by Vincent J. Curtis
MADAME MARIE DESCHAMPS observed that the Canadian Armed Forces suffered from a ‘sexualized’ culture. She maintained that this sexualized culture was the cause of the prevalence of sexual misconduct in the CAF. Hence, if the sexualized culture were elimin- ated, so would the prevalence of sexual misconduct.
The astonishing number of sexual misconduct allegations against flag of- ficers, starting days after his retirement in February 2021 of CDS General Jonathan Vance, his immediate successor, Adm Art MacDonald, then VAdm Haydn Ed- mondson, and MGen Dany Fortin, added political urgency to dealing with sexual misconduct, which in turn implied the ‘sexualized’ culture’ of the CAF. Another retired Supreme Court Justice, Louise Arbour, was appointed to come up with a solution. A five year plan is now in train to eliminate sexual misconduct in the CAF.
If asked, I would say that the Canadian Army had a ‘military’ culture. A military culture is a kind of culture, but the term ‘sexualized’ grammatically means the end-state of a process. The sexualization of the army’s military culture into its current sexualized state must have begun sometime, sensibly with the admission of women. The Canadian Army recognizes that men and women are different, and are not indifferent to each other; and the sexual differences in the membership are manifested in the army in numerous ways.
For example, the existence, in garrison, of male and female lines, each with their own ablution facilities. Morning PT does not emphasize upper body strength, with push-ups and chin-ups. The fitness requirements for men and women are completely different. The No. 1, 2, and 3 Orders of Dress each distinguish differences between the sexes. Rank names in French are now feminized. The achievements of women are celebrated in ways not done for men who achieved something similar, as if the achievement by a woman were something remarkable.
“I would say that the Canadian Army had a ‘military’ culture.”
These are but a few examples of the sexualized state of CAF culture.
Obviously, serious critical thinking needs to be done to separate the bad from the good in the sexualized culture of the CAF if the prevalence of sexual misconduct is to be tackled intelligently. Because not all the aspects of the sexualized culture of the CAF are considered bad, we can see that Madame Deschamps was incoherent to condemn the sexualized culture of the CAF – some of it is good and necessary.
Compared to what? We have no way of gauging how bad or how good the prevalence of sexual misconduct is in the CAF. One measure could be by comparison to Canadian society as a whole, but that is impossible because what constitutes sexual misconduct in the CAF is not considered such in Canadian society at large. For example, off-colour jokes, pin- up calendars in the workplace, and even consensual affairs between workplace superiors and subordinates are not civil offenses.
LGen Jennie Carignan predicts without evidence that changing the military culture to eliminate sexual misconduct will take five years. Five years will take her to CRA, meaning she pays no price for be- ing wrong. We know that the techniques available to the CAF to eliminate sexual misconduct boil down to education, train- ing, and administrative action.
An intellectual will tell you they have the solution, but a rational economist will tell you there are no solutions, only trade-offs. Questions that will never be asked of the five year program or its aim are “what are the trade-offs?” and “at what cost?”
If, to eliminate sexual misconduct, the trade-off means eliminating otherwise qualified candidates, what will be the cost to the combat capability of the CAF?
The cause of sexual misconduct isn’t culture, it’s “animal appetite,” as called in philosophy. Animal appetite is resistant to knowledge and sometimes to reason. Knowledge of the law does not prevent crime. ‘Hearts and minds,’ ‘shaping and exploiting’ didn’t work in Afghanistan. What will be the cost of being wrong again?