Canadian Cadets

[Buddhas Hand]

I have a question. Don't you just hate it when right-winged nuts make extreme generalizations without listening to anyone else? Why do you feel like you're allowed to take the same stance on things? No matter how many times I try to explain otherwise, you are simply refusing to budge an inch, while providing no explanations of your own!

Basic training... is not designed to train people to kill! Doing pushups and obstacle courses and learning first aid doesn't teach you how to kill! Hell, learning how to shoot a gun doesn't even teach you how to kill! It is designed to get your butt in shape and make you a disciplined and efficient member! This is very different from outright combat training! I must use exclamation to emphasize this, since you're still unwilling to acknowledge anything I've said.

Training a field surgeon or an engineer how to defend oneself is important. And yet the reality is that they're probably never gonna see a day of combat in their lives. You've got medical, technicians, engineering, communications, emergency response, crew! None of the people in the occupations I've just mentioned have any desire to be in the middle of a firefight! And then you've got combat specialists! Yes, those people are trained in the art of killing. Now can we please get back on topic??

I am not a moderator, but I do know that you can't just deliberately derail a thread and rile people up about something unrelated. So again, NO. You do NOT get to just push your anti-war message wherever you want. It's not that I'm having none of it, it's that you are ignorant! You keep spewing the same junk over and over again! "trained killers trained killers rah rah rah!" Is there such thing as an anti-warmonger?

I have listened to you bob arguing with me , you seem to have a problem with me stating that war is us - human societies- sending our young men to kill other young men and die in pointless wars/conflicts.

I hate war , the man who was very probably my biological father was a returned vet diagnosed with shellshock , he beat the crap out of my biological mother and sibling's to the point the family unit broke up and never came back together.

Out of all the stupid behaviour our species indulges in war is the most pointless and brings pain and suffering into so many peoples lives.

You can rational armed forces all you want but the reality is that they consist mostly of men trained to kill other men for no good reason.

They are certainly not the humanitarian organisations you are trying to make the out to be. The primary function of a soldier is to kill others .

I hate war bob and will continue to push my anti-war message any chance I can get. Please keep posting you are helping me push my meassge.

I am an anti-war warmonger and proud of it.

[Buddhas Hand]

I hadn't seen you say the cadets are the military, but others are doing so. I agree you'd said from the start you don't know why they're associated with the military, but by association that suggests the cadets are bad after you've made clear you don't think of the military fondly because you feel they're grooming children into soldiers

People have answered that last statement though to say it's not there to groom children for military careers, and having that association allows for them to get government funding and become a low cost alternate to other groups kids can join.

What about the merits the cadets do have since your position of them previously being an extension of the recruitment process is no longer the case? And if you don't have any proof, then how did you come to be convinced the military association is bad - personal opinion?

It is a thread about cadets after all, and I'm pretty sure the posts have gotten a little aside from the goal but we keep trying to circle them around rather than derail the topic into a breakdown of why the military is bad.

But to understand why a youth organization like cadets is bad just because of the military association requires us understanding what you know of that the military association is doing to make it bad. If it's nothing, other than the fact that the military generally (or rather how the government has used the military) is bad, then it's a misplaced distrust of the cadets program.

Give me something that directly relates to why cadets are bad just because they wear military uniforms and I think we can have a discussion.

I find it incredibly stupid that our species can find money and resources to kill each other -armed forces , the military industrial complex- while a large % of our population lives in poverty and hunger.

Rather than finding money and resources to help each other we use those resources on the means to destroy each other.

Any thing that is remotely connected to our species continuing to make the same mistakes repeatedly pisses me off.

As stated I do not see the point in sending our youth to quasi-miltary organistions especially if there are other options.

ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/navy-cadets-to-pack-away-their-rifles-over-image-concerns

While it seems the cadets are trying to become less military it is obvious they are an organisation based on the military.

Rather than parading around with a gun or not , i would rather my kid ride his bike , play hockey and be a kid rather than pretending to be a soldier.

[Lockout Casualty]

There is no such thing as kid-appropriate FMJ (haha kid-friendly gunny), at least not in Canada. Boot camp works in Korea because the overarching society can treat subordinates like dirt. Because their army treats recruits and privates like dirt. If a Korean parent sends his kid to a boot camp, the child screwed and has no choice but to go. He has no say in the matter because his rights are deferred to his parents; the government will only interfere if the child is being physically mistreated. No kid would willingly go to an institution where he will be treated like garbage. Do you see the problem here if we try to apply this to Canada? In fact, I reckon such a boot camp would probably instil militarist ideology better than the cadets can. And it would do things to the ones that get punished. Think Gomer Pyle.

Emergency services that were prepared to mobilize for such disasters have been completely nerfed by the current government. And to be honest, the current CAF is overstretching here to compensate for this lack of services. The increasing role of the army has been a direct result of federal policy, and to see a change to that would require a reversal of said policy.

There is a paradox here. If a government decides to send unarmed, untrained civilians to unstable regions where help is most needed, those people are probably going to get their heads chopped off in a recruitment video. And so if you must send aid workers, you send the military, which makes people at home angry and a mixed reaction from the populace in the unstable region.

State indoctrination is not achieved through the military in Canada. It is done through... other institutions that are far more wide-reaching. For some reason, I can't think of any. I must sleep.

The US, like any other country, puts its own interests first. The same goes for Canada. This is why they do not always share the same military objectives abroad. The USA is not going to bother Russia about the Arctic waters. The US has plenty of other beefs with Russia, and they have no interest in speaking on behalf of the Canadians. This is why the Americans were ambivalent on Ukraine, while... Harper and Baird decided to duke it out with Tsar Putin. You'd better have some guns to back yourself up in a fight like that.

Or think of it this way... you don't even like the fact that the army is sometimes used for policing duties in various public events. And while something like that can be addressed otherwise, do you really want an American occupation force in Canada? You can't deny the fact that we need a navy and air force to watch our borders (for illegal activity - we're not gonna get invaded). The Americans would have control over our borders.

If anything, we are too integrated into the global society to NOT have a standing military. Our international prestige somewhat hinges on the use of our military power (and this is the general cause of most anti-war sentiment). But more importantly, Canada has self-interests at stake here. If an unstable country falls, Canada will want to maintain its prestige and make a pledge to oversee a transition. But if a country that does business with Canada falls.... well then. Time to send out the liberation force!

I apologize in advance. Sometimes I play the realist role a little too much. I am so much more capable than to just be ambivalent on matters like these, but I am either too lazy or too cowardly to change myself.

A boot camp does not necessarily have to be so mean-spirited. Keep the cadets as is even (still don't like their uniforms mirroring army ones), but remove any associations with the military. Remove any military staff, unless they are retired. As it deals with children, I feel any army overtones are inappropriate. Running the risk of using hyperbole to make my point, there's a reason child soldiers are illegal and we frown on any nation or paramilitary force that uses them. I don't see how we can at the same time dress our kids in army fatigues and teach them to shoot guns under in a program sponsored by the CAF without being at least somewhat hypocritical.

I don't have an answer for your paradox, other than to simply not put aid boots on the ground. Drop aid from airplanes if our workers would face such immediate dangers. It's just that, continuing to do what's been done for decades and resulted in ISIS is clearly not working, and is in fact creating enemies for Canada that we didn't have before.

Harper and Baird can run their mouth until Putin is dead in the grave and Russia will never do anything, and it's not because we have something to to back it up, it's entirely because of the US. In a fight with Russia, Canada is simply out of its league. It's peewee hockey vs NHL. Russia could mobilize half of Canada's population if they needed to.

For the border we could have a border patrol, but sharing a border with the US, our biggest ally and cultural kin, I don't think there is a need for an army. Having a coast guard to patrol for smugglers and other illegal activity is fine, call it Sea Police. What I'm getting at is that everything the CAF does isn't its exclusive domain, other organizations with a mandate to do the same may even be a more efficient way of going about doing it. Whatever the it may be in any given case.

I don't give much value to international prestige, and I definitely don't think it's tied to our military capability. If a country falls, why do you feel Canada will want to get involved? That's the kind of thing the UN should be handling, not be done unilaterally by US and Co..

I think you're overdoing the realist to the point you've turned into a pessimist.

I do understand where you're coming from. It's hard to envision change like this, that's unprecedented in human history. I just think Canada is in the best position to usher such change, and so I rather that than we continue to kill, die, and waste money in quagmires not of our making, or our responsibility.

I hadn't seen you say the cadets are the military, but others are doing so. I agree you'd said from the start you don't know why they're associated with the military, but by association that suggests the cadets are bad after you've made clear you don't think of the military fondly because you feel they're grooming children into soldiers

People have answered that last statement though to say it's not there to groom children for military careers, and having that association allows for them to get government funding and become a low cost alternate to other groups kids can join.

What about the merits the cadets do have since your position of them previously being an extension of the recruitment process is no longer the case? And if you don't have any proof, then how did you come to be convinced the military association is bad - personal opinion?

I don't think fondly of the military not because I feel it grooms children, but because I feel it's useless, utterly misused, and a waste of money. I do think any military association is inappropriate for kids.

I think the fact you need military association to get government funding is a problem, not a reason to keep said association. I'm all for funding camps and sports for families that can't afford it.

As I've said, any merits the cadets have an not unique to the cadets. Kids world over have learned leadership skills, et al, without cadets. I've said from the start I don't have a problem with cadets based on what they do and learn, but based on said associations. I haven't been convinced that it doesn't influence some kids to join the military, anecdotal evidence isn't good enough here. Though as I said, it's not just that it may act as a recruitment tool, but the association itself, even if benign, is inappropriate for children. Even if it doesn't recruit kids, it may foster positive opinions of armed forces that kids may hold into adulthood. Effectively, it may propagate an environment where Canada maintains status quo instead of fostering new possibilities.

I hope I answered your question in this post.

[elvis15]

I find it incredibly stupid that our species can find money and resources to kill each other -armed forces , the military industrial complex- while a large % of our population lives in poverty and hunger.

Rather than finding money and resources to help each other we use those resources on the means to destroy each other.

Any thing that is remotely connected to our species continuing to make the same mistakes repeatedly pisses me off.

As stated I do not see the point in sending our youth to quasi-miltary organistions especially if there are other options.

ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/navy-cadets-to-pack-away-their-rifles-over-image-concerns

While it seems the cadets are trying to become less military it is obvious they are an organisation based on the military.

Rather than parading around with a gun or not , i would rather my kid ride his bike , play hockey and be a kid rather than pretending to be a soldier.

So the cadets are remotely connected to the wrongdoings and money wasted on the military so they're not a good organization. Got it.

You're definitely welcome to your preference not to enrol your kid in a program solely because it's remotely connected to the military, however, but don't be afraid to accept other people's right to that option since it's available.

...

I don't think fondly of the military not because I feel it grooms children, but because I feel it's useless, utterly misused, and a waste of money. I do think any military association is inappropriate for kids.

I think the fact you need military association to get government funding is a problem, not a reason to keep said association. I'm all for funding camps and sports for families that can't afford it.

As I've said, any merits the cadets have an not unique to the cadets. Kids world over have learned leadership skills, et al, without cadets. I've said from the start I don't have a problem with cadets based on what they do and learn, but based on said associations. I haven't been convinced that it doesn't influence some kids to join the military, anecdotal evidence isn't good enough here. Though as I said, it's not just that it may act as a recruitment tool, but the association itself, even if benign, is inappropriate for children. Even if it doesn't recruit kids, it may foster positive opinions of armed forces that kids may hold into adulthood. Effectively, it may propagate an environment where Canada maintains status quo instead of fostering new possibilities.

I hope I answered your question in this post.

To be clear, I said you feel the cadets groom children for the military, not that the military overall grooms them. So are you saying the cadets are useless, utterly misused and a waste of money, or the military? And if you're saying the military, what does that have to do with the cadets and whether or not that's a good program other than they're affiliated?

I don't disagree the government can just fund youth programs, and a number of your points may have some merit but you lack the proof to support them.

Lacking that proof, why fault the cadets just because they have funding under the current setup? You're welcome (just as Buddha is) to not enrol your kids in the program because of that, but why take away a choice for another family that might enjoy what the cadets offer differently from another program? And you've said yourself you have no evidence to prove your stance about it being a way to groom children for military careers, but yet you're so willing to dismiss anecdotal evidence from those who have been involved cadets in absence of the evidence you're missing?

Saying cadets may propagate an environment that denies new possibilities despite presenting no evidence it actually does this is pretty far reaching for a basis for your argument against the them. That does answer my question about how you've arrived at your opinion though, and you're welcome to it.

[Lockout Casualty]

To be clear, I said you feel the cadets groom children for the military, not that the military overall grooms them. So are you saying the cadets are useless, utterly misused and a waste of money, or the military? And if you're saying the military, what does that have to do with the cadets and whether or not that's a good program other than they're affiliated?

I don't disagree the government can just fund youth programs, and a number of your points may have some merit but you lack the proof to support them.

Lacking that proof, why fault the cadets just because they have funding under the current setup? You're welcome (just as Buddha is) to not enrol your kids in the program because of that, but why take away a choice for another family that might enjoy what the cadets offer differently from another program? And you've said yourself you have no evidence to prove your stance about it being a way to groom children for military careers, but yet you're so willing to dismiss anecdotal evidence from those who have been involved cadets in absence of the evidence you're missing?

Saying cadets may propagate an environment that denies new possibilities despite presenting no evidence it actually does this is pretty far reaching for a basis for your argument against the them. That does answer my question about how you've arrived at your opinion though, and you're welcome to it.

No, I'm saying the military is useless. What it has to do with cadets is that cadets, even if they don't directly encourage military service, may still foster positive long-lasting opinions toward the military as an aspect of our society. Now, I'm not saying kids can't have a favorable opinion of the military, but I am saying that the military should have no direct involvement on the child's formative opinion. Such as sponsoring the cadets.

I'm not faulting the cadets per se, I'm faulting the powers that be who maintain such a program under military sponsorship. And I am faulting them based on my subjective opinion of the military and its role. This isn't a factual discussion in light of lacking hard data, but one of opinions. As I've said, I take issue with military sponsorship, and without it cadets could remain almost exactly as they are.

Regarding anecdotal evidence, there's also anecdotal evidence that kids do go on to join the military. At least one person had two siblings that went on to serve. So my dismissal isn't just toward dissenting views, but all anecdotal evidence. As a result, my opinion is simply unchanged from what it was at the outset of this thread.

I don't need hard evidence to suggest that something may have an effect on a child, especially an effect where tangible data would be practically impossible to gather anyway, such as what influences in a child's life lead them to be the person that they are in adulthood. If you don't think cadets influence children in any way, you're welcome to such a view. I hold that a child is a sponge and extended exposure to a military sponsored program that they enjoy, for the most part, may leave a lasting impression of armed forces as a positive in our society.

[elvis15]

And not just to play devils advocate as I've never been in cadets and don't hold a strong attachment to any military type of careers, but I'd suggest the enrolment in something like cadets would generally come from kids perhaps already interested in the military to some extent or the things associated with the branch of cadets they choose to join (e.g. planes or boats) that they might not have access to otherwise. Considering that, I don't think you're taking kids that have a strongly neutral to negative view of the military and converting them in any way to be pro-military.

I just don't see the negative of indoctrination or grooming of these kids in cadets to become more in favour of the military than they were already likely to be when the positives that they do provide as a bit more specialized group outweigh that based on what I have heard from people that attended cadets.

[Buddhas Hand]

So the cadets are remotely connected to the wrongdoings and money wasted on the military so they're not a good organization. Got it.

You're definitely welcome to your preference not to enrol your kid in a program solely because it's remotely connected to the military, however, but don't be afraid to accept other people's right to that option since it's available.

I think you are a pretty clued on guy so I believed that it would be obvious to you that the cadets are a form of indoctrination into the military. Wether that indocrtination works or not I do not see the point for it.

I am never afraid to accept other peoples right to do things that I disagree with so long as they are not hurting others through their actions.

I will even fight for their right to do so.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Martin Niemoller

[elvis15]

I think you are a pretty clued on guy so I believed that it would be obvious to you that the cadets are a form of indoctrination into the military. Wether that indocrtination works or not I do not see the point for it.

I am never afraid to accept other peoples right to do things that I disagree with so long as they are not hurting others through their actions.

I will even fight for their right to do so.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Martin Niemoller

Indoctrination (at least in what seems to be it's negative connotation as presented here) is a pretty strong word. I'd agree being a cadet would likely lead to increased military participation among that group, but is that because that group is predisposed to that, they learn more about military and the opportunities that presents, or they're somehow coerced (which is where I'd put the indoctrination part).

Maybe you're using indoctrination with a much less negative connotation, and that could certainly change the meaning of the debate. Cadets would obviously have increased opportunity to learn about military, but that doesn't have to be the focus nor a majority of what they do.

As I mentioned before, I have a friend who's a pilot now who was in Air Cadets when she was younger and still participates as an instructor leading young cadets. She used the increased opportunity (to what extent that was helpful I don't know) through cadets in part because of her want to learn how to fly. Young pilot's clubs outside of something like cadets would surely be expensive and that opportunity wouldn't otherwise be there.

I think without proof of the level of opportunity for cadets to learn about and become involved in the military the debate becomes a moot point anyway, often wrongly focusing on what's wrong with the military and not what's wrong with the cadets (if anything beyond the association to the military).

[TheXFactor]

And not just to play devils advocate as I've never been in cadets and don't hold a strong attachment to any military type of careers, but I'd suggest the enrolment in something like cadets would generally come from kids perhaps already interested in the military to some extent or the things associated with the branch of cadets they choose to join (e.g. planes or boats) that they might not have access to otherwise. Considering that, I don't think you're taking kids that have a strongly neutral to negative view of the military and converting them in any way to be pro-military.

I just don't see the negative of indoctrination or grooming of these kids in cadets to become more in favour of the military than they were already likely to be when the positives that they do provide as a bit more specialized group outweigh that based on what I have heard from people that attended cadets.

Being a part of the Cadets gets children (I was a part of it for a while) more exposure towards a future with the military. What a lot of people don't seem to understand is that the Canadian Forces is actually a very effective method of gaining education and discipline.

Avionics, Electronics, Engineering, Automotive, Medical, IT, etc. You could easily apply these to civilian careers... and in case people didn't know, the Army DOES pay for post-secondary education if it's related to what your job is in the military. Incredibly useful for families with monetary difficulties.

Anyway, there really isn't any sort of indoctrination at all. There's certainly influence of course, but not anymore then a child getting exposed various sub cultures in society. Canadian Forces do NOT have the same practices as the U.S. Army.

[AbbyNucksFan]

I also was an army and air cadet for a number of years, I never felt any pressure by anyone affiliated with the cadets to join the military at any time. I look back on my time as a cadet with nothing but fondness. If I had kids, I would gladly let them join the cadets.

[Pickly]

Haters gonna hate. I was never in cadets but I am a Vet and served this country proud in domestic and international operations. Cadets builds a strong foundation for youth all across Canada not necessarily for eventual military careers but life in general. As for views on the military and it's personnel, you have the right to voice your opinion and not everyone agrees with it as a whole but there are folks like myself that strongly believe in it and I got more out of my military career than I think. Made me a better person and taught me life skills that can't be taught in civilian life.

People join for all sorts of reasons. It's hard for people to understand unless you've actually worn the uniform. Anyways, carry on.

[TGokou]

I've brought up a lot of points as to why the cadet program is beneficial but it seems your more attached to the fact that it's associated with the military which you obviously have very strong opinions of.

If that's the case then there's really no point arguing about cadets. Fact is that you feel very strongly against anything military and because cadets has the CAF name attached, it is in your own right to refuse to support it in anyway. However, where I will argue is that most programs will have something that some parents won't like.

Maybe I'm against violence, hence I won't send my kids into any form of martial arts or arguably sports like hockey and football

I'm against religion, I won't send them to sunday school or scouts etc.

I think you can see what I'm getting at. Yes it is your belief and you can believe whatever you want but at the end of the day you could be depriving your kids of an activity that may have far reaching positive effects on their life because of your choices.

To try to answer your question as to why we can't just attach a different name to it and try to associate it with something else. If I had to venture a guess it's because the CAF can recruit a lot of volunteers to help out and it's an organization that majority of people can stand behind. It is also a name that can easily attract funding from the public. Another reason why it works so well is that parents are attracted to the discipline and respect that cadets tries to teach. Military tradition is arguably one of the most effective ways to teach that. That is why you can't just attach another name to it. It does have elements of military such as the drilling and by separating the names into air cadets/sea cadets/army the person can benefit from chosing an organization that interests them.

[hf44]

Then you clearly haven't paid attention to any Canadian military history PRIOR to the Harper Era. For generations Canada has been at the forefront of UN peacekeeping activities. Rarely does Canada get into the fighting since Korea. Kosovo, and the first Iraq war we sent F-18's, and a few support vessels of our navy. Usually Canadian troops have tried to maintain the peace through the UN, on UN peacekeeping missions. Places like Cyprus, Canada was there from 1964 to 1993.

It was only until Harper got in, that we've bowed down to the US and following it's agenda. It's unrealistic to not have any military.

It's also insane to be like the US to bankrupt your nation plowing hundreds of billions of dollars to support the military industrial complex. Countries like Thailand have a bigger military than we do. I don't think Canada is the problem here.

If you have spent 30 years in one spot for peacekeeping, then it's not working. Since the 1990's peacekeeping has changed, so just showing up and saying we here to the keep the combatants from each other hasn't worked.

[Buddhas Hand]

Indoctrination (at least in what seems to be it's negative connotation as presented here) is a pretty strong word. I'd agree being a cadet would likely lead to increased military participation among that group, but is that because that group is predisposed to that, they learn more about military and the opportunities that presents, or they're somehow coerced (which is where I'd put the indoctrination part).

Maybe you're using indoctrination with a much less negative connotation, and that could certainly change the meaning of the debate. Cadets would obviously have increased opportunity to learn about military, but that doesn't have to be the focus nor a majority of what they do.

As I mentioned before, I have a friend who's a pilot now who was in Air Cadets when she was younger and still participates as an instructor leading young cadets. She used the increased opportunity (to what extent that was helpful I don't know) through cadets in part because of her want to learn how to fly. Young pilot's clubs outside of something like cadets would surely be expensive and that opportunity wouldn't otherwise be there.

I think without proof of the level of opportunity for cadets to learn about and become involved in the military the debate becomes a moot point anyway, often wrongly focusing on what's wrong with the military and not what's wrong with the cadets (if anything beyond the association to the military).

Does this give you reason enough to be concerned

Documents Show the Canadian Army Cadets Program Is Plagued With Sexual Abuse Allegations

November 26, 2014

By Justin Ling

Photo of the Royal Canadian Army Cadets, ​via Facebook page.

​VICE has obtained documents that prove that the Canadian Forces' cadet program has grappled with hundreds of cases of sexual assault, harassment, discrimination, and abuse. And according to these files, the program is often run by men with "less than stellar motives" in positions of power. Likewise the Department of National Defence has been panned for their inaction on this rampant issue.

Court records and documents obtained through Access to Information requests show that the military training program, frequently held on Canadian Forces bases across the country, has been rife with sexual assault and harassment. And though the military manages the program, investigations frequently fell through and charges were rarely laid.

The documents provided, which span over four decades, outline a culture of harassment and assault in the program, which is for prospective military recruits aged 12 to 18. Many of the cases involve older staff members, or Canadian Forces personnel.

The program is federally sponsored, and frequently held on Canadian Forces bases, but it is not directly a government program. Staff of the cadet program are not necessarily Canadian Forces members, but the program—which is especially targeted at troubled youth—frequently take place on military bases.

Nevertheless, military police were frequently called to investigate allegations against cadets, staff, and military personnel during the program. Other times, provincial police and prosecutors were given the cases—and, more often than not, they declined to pursue charges.

The issue has come to light thanks to an anonymous source who collected the thousands of pages of documents and brought them forward to VICE.

The Scope of the Problem

Pinpointing just how many cases of assault, harassment and abuse occurred in the program is virtually impossible.

While some records tabulate the number of cases in a given year, many others do not. The documents obtained by VICE cover about half of the last decade, as well as intermittent years dating back as far as the mid-1970s. Many of the documents that were released are heavily redacted to remove the identities of the individuals involved, and many of the details around the alleged acts.

Documents from the years 2000 to 2001, however, detail 312 cases requiring investigation. Amongst them is a litany of issues—fights breaking out, bullying, indecent comments and the like. The majority were resolved by apologies, warnings, or suspensions from the program.

But they also detail at least ten cases of sexual assault during the program that year.

In one case, a report reads: "One cadet sexually assaulted another. [Military Police] and RCMP investigated, cadet was RTU'd."

RTU is military acronym for 'Returned to Unit,' implying that an officer on training is sent back to their home base. In the case of criminal activity, it can mean that the officer is potentially being sent back to face criminal charges.

Another reads: "Cdt(M) forced himself sexually upon Cdt(F) in a hotel room & restrained her."

With respect to that case, the document reads that: "investigation complete. Admin action is-" but the rest is cut off.

Several of the cases did result in RCMP involvement, and charges being laid. While many were between cadets, one involved a male officer facing two charges for sexually assaulting a male cadet in his barracks.

Records from 2005 to 2006 detail 36 cases of sexual offences, mostly of sexual assault, with some prefaced by "(alleged)." It's not clear if those numbers are exhaustive, especially considering the already ​low rate of report for sexual assault in Canada​.

One of the headers in the spreadsheet of all the year's instances of sexual assault is "action to take." Many of the cells read: "admin action?" Others say things like: "what if any follow up?" Only a couple of the cells make mention of a trial.

In 2011, a spreadsheet reported 18 cases of sexual offences, most of which were sexual assault, including one case of sexual assault with a weapon.

http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/canadian-military-cadet-program-has-a-sexual-assault-problem-documents-show-674

I do not know if this is a big problem with the canadian armed forces but the aussie armed forces has a long running problem with sexual harrasment and abuse.

Defence sex abuse: Rape and assault claims implicate serving ADF officers

Four Corners

By Michael Brissenden and Alex McDonald

Updated

24 Jul 2014, 4:10pm

More cases of rape and sexual assault in the Defence Force have been unearthed where the alleged perpetrators are either serving officers or working for Defence.

The victims have not been contacted by the Government taskforce set up to compensate those who were abused in the military.

Len Roberts-Smith, the chairman of the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce (DART), says he is wrestling with a number of allegations that implicate serving officers.

"We've made a deliberate decision very early on that we would not chase down [victims] who did not come to the taskforce voluntarily," he said.

He concedes the issue of sexual abuse within the ADF is much larger than has ever been publicly acknowledged and expects the taskforce will identify hundreds of perpetrators.

DART has already assessed more than 2,400 complaints of abuse, paid $28 million in compensation and referred 63 matters to police.

But Mr Roberts-Smith cannot confirm whether all the perpetrators identified by DART will be pursued by the ADF or civilian authorities.

"We need to grapple with that issue," he said.

"We do expect to have a lot of names that weren't identified previously."

One victim interviewed as part of a Four Corners investigation into abuse at the Defence Force Academy had a nasty reunion with a man she says raped her when she was a second-year ADFA cadet.

She is still a serving officer and her alleged abuser, a senior member of the ADF, arrived at the base where she is stationed earlier this year.

The woman, who cannot be named, told Four Corners: "It all just came flooding back, like it had happened the day before yesterday."

Alleged offenders promoted to senior roles

She is one of the ADFA 24, a group of about two dozen cadets who were sexually abused at the officer training college between 1994 and 1998.

Most of those cases were never properly investigated and some of the alleged offenders have now been promoted to senior roles in the three arms of the Defence Force.

Getting to the bottom of the ADFA 24 cases became one of the primary objectives of DART after the DLA Piper Report into defence abuse warned in 2012: "It is possible that male cadets who raped female cadets at ADFA in the late 1990s … may now be in middle to senior management positions in the ADF."

How can they have this whole taskforce, have this whole system set up for people who had been through what I’d been through and we weren’t made aware of it?

Kellie Gunnis

Under its terms of reference, the taskforce must assess whether any ADFA 24 victims or perpetrators are still serving members of the ADF.

Victims had until the end of May last year to lodge a complaint with DART.

Another ADFA 24 victim, Kellie Gunnis, had no idea the compensation scheme existed until she was approached by Four Corners.

"When [DART] was mentioned to me for the very first time, I was in complete and utter shock," Ms Gunnis said.

"How can they have this whole taskforce, have this whole system set up for people who had been through what I'd been through, and we weren't made aware of it?"

Well colour me surprised , it seems the canadian military has a big problem with sexual assaults with a report that suggest that five sexual assaults a day occur in the canadian military

Defence chief calls for internal review after 'disturbing' report on military sexual assaults

CTVNews.ca Staff

Published Thursday, April 24, 2014 9:58PM EDT

Canada’s top military commander has asked for an internal review of workplace programs and policies after an investigation by two magazines uncovered allegations of rampant sexual violence within the Canadian Forces.

The eight-month investigation, conducted jointly by Maclean’s and its French-language sister publication L’Actualite, also suggests there may have been cover-ups of assaults. A preview of the cover story, titled “Our military’s disgrace,” was posted online Thursday.

The full report, which includes interviews with 12 alleged victims of rape or sexual assault, suggests that an average of five sexual assaults occur each day within the Canadian military.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/defence-chief-calls-for-internal-review-after-disturbing-report-on-military-sexual-assaults-1.1791785

[thejazz97]

^Sounds like the Cadets are screwed up...

Both figuratively and literally.

[drummer4now]

Lol, I love ignorant people. They always give me a good chuckle.

We went to Afghanistan as part of our NATO obligation. Our ally was attacked. We had no discretion in the matter. We did have a choice in going to Iraq 2.0, and we chose not to go despite Harper's impassioned speech that we should, because he wasn't the PM. Maybe you should listen to the anti-Harper crowed, we seem more informed than you are.

How about we fund those activities for low income families? Bet you didn't think that one through, did ya.

So give a man purpose in being a soldier, and he'll want to go and be one? You're not making a very good case for the military. If I was trained to shovel sht, I wouldn't be desperate to grab a shovel, I don't know why you're so desperate to go thousands of miles from home and shoot at Arab people. People aren't forced to go by a draft, but there are other circumstances that may exert pressure to join. If it's your job to be a soldier, I would say it's a waste of potential, a lazy way to go through life by not contributing anything to society, and a burden on Canadian tax payers. You're not defending Canada in any sense of the word.

In conclusion, smh.

/thread

[elvis15]

Does this give you reason enough to be concerned

...

Sure, but what does that have to do with the supposedly negative military affiliation this thread has been about and how does it differ from many other organizations that are open to similar concerns?

[Miss Korea Bob.Loblaw]

^Sounds like the Cadets are screwed up...

Both figuratively and literally.

Ah, the bad side of military culture + the bad side of little boys. DOUBLE DOUBLE TOIL AND TROUBLE LIKE A HELL-BROTH BOIL AND BUBBLE

[The Colt 45s]

I was a cadet for two years. I loved it. At no time did I feel pressured to join the military. I loved the fact that the organization teaches self-discipline, organization skills, public service, leadership, and so much more.

[Buddhas Hand]

Sure, but what does that have to do with the supposedly negative military affiliation this thread has been about and how does it differ from many other organizations that are open to similar concerns?

I have illustrated an abusive pattern/culture of behaviour that starts in children in a quasi- military organisation and continues on when they are adults in military organisations.

Are you telling me you do not see a connection ?

Are you suggesting that there are many youth organisations in canada that have the same problem with sexual abuse and harassment ?