to be a glossier, easier-spun issue than fixing sexual misconduct in the military. Like the talking dogs in Pixar’s Up that lose focus the moment they spot a squirrel, Trudeau’s government can’t resist hopping from trending topic to trending topic.
This is already happening. On the same day as the Arbour report’s release, Trudeau won’t be talking about sexual misconduct in the military, but access to firearms in the wake of the Texas mass shooting. Later Monday afternoon, he will attend an in-person press conference to announce an expected handgun ban. This speaks volumes about his government’s real commitment to fixing the military and protecting women.
To be clear, I don’t think it was necessary for him to attend Arbour’s presser with Anand. As national defence minister, Anand should be more than able to acquit herself without Trudeau’s direct supervision. However, scheduling and headlining a competing press conference — one that piggybacks on an American tragedy to reopen yet another wedge issue that’s mostly settled in Canada — actively undermines Arbour and Anand’s efforts.
If Trudeau really wanted to address the root causes of mass murders, he’d focus less on tinkering with Canadian gun control laws most experts agree are perfectly sufficient and focus more on the role misogyny plays in these crimes time and time again. Before the massacre, the Uvalde shooter frequently threatened and harassed teen girls online. The Nova Scotia gunman had a history of domestic violence.
A culture that accepts harassment, assaults and threats against women as normal and fails to punish their perpetrators is one that inevitably sees some of those offenders go on to commit horrific crimes. Where better to start fixing a sick culture that mixes misogyny with violence than the military? Where better to start holding those who commit crimes against women accountable?
This should be today’s message from Trudeau, but instead he’ll redirect public and political attention toward a handgun ban that will do little, if anything, to stop mass shootings. He’ll drive eyeballs and attention away from women’s rights at home to cynically capitalize on an American problem.
As strong as Arbour’s report is, and as serious as Anand may be about changing the military, it’ll matter little if the PMO loses focus. If today’s events are any indication, it doesn’t take much for Trudeau to put sexual misconduct on the backburner when a more attractive wedge issue walks on by.
Certainly true. Utterly irrelevant to the subject, but obsession works that way.
Awww, nice try sports fan. Now, try reading my post in context with Ron's post above it. You ARE familiar with concept of context, right?
Damn. You blocked my zinger.
Well done, sir.
[goes back to crafting Thermo-Ballistic-Autotargetting Zinger]
Well done, sir.
[goes back to crafting Thermo-Ballistic-Autotargetting Zinger]
I think we've sucked all the fun outta this one that was in it. Let's move on.
Proposed topic: Justin Trudeau: fucking imbecile or evil fascist, and is it possible to be both?
Proposed topic: Justin Trudeau: fucking imbecile or evil fascist, and is it possible to be both?
The pos is both plus much much more. How did we get so lucky here in Canukistan to get this twit to be the crime mistake of Canukistan anyway? How can this country survive much longer with a twit like this buffoon running it? Three more years to go. Whoopee.
Like father, like son. Both Marxist arse holes. If anyone here can say something nice about this buffoon, please let me know. I am still looking myself.
City council votes 14-1 to remove war hero's name from city venues
An emotional debate about a slain London soldier and his assault conviction against a fellow military recruit – largely unknown until last week – led city council to strip Trooper Mark Wilson’s name from a city street and park on Tuesday.
Author of the article:Megan Stacey
Publishing date:Jun 15, 2022 • 10 hours ago • 3 minute read • Join the conversation
An emotional debate about a slain London soldier and his assault conviction against a fellow military recruit – largely unknown until last week – led city council to strip Trooper Mark Wilson’s name from a city street and park on Tuesday.
It also opened up a wider push, as one city councillor put it, to “stop naming stuff after people, period.”
Council voted 14-1 to direct city staff to remove Wilson’s name from any city assets and begin the renaming process. Ward 10 Coun. Paul Van Meerbergen was the lone opponent.
“Thank you for standing for the victims who have come forward, who have already lived in darkness and feel silenced,” Ward 12 Coun. Elizabeth Peloza said.
She said it’s important for council to show “we are taking this seriously, making safe places, and taking leadership,” after a “historic” commitment to prioritize creating a safer London for women and girls in its roadmap for the term.
Mayor Ed Holder told his colleagues city council had a duty to live up to that goal.
“I firmly believe that words matter. They matter less, however, when not reinforced by action,” he said.
But honouring Londoners by naming parks, streets and other locations in tribute is a dangerous practice that leaves heroes prone to being knocked down, much of city council agreed Tuesday.
“We are flawed and imperfect,” Ward 5 Coun. Maureen Cassidy said. “I don’t want to continue to see every imperfect person held up to scrutiny, one by one, over the years.”
She tabled, and then later withdrew, an amendment to direct staff to review all streets named after individuals in London to consider whether they should be renamed. Cassidy pledged to bring that motion forward at a later committee.
City staff already are reviewing policies for naming streets and are expected to report back early in 2023, a charge led by Peloza. She said Tuesday those rules remain “20 years out of date” and suggested one fix may be to simply “stop naming stuff after people.”
A park in northwest London and an east-end street both bear Wilson’s name.
Holder first ordered a city staff review of public places named after Wilson the day a Free Press investigation about the slain soldier’s assault conviction in 2004 was published last week.
Wilson pleaded guilty at a court martial to assaulting a fellow soldier while at a military training program in Quebec. The woman’s identity is protected by a publication ban.
According to the “statement of particulars” agreed to by both military prosecutors and military defence counsel, Wilson grabbed the woman, kissed her twice without her consent, tried to get her into the washroom, and when she ran back to the elevator, followed her and pushed against her.
Wilson was charged with sexually assaulting the woman after a military investigation, but at his court martial later that year, he pleaded guilty to assault and not guilty to sexual assault. Both pleas were accepted by the military judge.
He was fined $1,500 and reprimanded. Wilson was killed two years later when a roadside bomb hit his armoured vehicle near Kandahar.
His parents put out a statement through lawyer Phillip Millar after the Free Press story saying their son’s name shouldn’t be cancelled, particularly when he isn’t alive to defend himself.
“Essentially, this is a call to erase his legacy, cancel all the good done in his name, and retroactively vilify him when he cannot speak from the grave to defend himself,” it says.
“Mark lost his life serving our country; his name lives on raising money for the less fortunate . . . It is fundamentally unfair to have these issues raised now, almost 18 years later, in a manner that does not allow Mark to explain what happened.”
It was a tense debate for politicians on Tuesday, several of whom spoke directly of Wilson’s family, and the loss they’ve suffered after his death serving his country.
“That’s a noble sacrifice he’s made, that his family has lived with since his passing, but it doesn’t absolve the fact that there was an earlier situation where he did wrong and pled guilty,” Ward 2 Coun. Shawn Lewis said.
“This has not been an easy week for them, just as the last number of years has not been easy for the victim.”
mstacey@postmedia.com
Twitter.com/MeganatLFPress
torontosun.com
An emotional debate about a slain London soldier and his assault conviction against a fellow military recruit – largely unknown until last week – led city council to strip Trooper Mark Wilson’s name from a city street and park on Tuesday.
Author of the article:Megan Stacey
Publishing date:Jun 15, 2022 • 10 hours ago • 3 minute read • Join the conversation
An emotional debate about a slain London soldier and his assault conviction against a fellow military recruit – largely unknown until last week – led city council to strip Trooper Mark Wilson’s name from a city street and park on Tuesday.
It also opened up a wider push, as one city councillor put it, to “stop naming stuff after people, period.”
Council voted 14-1 to direct city staff to remove Wilson’s name from any city assets and begin the renaming process. Ward 10 Coun. Paul Van Meerbergen was the lone opponent.
“Thank you for standing for the victims who have come forward, who have already lived in darkness and feel silenced,” Ward 12 Coun. Elizabeth Peloza said.
She said it’s important for council to show “we are taking this seriously, making safe places, and taking leadership,” after a “historic” commitment to prioritize creating a safer London for women and girls in its roadmap for the term.
Mayor Ed Holder told his colleagues city council had a duty to live up to that goal.
“I firmly believe that words matter. They matter less, however, when not reinforced by action,” he said.
But honouring Londoners by naming parks, streets and other locations in tribute is a dangerous practice that leaves heroes prone to being knocked down, much of city council agreed Tuesday.
“We are flawed and imperfect,” Ward 5 Coun. Maureen Cassidy said. “I don’t want to continue to see every imperfect person held up to scrutiny, one by one, over the years.”
She tabled, and then later withdrew, an amendment to direct staff to review all streets named after individuals in London to consider whether they should be renamed. Cassidy pledged to bring that motion forward at a later committee.
City staff already are reviewing policies for naming streets and are expected to report back early in 2023, a charge led by Peloza. She said Tuesday those rules remain “20 years out of date” and suggested one fix may be to simply “stop naming stuff after people.”
A park in northwest London and an east-end street both bear Wilson’s name.
Holder first ordered a city staff review of public places named after Wilson the day a Free Press investigation about the slain soldier’s assault conviction in 2004 was published last week.
Wilson pleaded guilty at a court martial to assaulting a fellow soldier while at a military training program in Quebec. The woman’s identity is protected by a publication ban.
According to the “statement of particulars” agreed to by both military prosecutors and military defence counsel, Wilson grabbed the woman, kissed her twice without her consent, tried to get her into the washroom, and when she ran back to the elevator, followed her and pushed against her.
Wilson was charged with sexually assaulting the woman after a military investigation, but at his court martial later that year, he pleaded guilty to assault and not guilty to sexual assault. Both pleas were accepted by the military judge.
He was fined $1,500 and reprimanded. Wilson was killed two years later when a roadside bomb hit his armoured vehicle near Kandahar.
His parents put out a statement through lawyer Phillip Millar after the Free Press story saying their son’s name shouldn’t be cancelled, particularly when he isn’t alive to defend himself.
“Essentially, this is a call to erase his legacy, cancel all the good done in his name, and retroactively vilify him when he cannot speak from the grave to defend himself,” it says.
“Mark lost his life serving our country; his name lives on raising money for the less fortunate . . . It is fundamentally unfair to have these issues raised now, almost 18 years later, in a manner that does not allow Mark to explain what happened.”
It was a tense debate for politicians on Tuesday, several of whom spoke directly of Wilson’s family, and the loss they’ve suffered after his death serving his country.
“That’s a noble sacrifice he’s made, that his family has lived with since his passing, but it doesn’t absolve the fact that there was an earlier situation where he did wrong and pled guilty,” Ward 2 Coun. Shawn Lewis said.
“This has not been an easy week for them, just as the last number of years has not been easy for the victim.”
mstacey@postmedia.com
Twitter.com/MeganatLFPress
City council votes 14-1 to remove war hero's name from city venues
An emotional debate about a slain London soldier and his assault conviction against a fellow military recruit – largely unknown until last week – led city council t…
You think this is boring?
Or just being an asshole to Spammy.
Let's review the story.
Local boys sign up to fight in the war. One night they get drunk and fight like most 18 year olds who drink too much. Life goes on. One does something heroic giving his life in the process.
People back home decide to keep his name alive to honour him naming parks and shit after him.
77 year later it's learned he as a teen punched another teen so he is no longer honoured for giving his life but shamed for "toxic masculinity".
“Thank you for standing for the victims who have come forward, who have already lived in darkness and feel silenced,” Ward 12 Coun. Elizabeth Peloza said.
She said it’s important for council to show “we are taking this seriously, making safe places, and taking leadership,” after a “historic” commitment to prioritize creating a safer London for women and girls in its roadmap for the term.
DasSleeper? You think that's boring?
Are the women are girls safer?