I read a tremendously thoughtful tweet thread from Annalise Schamuhn yesterday which reminded me that the ability to hold two ( or more) seemingly conflicting ideas is absolutely necessary when dealing with complex issues.
At the moment
Lt(N) MacDonald considers herself to be the victim of an Assault
Adm McDonald considers himself to be innocent of the alleged crime
There was insufficient evidence based on both the testimony and (in some cases) a refusal to testify to lay charges,
Where does that leave us. The two opposing thoughts are to
support and believe the alleged victim and ensure that due process is followed
with the presumption of innocence. I do not think these to be incompatible.
Like so many serving, retired CAF members and interested civilians
I have watched with, quite frankly, horror the events surrounding Adm Art
MacDonald’s situation concerning his appointment. For those currently serving to
comment would be entirely inappropriate. In fact to do otherwise would contravene
legal restrictions. For others I think the time to speak is now.
When serving I had known the Admiral, albeit not well, for a number of
years. He was always very competent, tremendously amiable and dedicated. I
liked him. I suspect if we were to renew our acquaintance in other
circumstances, I would like him equally well. He is a likeable individual.
None of that is germane to the fact that he is not suitable
to be our CDS.
Upon reading his letter to his GOFOs I am struck by three things.
The start point, the adopted strategy, and the focus of his words. Each reminds
me of an aphorism. The first when down home and when asking for directions it
is not uncommon to hear in reply “Well I wouldn’t start from here” the second
when talking about young Army Officers’ first forays on Field Exercises “Lost
but making good time” and lastly “leadership demands personal subordination and
sacrifice to the greater good.”
Contrary to the Admiral’s claim and the start point of his
argument, a failure to press charges, for whatever reason is not an exoneration,
neither in form nor function. A decision not to proceed based on insufficient
evidence neither exonerates nor condemns. Exoneration can only come from those who
govern the Admiral ( ie MND / PM). They, in order to achieve such an effect,
would have to publicly state “We have
reviewed all available details and have determined that Admiral MacDonald is cleared
of suspicion and as a result we consider him free of any taint and as such
enjoys our complete confidence in his ability to Command the CAF.”
Notwithstanding the election the GoC has had sufficient time to come to that
conclusion and make such a proclamation. That they have not done so informs (or
should inform) the Admiral’s start point.
Despite claiming an exoneration that does not exist it is important
to note this such a claim is also besides the point. The CDS serves at the pleasure
of the GOC, all Order in Council appointments do. The only issue is “Does Admiral
McDonald enjoy the confidence of the elected Government.” A lack of being
charged is a far step from crossing that bar.
His chosen path is equally concerning. Public statements about
his intention to return to his appointment, followed by a letter to the CAF
GOFOs indicates one of two things. Either he truly does not understand how
Orders in Council and the machinery of government actually work or that the
intent behind such actions is not targeting his return but rather any
negotiations that might inform his release.
If the first instance such ignorance is disqualifying. In the second there
is a demonstration of a willingness to ignore the impact on Lt(N) MacDonald as
well as to continue to negatively impact the morale of the CAF for personal
gain: This too is disqualifying.
Lastly, the irony in holding a leadership appointment is that one
must always be willing to lose such a position in order to deserve it. This is often portrayed in the language used
to communicate. Even the most cursory reading of the Admiral’s letter reveals a
focus almost entirely on his status as opposed to the system and the indviduals
who make up the CAF. It has been noted
elsewhere but the contrast between his letter and LGen Cadieu’s note is stark.
It is inescapable that fundamental cultural and systemic
change is needed by the CAF. Many academics, politicians and casual observers
offer up the solutions to these problems. Some are informed and unbiased, most considerably
less so. Contrary to what they might demand in their own fields few are willing
to turn to analysis based an examination of facts but rather seem to follow the
populism of immediate commentary so common in today’s “fast fashion-esque” dissemination
and consumption of “news.” But regardless of the larger issues what should be
clear is that Admiral MacDonald has not helped argue his case. He has started
in the wrong place thereafter moved in the wrong direction and used language
that centered the issue on himself. A CDS might reasonably be expected to be more
thoughtful, more capable and less self-serving.
My final thoughts in this instance are with Lt(N) MacDonald.
I have no legal education that would allow me to make an informed judgement on
the decisions made regarding the allegations, investigation etc (btw very very
few of those expressing opinions on those details actually do !!) but I do know
that she should have reasonably expected better treatment from a leader who
claimed exoneration. When we say “this hurts the system” what we are also saying
is that “we are hurting individuals in the system.” Her hurt has been perpetuated not healed. That by itself is a condemnation.
It is of little comfort, but I do believe that the revealing of these deep cultural and systemic ills are necessary to be better. The overwhelming majority of CAF members, at all levels, are not just good but are great representatives of Canada and its values. I don’t rejoice about our current circumstance, nobody could, but I take comfort that it is being revealed and will therefore be addressed. We don’t get to decide our start point, we are not lost ( ie we know the issue !!! ) but neither are we yet making good time. I have confidence we will. The path will neither be smooth let alone uninterrupted but neither should our stumbles along the way be misconstrued as failure.
Well said. I would love to discuss in a better platform than our current social media if ever interested in a virtual one.
ReplyDeleteMike, As alway well thought out and perfectly articulated. Some unpacking here… the belief of who holds the watch knows the time, and knows the route to be taken controls the process. Thank you again for your insights! Ray
ReplyDeleteAccusations of Sexual inappropriate behavior is similar to an IED; some you can disarm and others take on a life of their own. One you may have set for yourself or one that was set by others. Unfortunately, Officers who are held to a higher standard should have been given the expertise to handle any given situation, especially if they are responsible for those below them and most assuredly above them in any given situation. The program as well as good professional conduct was always the pride of the Canadian Navy to which the Admiral had risen through the ranks. Unfortunately, the conflicts & legal issues surrounding Admiral Mark Norman has tainted any definitive conclusion of who is to believe or trusted to reveal the truth in this matter. Refits, Shipbuilding & the Directives to which the Navy's future
ReplyDeleteshall be influenced will be by the CDS.
Remember; an accusation has a lasting effect, so we can only hope and expect the truth no matter how deep it has been buried.
Well said, sir. An excellent explanation of leadership, sadly lacking it seems in many areas of both government and military.
ReplyDeleteExcellent, well-considered commentary. Thank you for this!
ReplyDeleteI propose replacing "conflicting ideas" with "conflicting perceptions" and see how that sits or shapes the filters we view situations through. It is concerning there is insufficient evidence in light that the Commanding Officer was a key player in the Adm. Art McDonald situation - it was alleged the CO’s face was pushed into Lt. MacDonald's breasts by Art McDonald. According to Lt. MacDonald the CO came to check on her the next day. Refusal to testify by anyone is telling. I have followed the CAF sexual misconduct stories from a place of invested interest, namely I would like to see a woman in uniform and not have my heart break for what she has or will endure. I found the Chief Judge, Col. Mario Dutil's story particularly interesting and how his friend and confident on the “inappropriate relationship” matter, Lt-Col. d’Auteuil, chose to self appoint in assigning judge for the matter orchestrating a scenario worthy of inspiring a Shakespearian play with a final act of self-recusal based on information he possessed personally but presented as learned through judicial discovery. It was such an enticing drama I spent weeks translating the French manuscript and was captivated, intrigued and mesmerized that I had to remind myself this is real, this is the heart of the CAF judicial system, integrity and ethics at its worst. Conflicting perceptions come into play when considering a person’s positive attributes while considering their transgressions but it is here where the expression of the CAF’s true values occur. I was told that the Commanding Officer of the man who raped me in my own bed pulled for him not to be released because he was a good engineer. Interesting enough, in requesting my paperwork from the CAF I learned that he was in the process of release still as a Regular Force LS 15 years later (he had been a reserve PO1 chief engineer). I don’t really see Adm. McDonald’s letter as starting from the wrong place and approach so much as his confidence in his peers and the powers that be to restore him to what he feels is his rightful place because he “played the game” when the accusation was brought forward. I have to disagree with your statement that failure to press charges is an exoneration – again this comes from an ability to hold two conflicting perceptions – innocent until proven guilty is the foundation of our legal system so as such the system has in fact exonerated him yet the feeling of “failure to press charges is not an exoneration” shows the underlying belief that he did do wrong but circumstances prevent that from being properly addressed. This is the area where injustice in the justice system resides for both the perpetrator and the victim. Lt. MacDonald has been given the opportunity to learn the difference between the idealism we hold about our society and the reality, her hurt comes from the experience of the disparity between idealism and reality. I know it took me many more “hurts” before I let go of the idealism regarding trust, integrity and ethics of organizations and institutions. Wisdom comes in returning to the basics of humanity consists of both good and evil. Organizations and institutions, with their mandates, missions and value statements attesting to their godlike status, are simply people organized in an abstract construct we accept as an empirical truth and there lies our downfall. A review of court martial decisions is a great value to better understanding the reality of the CAF value system and it shows clearly the disparity between how the Military Court interprets the legislation, regulations, orders and policies and what members are informed of on the same matters. In taking this all into consideration, I could only conclude, sexual misconduct in the CAF serves a purpose, otherwise an organization that has century old knowledge and methods of how to successfully shape the behaviour of civilians from all walks of life to be willing to give up their lives on command would have easily erased the lesser needs for sexual gratification.
ReplyDeleteWell said - thank you.
ReplyDelete