Veterans often cite the irony that those who fight and defend freedom experience it the least.
Take the case of Cpl. Steve Stoesz.
Last week, Cpl. Stoesz spoke out about National Defence's planned cuts to military health care. DND plans to cut 25 jobs from a special unit that deals with post-traumatic stress disorder, and soldier suicide. The good corporal is justifiably worried about the impact those cuts will have. He fears his fellow soldiers will be left without the mental health support they need.
Someone raising concerns over job cuts has been a daily news item since the budget was announced. But this is a very different affair; Stoesz could go to jail for having voiced his opinion.
Canadian citizens may be shocked to learn that the Canadian Forces do not have the same Charter Rights as the rest of us. They give up those rights when they enlist.
In particular, they do not have freedom of opinion and expression. Both the National Defence Act (S. 129) and the Queen's Regulations and Orders (103.60)prohibit members from criticizing the Department of National Defence or the Government of Canada. It is considered Conduct to the Prejudice of Good Order and Discipline.
In most cases, such a law makes sense for the military. It is used to suppress mutiny and rebellion. As citizens, we don't want our troops even discussing such things. If a soldier does start to speak out against his commanders or against our government, we need to be able to take swift and decisive action against that person. One thing that is required of a soldier, above all else, is loyalty. Unquestioning loyalty. Absolute loyalty.
Which is why Stoesz is in trouble for criticizing his betters. He wasn't 100% loyal to the idea of soldiers killing themselves because the books need to be balanced, and he said so.
Now he's in even more trouble. After his first interview, Cpl. Steve Stoesz was ordered to keep his trap shut. Instead, the corporal went on national TV and told everyone; not just his opinion of the cuts, but also about the gag order. This means he is open to even more charges, including Disobeying a Lawful Command -- which, by the way, is punishable by up to life imprisonment.
Imagine that: you fight and are injured for your country, and you wind up in prison for the rest of your life because you said you didn't like the budget.
Now you and I both know that he's not likely to get that. That punishment is probably reserved for disobeying orders in combat. But nonetheless, Stoesz is in serious trouble: those are just two of many charges he could face.
Stoesz says he doesn't care, that this is too important an issue to be quiet about. He won't shut-up-and-soldier. He was willing to die in Afghanista,n and the war over veteran benefits is far more important.
Which, I think, gets right to the heart of the matter.
There is a subtext to national service. Those who serve agree to give up their rights because that is essential to doing the job. In exchange, they rely on every superior rank -- including citizens -- to see that they are treated fairly and justly, to ensure that they are cared for when they need it. They exchange rights for trust. When we betray that trust, we cannot demand to withhold rights as well.
As for the soldier, ask yourself this:
What is worse for military discipline? Steve Stoesz talking on the news? Or the Conservatives gutting mental health support to the troops?
Follow Jeff Rose-Martland on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rosemartland
Aviva Rubin: Real Soldiers Don't Get PTSD
The Canadian Forces are subject to the same law as the rest of Canada, including the Charter. The rights of soldiers, like the rights of every other Canadian, are "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."
This includes a limitation on the right to comment on government policy. The limitation is contained in Queen's Regulations and Orders 19.36 and is intended to prevent the armed forces becoming a political entity as it has in places like China, Chile and (arguably) the United States.
Whether Cpl Stoesz has violated either an order or a standing order is a separate question.
See, for instance: http://www.army.dnd.ca/land-terre/joining-enroler/ju-ev-eng.asp
I find it notably ironic that even the anti-US types are using the US terminology.
I hope that he is provided with the best possible representation in addressing the charges he's facing.
Who should be facing criminal charges are Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Jim Flaherty and company. They've never served a day in their lives, have no qualms placing Canadian forces in harm's way and then have the gall to refuse them support they may require for the rest of their lives. Fail, Fail, and Fail.
Our social contract with the military is that, upon request, they go do the dirty jobs all over the world, away from their families, for a pittance and we agree to take care of them when they come back no matter what. Cost is not a factor in this agreement.
Whether you agree with why we send our military where we send them or not is irrelevant. Once they go, we have to live up to the contract. It's the least we can do.
Clearly there are certain liberties that military personnel give up. The 'right' to come and go as they please and to live where they choose, for example. But nothing-- least of all commitment to serve as the nation's protectors-- should abridge the right to free speech as it's set out for *all* of us (that is, within the reasonable constraints against inciting hate/violence, etc). That's the one right that ought to be as inalienable as any right gets, because it's the one by which those deprived of all the others might eventually win them back.
As for the young soldier, he knew the risks and consequences for speaking out.
One day they found three soilders in a allied army raping a young girl. And the tanker commadrer ordered the buck of the kid and shot him in the face. He then did the two others waitng in line.
When you wear the uniform you open yourself up to its honour, you do not use it as a shield.
If the commander was not long since dead I'd not tell this story on the off chance his family learned he was a killer, but it it was my great grandfather I'd be proud.
That being said Cpl. Stoesz actions are indeed damaging to discipline and order as well. Not on the same magnitude, but nonetheless they are still in contravention of the military code. Really, his action should be viewed within the lense of civil disobedience (I'm not even sure if that applies to military personnel as a concept, but this looks much like an act) as he both knows he is contravening the regulations he lives under and appears ready to accept that he will be charged as such. He's made the choice knowing the potential consequences and it will now be up to the military justice system to determine what happens to him for his actions.
Those of us outside the military need to make sure that we do our part to support his action by letting our elected representatives know how appalled we are by their action.
They serve under military discipline and enjoy a fully encompassing safety net of services.
Individuals from time to time feel hard done by but the majority seem to be satisfied.
I know a number of career military people who are retired and doing OK.
this can be said to be true about most things.
but yes, he gave up his rights and had no right to do what he did, but I don't have to agree with the logic of it when it comes to cases like this.