Adams believes the Canadian military and the CFMWS are trying to sweep the incident under the rug. “They don’t want anything to cause embarrassment for the Latvia mission,” she said. “It’s all about protecting the mission.”
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced in July that as part of a major commitment to NATO, Canada would spend another $2.6 billion to double the number of troops it has stationed in Latvia. Canada currently has roughly 1,000 military personnel in that country.
It’s true that large organizations want to sweep things under the rug. Especially the current government but I think it should be clearer what really went wrong here.
Most victims would just go public right away if they wanted to make a spectacle of the incidents. Reporting things internally and have it make its way up the pay grade actually seemed to be good since it made it up all the way to a VP.
Now this idiot needs to be at the very minimum fired and banned from any public sector job. People really shouldn’t make this one of this ambiguous situations where we make let an large entity divvy up the problem until no one is really accountable.
“As you were made aware during pre-deployment training, which occurred from 6 to 15 September 2022, there are risks involved in deploying into a theatre of operations where numerous countries work and live together and of the cultural differences that exist as a result,” wrote Ben Ouellette, vice president of CFMWS"
Wow, hope he understands the risks of being such a jackass.
Tax breaks and being elected to office? This is America.
So, I was in the military (American) and we literally had two ways to report sexual assault and rape. The first is a restricted report. It allows the victim to get medical attention and counseling, but prevents any kind of legal proceedings, investigation, and importantly doesn’t inform the chain of command. A restricted report can be changed to an unrestricted report, however the second option cannot become restricted after it is unrestricted.
The second way is an unrestricted report and the main points are you get all the medical attention and counseling if you want it, but those who need to know in order to make decisions about where you’ll be stationed, and how to punish the person responsible in the event that the investigation proves their guilt will ultimately know and this may lead to informal retribution which is obviously not ideal.
There are a lot of reasons a person might choose either report. To me it isn’t about whether or not there was risk. That’s just victim blaming plain and simple. It’s about whether or not the person responsible should suffer the consequences of their actions and how the administration in charge handles that process.
That being said there have been many many problems with people coming forward about abuses like this and having their trauma and the events that lead to it brushed off or swept under the rug and quite frankly multiple people have died because of it.
Most victims don’t go public. Especially not right away. This type of trauma takes time to process. And it comes with shame and a lot of other emotions that cause self blame. Asserting otherwise is just a fallacy.
I mean, the U.S. military explicitly has a clause in their contracts that tell you there is a risk of rape during your time in the military. They do the exact same thing, try to sweep this stuff under the rug.