As Canada鈥檚 military wages war on sexual misconduct within its ranks, it should find, charge and punish the perpetrators, but it should also hold accountable those in command who tolerate or turn a blind eye to such behaviour.
It starts at the top.
In 2014, following many complaints from members of the armed forces, retired Supreme Court Justice Marie Deschamps was asked to conduct an external review of sexual misconduct and harassment in the armed forces. Her report, released in April 2015, found that the 91原创 military was ridden with a misogynistic and sexualized culture, and that harassment and abuse were overlooked and under-reported.
The issue gained prominence in the mid-1990s with the introduction of women into combat roles, and has resurfaced regularly with publicized reports of abusive behaviour and assault.
Deschamps was told 鈥渢here is not a female who has not had a problem鈥� since joining the military, and yet most were afraid to complain for fear of repercussions, including being hampered in their careers or removed from their units. Reports have been received of abuse ranging from sexual jokes to inappropriate touching to sexual assault, with a chain of command largely blind to the issue. She said the military needs to make a huge cultural shift.
In response to the Deschamps report, chief of defence staff Gen. Jonathan Vance initiated a wide-ranging effort last summer to eliminate abuse, harassment and assault within the ranks. In true military fashion, he set out tasks, timelines and objectives.
This week, he released a report that showed progress and said he was encouraged that more people were coming forward to report sexual offences. But he also said the military still has a great deal of work to do.
The most prominent of Deschamps鈥檚 recommendations was the formation of an agency independent of the chain of command to receive complaints and provide support to victims of harassment. But Gen. Tom Lawson, Vance鈥檚 predecessor, was lukewarm to the idea. He deepened skepticism about the military鈥檚 commitment to change when he said during an interview that men are 鈥渂iologically wired in a certain way and there will be those who believe it is a reasonable thing to press themselves and their desires on others. It鈥檚 not the way it should be.鈥�
His comments created a national furor and he later apologized for his 鈥渁wkward characterization.鈥� Regardless of what he meant to say, it sounded too much like he was excusing the sexualized culture Deschamps described, a culture tolerated, if not fostered, by military leadership.
Deschamps found military personnel 鈥渂ecame inured to this sexualized culture as they move up the ranks,鈥� with officers turning a blind eye to inappropriate conduct and senior non-commissioned officers 鈥渋mposing a culture where no one speaks up.鈥�
Catching and punishing offenders is vital, but an equally important task is eliminating the culture in which that sort of behaviour thrives. An officer who is aware of sexual misconduct and does nothing about it is complicit. That should be grounds for discipline, including prosecution or dismissal, or both.
Those who serve in uniform 鈥� and that includes the RCMP 鈥� are charged with defending and protecting, to be on guard for anyone or anything that threatens the safety and well-being of our society.
It鈥檚 unacceptable that some find it necessary to be on guard against threats and danger from within their own ranks.
